|
Post by Wayne Hall on Jan 22, 2006 22:52:08 GMT -5
On the subject of chemtrails, there is news that the relevant discussion is intensifying in German-speaking countries again with the publication of two articles by Ulli (as in Ulrich) Kulke in Die Welt (circulation around one million). This is mainstream liberal, rather cynical, journalism, but it doesn't simply dismiss what the 'conspiracy theorists' are saying. www.welt.de/data/2005/10/26/793997.html?s=1the second part is at: www.welt.de/data/2005/10/26/793997.html?s=2A similar article by Kulke was apparently published the same day in the "Berliner Morgenpost". Also on all TV is the "great fine particulate controversy" in Germany and Switzerland. It was first propagated by DER SPIEGEL last summer that the air is "currently" overloaded by finest particulate matter being emitted by cars and industry. Beginning last week, environmental authorities have started to warn of the grave dangers of this scientifically still largely undefined PM; including massive clogging of lungs and warnings of...who would have guessed...ALZHEIMER's. The statistics shown NEVER reference air traffic or air pollution at all.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Nov 24, 2006 0:00:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Dec 25, 2006 17:22:22 GMT -5
The most interesting point in the following story, as I saw it, was the information about the view of "policy advisor of Greenpeace" Steve Sawer. Does this foreshadow a change of position by Greenpeace on the geoengineering proposals and programmes they have done their best to ignore? If so, it would make what I wrote on this subject a few years ago obsolete: "The big environmental NGOs such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth or WWF do not try to glamorise or otherwise promote geoengineering. They simply act as if it is not occurring. Their silence, to look at its positive aspect, possibly reflects a refusal to be associated with the task of making geoengineering look respectable."www.enouranois.gr/english/sygrafeisenglish/wayne/wayneenglish.htmENN FULL STORY Scientist Says New Data Backs Sulphur Climate Plan www.enn.com/today.html?id=11856&ref=rss
December 15, 2006 — By Ari Rabinovitch, Reuters TEL AVIV -- Nobel Prize laureate Paul Crutzen says he has new data supporting his controversial theory that injecting the common pollutant sulphur into the atmosphere would cancel out the greenhouse effect. Though such a project could not be implemented for at least 10 years, the data is aimed at appeasing critics of the idea he first championed in the scientific journal Climatic Change in August. The Dutch meteorologist showed what he calls the positive cooling effect of adding a layer of sulphates to the atmosphere at a global warming conference at the Porter School for Environmental Studies in Tel Aviv. He said new, detailed calculations carried out since August showed the project would indeed lower global temperatures. "Our calculations using the best models available have shown that injecting 1 million tonnes of sulphur a year would cool down the climate so the greenhouse effect is wiped out," Crutzen told Reuters. An added layer of sulphates in the stratosphere, some 10 miles (16 km) above the earth, would reflect sunlight into space and reduce solar radiation reaching the earth's surface, Crutzen said. He said he envisioned giant cannons or balloons dispersing the sulphur to offset the build-up of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, largely released by burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and vehicles. The world has struggled for decades to reduce sulphur pollution, a component of acid rain that kills forests and fish, mainly through tighter controls on burning coal. "We are now entering a very intensive period of model calculations and following that we will conduct small experiments to test the sulphur oxidation mechanisms that we calculated," Crutzen said. NO LONGER TABOO Crutzen said he planned to publish the new findings in a few months' time in one of the major scientific journals. The idea of using sulphur to combat global warming -- which most scientists say will bring more floods, desertification, heatwaves and rising sea levels -- is not new. Scientists noticed that large volcanic eruptions had similar effects and the 1991 eruption on Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines lowered temperatures around the world for two years. For decades the theory was dismissed as dangerous until Crutzen, who won the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for research on ozone, published his paper. "Until August this was a taboo issue. But the paper I published really set off some movement in this area. It never hit the level of seriousness which it has taken in the past months. It may have had to do with the Nobel Prize, but I hope that's not all," Crutzen said. Some critics say the project is too risky and will have negative effects on the earth's water supply and increase acid rain. Crutzen said it was necessary to study the negative consequences, but he did not expect a rise in acid rain because the amount of sulphur injected would be a small percentage of the sulphates polluting the lower atmosphere today. Some environmental groups, wary of geo-engineering projects, say the idea should at least be looked at. "The fact that the top experts in the field are saying it's necessary shows it's a sad state of affairs," said Steve Sawyer, a policy adviser for Greenpeace International. "This idea should be examined and as a last resort it can buy us a few decades," Sawyer said. Source: Reuters
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Apr 9, 2009 4:14:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Feb 25, 2010 11:15:36 GMT -5
February 22, 2010 Dear Chukki Nanjundaswamy and Vandana Shiva, �� � This excerpt directly below is monumentally ominous for the future of Indian agriculture because "reflecting the sun away from the earth" has been happening massively for more than a decade now in the form of so-called chemtrails sprayed clandestinely in the atmosphere by certain Occidental nations--and this may explain India's weak monsoon last year: news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100221/sc_afp/scienceclimateus_20100221095641It would also pose a moral dilemna, because models have shown that reflecting the sun away from the earth to bring down temperatures would "damage some places", such as the southern Asian monsoon belt, which could see less rainfall, but "offset�climate change�in most places," said Ken Caldeira, a scientist at the Carnegie Institution. �� �� �� � For this reason I signed a petition [http://www.petitiononline.com/heimara2/petition.html] last November circulated by folks urging a boycott of the UN's fraudulent climate conference in Copenhagen because those controlling it had refused to include chemtrails on its agenda.� �� � I urge you to beseech your national government urgently to have them demand that these sprayings cease so that their climate impacts may be assessed by a panel of independent scientists. �� � In case you still have doubts that chemtrails are happening, please note this excerpt at <http://www.naturalnews.com/022838.html>: (NaturalNews) A TV news report from Germany available at: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVc9...) confirmed that the German Military is manipulating the climate in Germany. As a result, scientists have filed a lawsuit against the government for climate manipulation. �The video concludes: "We can state with a 97% certainty that we have on our hands chemical trails (chemtrails) comprised by fine dust containing polymers and metals, used to disrupt radar signals." �The purpose of chemtrails, which are well documented over the United State and other parts of the world, according to researchers, is to manipulate the weather. Karsten Brandt, German meteorologist, states: "The Federal Army is Manipulating the Meteorological maps."� �� � �Please reach me if you wish more info on this. �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Very best, �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Keith Lampe
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Mar 10, 2010 6:35:53 GMT -5
Very sad. I did have the honor of meeting and doing a show in Reno with Jerry. Quirky little guy with a brain that just never stopped. He was always moving, staying one step ahead it seemed. Now I have lost 3 friends to pancreatic cancer. A great loss for all who value truth and justice. --- In oregonchemtrails@yahoogroups.com, Richard Frager <science@...> wrote: > > Our friend Jerry E Smith died early this morning, around 12:30 am. He passed away at home in Kempton, Illinois. He was cared for by his friends and coworkers in Kempton- most notably his friend Chris, who selflessly looked after Jerry over the last several months. Jerry had been battling Pancreatic Cancer. More information to follow soon. (George Pickard) > > Essie Catherine Keith wrote: Some of my earliest memories included Jerry. I remember his garden parties (namely the giant sunflowers he was so proud of), and his massive record collection (that included the HMS pinafore!). Sometimes Jerry and I would have Simpsons trivia contests. I can't believe he's gone. > > Jerry Pippen wrote: This is vey sad news indeed. We are paying tribute to Jerry and his fine work over the years from subjects such as the spear of destiny, to HAARP to weather wars in general. He was quite a guy, we are highlighting two of his past shows with us at www.jerrypippin.com> > aFarah Yurdozu wrote: So sad. I always wanted to meet him in person. What a big loss for our community. Rest in peace. I hope in the other life he will find the answers to his endless questions. >
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Apr 1, 2010 8:59:47 GMT -5
blog.american.com/?p=11895Geoengineering Experiments Shouldn’t Require Global Agreement By Lee Lane March 30, 2010, 5:25 am voteLast week in Asilomar, California, at a meeting sponsored by the Climate Institute, experts of various stripes gathered to discuss the future of geoengineering. Wikipedia describes geoengineering as efforts “to deliberately manipulate the Earth’s climate to counteract the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions.” (Many scientists regard the term “climate engineering,” or CE for short, as a more accurate description.) As at all expert gatherings, one heard some very insightful things, and, one also heard some things that were, well, perhaps not so insightful. Proposals to subject CE experiments to some form of global-scale participatory democracy fall in the latter category. At the conference, some versions of the idea were voiced more stridently than others. Essentially, though, all these demands rest on the same logic. CE, were it to be tested, might affect climate everywhere. Climate impacts everyone; so everyone should have a voice. No one would trust most Third World governments to protect the interests of their citizens; thus some means, it is claimed, must be found to assess the global general will. As a matter of practical reason, this line of thought is faulty. About 40 percent of the world’s population, mostly those in very poor countries, has not even heard of climate change; therefore, insisting on proof of global informed consent as a precondition for testing CE amounts to saying that CE can never be tested—exactly the outcome that some may want, but not necessarily the one that best serves the interests of the people in whose names the demand is being made. Further, governments of the more industrialized states have concrete obligations to their own peoples. The U.S. Constitution enjoins our government to promote the general welfare, and the context is clearly a national one. A U.S. government that allowed abstract notions of global informed consent to block action needed to protect Americans from harm would soon find itself out of office—and rightly so. At the same time, post–World War II history also makes clear that Americans, all else being equal, prefer to achieve their own ends in ways that further those of other nations. Then too, growing global interdependence acts to reinforce U.S. interest of the wealth, stability, and welfare in other nations. It impels other open societies in the same direction. In effect, trade, linked markets, and mobile populations broaden the definition of enlightened self-interest. This incentive for advanced states to take a broad view suggests one of the insightful things said at Asilomar. Ambassador Richard Benedick proposed that about 15 major world powers should manage large CE tests—and perhaps eventually deployment. Managing CE will entail many choices, and, as knowledge grows, it will be necessary to frequently fine-tune the system. Expectations and interests will differ, and bargaining costs may be high. With too many players, the process could easily grind to a halt. The major states, by virtue of their power to act alone on CE, automatically have a voice in CE decisions, and the far-flung nature of their interests ensures that many of them would pay heed to the risk of ill effects—wherever they might occur. Limiting active control of CE to those states that already have the de facto power to affect outcomes would deprive Third World kleptocracies of the chance to halt progress in hopes of exacting more bribes—one of the pathologies prominent in the current UN climate policy framework. To be sure, control by the major powers will likely be imperfect, but, then again, locking the world into a CE stalemate pending arrival of global-scale Periclean democracy seems to be an even less appealing option.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Hall on Apr 27, 2010 2:56:07 GMT -5
QUESTIONS TO ASK... 1. Why isn't the American Academy of Environmental Medical www.facebook.com/l/b90b0;[www.aaemonline.org] not looking at the impact of particulate matter, much caused by the toxicity of Chemtrail nano-fiber-coated aluminum that we are breathing with each breath? Their scheduled October 2009 conference ["Body Under Siege: Inflammation and Autoimmunity"] does not address this urgent issue. The US Air Force has admitted using it.(3) 2. How much of human "comatose" or "denial" behavior isn't actually caused by the toxicity of this nano-fiber-coated aluminum in Chemtrails? How much of this is causing widespread cognitive troubles? Aluminum is known to cause dementia. Even in early stages, people are not thinking clearly. This is not just a one-cause issue. There are multiple causes. [See the next paragraph.] However, damage to our cognitive functioning, on a daily basis and over a decade, is already showing much odd behavior. For now, however, it is reported as anecdotal. There is also another aspect to deteriorating cognitive functioning. Americans are poorly educated and less well-informed than Europeans. It is easy to manipulate a population through Orwellian doublespeak and (ungrounded) fear when millions get their news [read: infotainment] from a carefully orchestrated media --85% of which is controlled by five corporations. Bread and circus (as in ancient Rome) masks the rapid collapse of our country. 3. Millions (possibly billions?) of infants and young children are now afflicted with a variety of chronic upper respiratory illnesses (asthma, chronic bronchitis, hard-to-treat pneumonia). Even now, with these epidemic levels, this is not reported as such by mainstream, corporate-controlled media. Breathing is now deleterious to our health. This, in itself, speaks volumes. Children are suffering. Why are parents not demanding answers to their childrens' illnesses caused by these environmental poisons? Pharmaceutical drugs sometimes may alleviate symptoms (or cause worse ones), but do not cure. As Bill Moyers just wrote a few days ago: "How can we expect an industry that profits from disease and sickness to police itself?"(4) Why do we not demand prevention? 4. Why isn't every citizen self-testing to see if they have Morgellons (linked to exposure to Chemtrails)? A simple mouthwash test using either organic grape juice or merlot wine would demonstrate to each of us that no one is safe from these poisons. What kind of anger and demand for the cessation of these criminal activities would ensue, if millions of American knew their bodies were infested with these poisons? How outraged would we all be then, as walking Morgellons time-bombs?(5) 5. There is a new emerging field of "environmental cardiology." How many cadiologists actually know what Chemtrails are? Why is this discipline not looking into the link between the dangerous levels of barium in Chemtrail aerosols and the dramatic increase in cardiac illnesses? Barium is known to damage the heart.(6) 6. Why are we all not demanding prevention and the Precautionary Principal (meaning: first, do not harm)? How many Americans even know what the Precautionary Principle is? 7. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention [the very core of international human law], and US laws all forbid the use of humans as uninformed test subjects. For our safety, why is there not a massive grassroots movement being organized to force compliance to these international laws?(7) 8. We all have a basic human right to breathe air that isn't filled with deadly brews of aerosols (targeting all mammals), chemicals, bio-weapons, and thousands of other toxins. Now we are unwitting human laboratory rats for untold government/military experiments. What is the relationship to all these multiple poisons and now epidemics of multiple chronic illnesses (auto-immune, cancers, etc.) that so many people now have?(8) 9. All mammals are also seriously being affected by the toxicity of Chemtrails. Our companion animals are suffering greatly, too. Why is the alternative veterinary community so poorly informed about Chemtrails and how it affects pets? If there are alternative Vets who do know, why are they not writing in journals, magazine, and speaking out? 10. How has more than 10 years of this daily Chemtrail assault affected the chaotic and unpredictable weather we have? Winters with extremely warm weather. Snow in June. Early Fall in August. More earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, and typhoons. Yes, humans continue to cause enormous damaged to our fragile ecosystems. Yes, mega-corporations are wrecking the entire web of life. Short-term Corporate Greed is their bottom line, not sustainability or safety. In addition, how much of "Climate Change" has truly been caused by these aerosolized metals and other toxins that are sprayed into the air? Are years of aerosol spraying of Chemtrails the cause of Climate Change? 11. Why is out planet Earth losing atmosphere, faster than Venus or Mars?(9) How is the Chemtrail/HAARP assault affecting our atmosphere in other unknown ways? The military tampering with eons-worth of our planet's regulatory systems is being damaged in ways that myopic humans cannot either comprehend or foresee. This military assault has nothing to do with safety, but all to do with supremacy behavior and plans that are endangering the entire planet and all life support systems. 12. We no longer can look up and see normal, Mother-Earth clouds that have blanketed our planet from time immemorial. Why is a synthetic cloud called "asperatus" [meaning "rough" in Latin] being considered for inclusion by the Royal Meteorological Society as a "new" cloud? Clouds are created by Nature. Chemtrail clouds are synthetic.(10) Where are any scientific Chemtrail reports from the Royal Meteorological Society? 13. Where are the REAL AND ACCURATE reports from thousands upon thousands of meteorologists reporting daily weather around the United States (and elsewhere around the globe) and the impact of synthetic Chemtrail and EMF clouds? The daily weather reports from these people are worthless and lack complete credibility without reporting the weather impact of Chemtrails. Have ALL the meteorologists been bought off or threatened? What has happened to Kevin Martin who was the only meteorologist reporting chemtrails
|
|