Debate with Greek Ecogreens

[Wayne Hall]

STATEMENT ON CHEMTRAILS BY NIKOS CHRYSOGELOS
OF THE GREEK ‘ECOGREENS’

I see that a conspiracy-type interpretation of pollution problems is being propagated which is not connected to reality and probably based on ignorance of basic parameters of the movement of pollutants. The existence of a project which has been called “geoengineering” cannot be generalized, nor can linking all the pollution of the planet to a project which in any case if it were implemented or has been implemented would be implemented on a very limited scale. It seems exactly like the rumour that ecologists are releasing snakes, or lately – as we hear – also fleas! And everyone is sure that they have seen ecologists doing such things.

Few go to the trouble of wondering if any such thing is feasible from the viewpoint of cost (astronomical expenses for breeding and releasing millions of snakes since everyone is absolutely certain that such a thing is real and not myth-making), result (how many people and how many cars must be on the move in the country as a whole since even in the smallest village everyone is sure that they have seen someone releasing snakes) and breeding facilities (where on earth could all these millions of snakes be bred?)…..

Just think, then, that everyone sees “suspicious aircraft”, sees “smoke coming from the engines of aircraft”, sees analyses that indicate entire regions are being polluted. What could be….simpler than to believe that there is an international conspiracy that is spreading pollutants over the entire planet? In this way, I think, people’s interest is distracted from the real problem of pollution (to deal with that we will have to take measures, change policies) to a supposed conspiracy (whereby we are not required to change much but simply denounce). In Greece, for example, we have, according to a World Health Organization (WHO) report, more than 2,500 deaths annually from particle pollution which is linked to contamination from bad practices, not to bombardment with chemicals from unknown aircraft. There are more than 3,000,000 deaths annually from atmospheric pollution, a number which is rapidly increasing (and because of the burgeoning economic growth in China – look at the figures for pollution in Beijing, the pollution clouds in Asia). It is not difficult to find victims of lung cancer (which is linked directly to atmospheric pollution and also to smoking), problems of asthma – spastic bronchitis (a high incidence among children in Greece and in other countries, of course). In Germany in the eighties a big campaign on this subject was run by parents who achieved improvements in the atmospheric conditions in the cities. Should we attribute the problem to “chemtrails” from unknown aircraft here or start a serious campaign?


* *

*Myth number one: some aircraft without identification markings are spreading chemicals.* Nowadays there are excessively many aircraft. Quite a number of people have their own personal aircraft and the white trails are not necessarily mysterious but probably from private aircraft. Already there is fearful congestion in air corridors and the number of aircraft in circulation has undergone a quantum leap in recent years. It is enough just to read official reports to see the traffic chaos in the airways.

* *

*Myth number two: many people have seen a chemical trail coming out of aircraft which does not disperse and is made up of the chemicals being sprayed into the atmosphere by all those who have organized the conspiracy.* I don’t understand how an average citizen, albeit with an ordinary level of scientific knowledge, not necessarily a chemist, cannot understand that depending on the atmospheric conditions the trail of pollution from the engines of aircraft engines, which burn kerosene and other additives, may be, or not be, visible. I remember from my childhood years the trails of aircraft in the sky being a sign of their passage if the atmospheric conditions permitted retention of the cloud of pollutants behind their engines. Certainly some aircraft are more advanced technologically and today pollute less. But most continue to pollute a great deal and I do not of course refer only to CO2 emissions (the greenhouse phenomenon). It is no coincidence that in the vicinity of airports and also in air corridors higher levels are recorded of certain pollutants. Just think of the photographs, and also the paintings, of ships sailing the seas and always leaving behind them a cloud of black smoke. Something similar happens in the atmosphere but atmospheric conditions do not always make it possible for this pollution to be visible. This does not mean that it is non-existent. When the conditions of temperature and humidity and the winds are favourable, the aerial pollutants can remain for quite a long time in the form of trails of cloud. So it is mostly a question of atmospheric conditions whether or not the polluting condensation trail is or is not visible.

* *

*Myth number three. There are pollutants in the atmosphere and pollution can be detected in certain terrains. For example analyses of areas that had been burnt indicated the presence of heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals*. *It is the unidentified aircraft that are spraying the atmosphere with toxic substances and so the chemicals are being detected in various regions which are being bombarded with chemicals. *It is evident that we live in an era of increased pollution, which knows no boundaries or borders. This pollution is the result of industrial production, transport, burning of fossil fuels, the use of dangerous materials and also the implementation of bad practices (for example uncontrolled - or even controlled, in regulated installations, burning of refuse, aerial spraying of pesticides, etc.) The burning for example of plastics from various electrical appliances which contain organic bromine compounds result in release into the atmosphere of a series of bromine compounds. Just look on the internet at what is happening, also, in areas of China and Vietnam where they burn thousand of tons of electrical appliances from the U.S.A. and Europe (smaller quantities now because of implementation of new legislation) so as to extract from them the precious metals. The toxic clouds travel. They don’t remain in one place. There are compounds of bromine and chlorine in many products we use in our everyday life, not necessarily only in industrial production and agriculture.

Research at the Crete Polytechnic indicates that even in the Aegean there are pollutants whose origin is not in having been sprayed from unidentified aircraft but from industrial and urban regions or Northern Europe, Central Europe and the Balkans. Our own industrial plants emit pollution into the Balkan region also. The dusts (microparticles) function as vehicles for other pollutants which are present in the atmosphere owing to a variety of different activities and are transformed into substances that are exceptionally dangerous to life and health. The clouds of dust (microparticles) convey the pollution over very great distances along different corridors which can only be approximately represented in the various dispersion models. The chemicals sprayed by farmers travel great distances with the wind and are detected very far away from their place of origin and in species with which they have not had immediate contact. In the sea too plastic - particularly small pieces of plastic – leach toxic substances, heavy metals and other pollutants and become even more dangerous for various forms of life.

The acid rain that has destroyed the forests and the lakes in Scandinavian countries (and in Germany) does not come only from those countries but in particular from Britain and other industrial regions. The presence of these pollutants was not the result of some indeterminate spraying of chemicals from unidentified aircraft. The chemical reactions which take place on the ground due to acid rain release aluminium and other chemical substances which damage plant life and weaken their immune system. An ordinary disease can thus find the immune system of the species weakened and kill the tree.

Another misunderstanding is that which links contamination of the soil, for example in areas recently burnt – but also in underground water, to a conspiracy. Research at the Crete Polytechnic and other research centres indicates the presence of heavy metals and other chemicals in the burnt regions and in the ash, but this probably comes from the burning of rubbish and more generally from the rubbish that was present in the areas, as well as the re-release into the environment of pollutants that had been retained in the forest trees – when the forests are burned it is again released into the atmosphere. In any case what is needed is greater research into the processes involved and not the conspiratorialist approach.

Nikos Chrysogelos, Athens, 14th November 2007

[Wayne Hall]

Comments by Rosalie Bertell

STATEMENT ON CHEMTRAILS BY NIKOS CHRYSOGELOS
OF THE GREEK ‘ECOGREENS’

I see that a conspiracy-type interpretation of pollution problems (This sets the tone for the critique. R. Bertell) is being propagated which is not connected to reality and probably based on ignorance of basic parameters of the movement of pollutants.

The existence of a project which has been called “geoengineering” cannot be generalized, nor can linking all the pollution of the planet to a project which in any case if it were implemented or has been implemented would be implemented on a very limited scale. It seems exactly like the rumour that ecologists are releasing snakes, or lately – as we hear – also fleas! And everyone is sure that they have seen ecologists doing such things.

Of course one cannot generalize an individual project to the whole of pollution! I know of no one trying to do this. These bizarre examples seem to be attempting to discredit all sincere scientists who are trying to prevent military actions which harm people and the environment. R. Bertell.

Few go to the trouble of wondering if any such thing as geoengineering [Which is, of course, the reason for the U.N. ban against using weather as a weapon! Is the UN among those deranged people spoken about? R. Bertell] is feasible from the viewpoint of cost (astronomical expenses for breeding and releasing millions of s]nakes since everyone is absolutely certain that such a thing is real and not myth-making), result (how many people and how many cars must be on the move in the country as a whole since even in the smallest village everyone is sure that they have seen someone releasing snakes) and breeding facilities (where on earth could all these millions of snakes be bred?)…..

The tactics of discrediting people includes setting up “straw men” and then showing them to be absurd. This appears to be the aim of the author here. R. Bertell

Just think, then, that everyone sees “suspicious aircraft”, sees “smoke coming from the engines of aircraft”, sees analyses that indicate entire regions are being polluted. What could be….simpler than to believe that there is an international conspiracy that is spreading pollutants over the entire planet?

How could anyone claim to see the “entire planet”? Does this argument really falsify local and regional concerns? R. Bertell

In this way, I think, people’s interest is distracted from the real problem of pollution to deal with that we will have to take measures, change policies

By implication, I think the author means civilian policies. Clearly the military are outside of the civilian view and control. R. Bertell

to a supposed conspiracy (whereby we are not required to change much but simply denounce). In Greece, for example, we have, according to a World Health Organization (WHO) report, more than 2,500 deaths annually from particle pollution which is linked to contamination from bad practices, not to bombardment with chemicals from unknown aircraft. There are more than 3,000,000 deaths annually from atmospheric pollution, a number which is rapidly increasing (and because of the burgeoning economic growth in China – look at the figures for pollution in Beijing, the pollution clouds in Asia).

Since the prevailing winds in the northern hemisphere are from the west, it seems strange for someone in Greece to be worried about industrialization of China as a source of local pollution! R. Bertell

It is not difficult to find victims of lung cancer (which is linked directly to atmospheric pollution and also to smoking), problems of asthma – spastic bronchitis (a high incidence among children in Greece and in other countries, of course). In Germany in the eighties a big campaign on this subject was run by parents who achieved improvements in the atmospheric conditions in the cities.

Clearly there is an obligation to move the civilian economy toward “clean production”. This is a serious community health problem. However, this does not take away the equally serious inspection of military attempts to manipulate weather and climate to suit their purposes. We blame everything on the civilian economy to our own detriment! R. Bertell

Should we attribute the problem to “chemtrails” from unknown aircraft here or start a serious campaign better called military project R. Bertell)?

* *
*Myth number one: some aircraft without identification markings are spreading chemicals.* Nowadays there are excessively many aircraft. Quite a number of people have their own personal aircraft and the white trails are not necessarily mysterious but probably from private aircraft. Already there is fearful congestion in air corridors and the number of aircraft in circulation has undergone a quantum leap in recent years. It is enough just to read official reports to see the traffic chaos in the airways.

It is noticeable that “ordinary” jet exhaust remains in the air for some seconds while other exhaust remains there for hours. This is well documented.

‘Welsbach-Patent’ aimed at reducing the greenhouse effect through the dispersal of aluminium oxide particles and barium salts in the atmosphere. According to the text of the patent this triggers a reaction of the particles with the carbon dioxide gases, deflecting infrared radiation back into space. This is supposed to mitigate global warming without at the same time reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The procedure was developed by the scientists David Chang and I-Fu Shih in the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California, established by Edward Teller, father of the neutron bomb. In 1991 it was patented by the American Hughes Aerospace corporation (United States Patent number 5,003,186). In the meantime the company, which had been established by Howard Hughes, reorganized itself as Boeing Satellite Systems and it has become one of the key suppliers for the United States military and NASA. Between 1994 and 1998 Teller ordered pilot testing of the Welsbach systems, firstly over US territory and then over the territory of ‘friendly nations’. This statement is corroborated by Lieutenant-Colonel Michael Ruess, who is responsible for civilian liaison with the German Federal Armed Forces. He knows of experiments with metal oxides for climate research purposes over specific regions.

‘This concept of geoengineering is taken into account in our investigations,’ says the report, ‘because…it offers a potential approach for mitigating changes in the global climate’. Even the oft-noted ‘whitening’ of the heavens is mentioned - in connection with the possible risk of premature discovery of the spraying activity by the public: ‘Two of the key problems with earlier proposals were the potential impact on atmospheric chemistry, and the change in the ratio of direct to diffuse solar radiation, and the associated whitening of the visual appearance of the sky. The proposals of Teller el al. (1997) suggest that the location, scattering properties, and chemical reactivity of the scatterers could, in principle, be tuned to minimize both of these impacts.’ These paragraphs are quoted from William Thomas. ‘Chemtrails Confirmed’. New edition, 2004. Bridger House Publishers, USA.

*Myth number two: many people have seen a chemical trail coming out of aircraft which does not disperse and is made up of the chemicals being sprayed into the atmosphere by all those who have organized the conspiracy.* I don’t understand how an average citizen, albeit with an ordinary level of scientific knowledge, not necessarily a chemist, cannot understand that depending on the atmospheric conditions the trail of pollution from the engines of aircraft engines, which burn kerosene and other additives, may be, or not be, visible. I remember from my childhood years the trails of aircraft in the sky being a sign of their passage if the atmospheric conditions permitted retention of the cloud of pollutants behind their engines. Certainly some aircraft are more advanced technologically and today pollute less. But most continue to pollute a great deal and I do not of course refer only to CO2 emissions (the greenhouse phenomenon). It is no coincidence that in the vicinity of airports and also in air corridors higher levels are recorded of certain pollutants. Just think of the photographs, and also the paintings, of ships sailing the seas and always leaving behind them a cloud of black smoke. Something similar happens in the atmosphere but atmospheric conditions do not always make it possible for this pollution to be visible. This does not mean that it is non-existent. When the conditions of temperature and humidity and the winds are favourable, the aerial pollutants can remain for quite a long time in the form of trails of cloud. So it is mostly a question of atmospheric conditions whether or not the polluting condensation trail is or is not visible.

These statements are true of course, but they do not take away from a new reality of military experiments with the environment. Nor do they prove that current experience of sky trails are exactly the same as were seen in the author’s youth. It is well documented the there are lead particles found on the ground along the landing and take-off paths from airports. R. Bertell

* **
*Myth number three. There are pollutants in the atmosphere and pollution can be detected in certain terrains. For example analyses of areas that had been burnt indicated the presence of heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals*. *It is the unidentified aircraft that are spraying the atmosphere with toxic substances and so the chemicals are being detected in various regions which are being bombarded with chemicals. *It is evident that we live in an era of increased pollution, which knows no boundaries or borders. This pollution is the result of industrial production, transport, burning of fossil fuels, the use of dangerous materials and also the implementation of bad practices (for example uncontrolled - or even controlled, in regulated installations, burning of refuse, aerial spraying of pesticides, etc.) The burning for example of plastics from various electrical appliances which contain organic bromine compounds result in release into the atmosphere of a series of bromine compounds. Just look on the internet at what is happening, also, in areas of China and Vietnam where they burn thousand of tons of electrical appliances from the U.S.A. and Europe (smaller quantities now because of implementation of new legislation) so as to extract from them the precious metals. The toxic clouds travel. They don’t remain in one place. There are compounds of bromine and chlorine in many products we use in our everyday life, not necessarily only in industrial production and agriculture.

Making the connection between pollutants in the ground and their source is indeed a problem. The same could be said of discovering the bacteria or virus which causes a particular disease when the body is full of viruses and bacteria. However, this distinction has been accomplished by scientists. This attitude of see the problem as impossible is not a scientific attitude. There is one main difference between the two situations, with respect to the bacteria and viruses there were not large corporations with a battery of lawyers claiming it was not their bacteria or viruses found in the patient. There are always disputes about the sources of pollution in the air, land or water, however, attributable proportions can be mathematically determined. R. Bertell

Research at the Crete Polytechnic indicates that even in the Aegean there are pollutants whose origin is not in having been sprayed from unidentified aircraft but from industrial and urban regions or Northern Europe, Central Europe and the Balkans. Our own industrial plants emit pollution into the Balkan region also. The dusts (microparticles) function as vehicles for other pollutants which are present in the atmosphere owing to a variety of different activities and are transformed into substances that are exceptionally dangerous to life and health. The clouds of dust (microparticles) convey the pollution over very great distances along different corridors which can only be approximately represented in the various dispersion models. The chemicals sprayed by farmers travel great distances with the wind and are detected very far away from their place of origin and in species with which they have not had immediate contact. In the sea too plastic - particularly small pieces of plastic – leach toxic substances, heavy metals and other pollutants and become even more dangerous for various forms of life.

The acid rain that has destroyed the forests and the lakes in Scandinavian countries (and in Germany) does not come only from those countries but in particular from Britain and other industrial regions. The presence of these pollutants was not the result of some indeterminate spraying of chemicals from unidentified aircraft. The chemical reactions which take place on the ground due to acid rain release aluminium and other chemical substances which damage plant life and weaken their immune system. An ordinary disease can thus find the immune system of the species weakened and kill the tree.

Another misunderstanding is that which links contamination of the soil, for example in areas recently burnt – but also in underground water, to a conspiracy. Research at the Crete Polytechnic and other research centres indicates the presence of heavy metals and other chemicals in the burnt regions and in the ash, but this probably comes from the burning of rubbish and more generally from the rubbish that was present in the areas, as well as the re-release into the environment of pollutants that had been retained in the forest trees – when the forests are burned it is again released into the atmosphere. In any case what is needed is greater research into the processes involved and not the conspiratorialist approach.

Nikos Chrysogelos, Athens, 14th November 2007

One must acknowledge that part of society, mainly the military sector, is highly secretive. It does not require a conspiratorialist approach to make one wonder what they are experimenting with in today’s world.

In my opinion, Dr. Nikos Chrysogelos, has given a very good description for the wasteful polluting of society in general and for the difficulty in discerning the particular cause of any such discovered pollution. However, he has failed to make any sense of the military experimentation which also adds to the burden of atmospheric, land and water pollution. We cannot blame everything we find of civilian activities and turn our heads away from the many toxic and destructive acitivities of the military. I commend those who are investigating this very real and admitted military atmospheric anomaly and trying to understand its deleterious effects. R. Bertell.

[Wayne Hall]

A reply from Brian Holmes
(http://www.holmestead.ca)

I cannot read this as being a serious appraisal of the subject. I don't care at all for the style.

The first "myth" paragraph is nonsense: CT aircraft are often referenced as being "unmarked" - not so! They are NOT unmarked - just that there is nothing to be seen from the ground. The ID and serial numbers are a few inches high with any national logo as a 20% gray on 10% "silver".

Some examples:

www.pbase.com/keith1959/tankers__transports

Plus this list of points would make more sense - from this page (there could be more):

www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/spreading.html

Here are a few simple, direct points to look for or questions to ask if you see an unusual plume in the sky - and this is in no way an all-inclusive definition list and is simply intended to assist in your own personal observations:

* Are the aircraft in question on regular commercial flight paths or in some restricted, such as military, air space?

* Are the aircraft seen on a regular scheduled, perhaps daily, basis or very irregularly?

* Are aircraft seen laying plumes interacting with other similar aircraft in a way that is obviously at odds with normal air traffic such as crossing flight paths and flying at closer than normal spacing or intervals?

* Are such plume-creating aircraft seen very frequently, perhaps in considerable numbers, for a period of days and then perhaps not at all for a while in a way that would not be typical of regularly scheduled commercial air traffic?

* Is there by chance another aircraft in the sky at a similar high altitude that is apparently on a regular commercial flight path but is leaving behind a short, shall we say, traditional, condensation trail whereas the other aircraft is laying a trail that may stretch from horizon to horizon?

* A basic factor in regards to long plumes is that the persistent contrail may spread out over the sky and, under certain light conditions, may refract light showing some colors of the rainbow. Has that been seen?

* Are the plumes laid throughout the sky so that in an hour or so your sky becomes overcast purely from the spreading plumes?

* And of course there is the question of atmospheric conditions suitable for the formation of traditional condensation trails - do such conditions exist at altitude?

**

In general material such as this from Louisiana will make more of an impression:

[Wayne Hall]

A reply from Andrew Johnson
www.bbc.co.uk/derby/content/articles/2007/10/15/video_nation_sky_trails_video_feature.shtml

Dear Mr Chrysogelos,

I have been studying the Chemtrail or Persistent Contrail Phenomenon for some time, and I have to admit to being somewhat surprised at the response to questions about this issue - its focus seemed to be on repeated mention of the word "conspiracy" rather than looking at evidence. You also completely overlook the rising number of people who are concerned that we are not being told the truth and governmental and non-governmental organisations stand shoulder to shoulder in ignoring evidence and denying the facts.

I might also mention to you there is apparent increasing concern about the "chemtrailing" or "jet-trailing issue". In the last year, I have been contacted by about 30 or 40 new people regarding the issue. I also had no trouble in getting the agreement of 20 people to be signatories to an independent report I compiled. This is available here:

www.checktheevidence.com/Chemtrails/AircraftTrails-Report-V1-1-sigs.pdf

(and you can find feedback about this report here:

www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=50


I always find it helpful to distinguish between theory, proof, evidence and conspiracy. It's an important distinction to make. So, let me give you some evidence - and facts. Here is a link to a report by Ulrich Schuman regarding "Persistent Contrails". He works for the Institute of Atmospheric Physics.


www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6X19-4GJM3SX-4&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=124d8fdd96e7d2c4ea92741004d7294f

So, this is a good start. If you work through this report, impressive though it looks, you will find a number of significant omissions:

1) No direct statement about the maximum length of time a jet trail should persist for (the only figure mentioned is 2 minutes - I have no argument with that).
2) You will find no explanation of grids, triangles, parallel formations etc photographed all over the world.
3) You will find no explanation for the rapid appearance of many trails on some days and not others (I filmed 42 aircraft in 2.5 hours leaving trails over Derby).
4) You will find no time-lapse studies (as I have done) to measure trail duration
5) You will find only brief analysis of satellite photos - and we have 2 good ones now, showing large amounts of trails from space, on days where they are seen on the ground.
6) It suggests contrails INDUCE cirrus cloud formation - but this is NOT what is seen. We see trails form IMMEDIATELY an aircraft goes over and they persist FROM THAT POINT ONWARDS (i.e. they don't form at a later time).

I wrote to the report's author pointing these and other issues out but he chose, for whatever reason, not to respond.

Let's cut to the basic fact - Physics dictates that water-vapour based trails from aircraft which have no sooty or other deposits CANNOT persist for more than about 2 minutes.

All you need to do to investigate and verify these facts is watch the sky for a period of 1-2 weeks. The so-called "conspiracy theory" comes after you look at the basic evidence, not before. For further details information compiled by others and myself, see here;

www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=6&id=20&Itemid=50

Some of the postings here document further official denial of reality, and so it is easy to document the pattern of its occurrence.

As a general rule, it works better to look at the evidence and facts rather than assume a theory (conspiracy or otherwise). One can then quickly realise how the term "conspiracy theory" can be viewed, in a number of significant cases, simply as a desultory remark designed to distract people from looking at evidence.

I am perfectly open to any explanations being applicable for points 1-6 above. Specifically for the grid occurrence, neither my local airport (East Midlands), the CAA, or the DfT can give me any information as to what ordinary civilian flights created the grids and trails on the specific dates and times I gave them. How strange.

In summary, it's entirely up to you how long you decide to ignore the evidence for what is happening, however, I appreciate the difficulty in facing the truth - doing so overturns many dearly held beliefs.

Yours Sincerely

Andrew Johnson
22 Mear Drive
Borrowash
Derbyshire
DE72 3QW

[Wayne Hall]

A response from Philip Dragoumis of the Ecogreens

Concerning the discussion on chemtrails, all I could add at the moment is a question mark.

I am not in favour that the chemtrails should be at the moment a "flag" issue of any official Green campaign, not until there is definite proof. I fully understand Nikos Chrysogelos's serious doubts and his choice of priorities. There are so many proven issues of pollution which need to be dealt with first, before dealing with a suspicion, however serious it may be if true. There can be no campaign if nobody knows for sure who is doing this, who is financing the spraying, before we definitely know who and why is causing the problem. All there should be at the moment is more research on the matter of pollution by airplanes in general which may prove or disprove the issue of chemtrails.

However, considering Dimas' response to Gregoris Maltezos, there should now be a question mark in everybody's mind, which definitely needs an answer.

So, Stavros Dimas should be questioned again, to clarify what he meant in more detail and be more direct about it as he seems to know more than he admits, at least reading through his words.

After this second answer by Dimas-- should be an official one--, the discussion could be carried out on a more firm basis.

The Green Party should not be asked to campaign or have an opinion on this issue. All that "enouranois" should ask for, is that the Greens (not necessarily the Greek Greens) pose a question, based on the strange reply of Stavros Dimas.

Philip Dragoumis


Reply to Philip Dragoumis from Wayne Hall

The Elliniki Etaireia (Hellenic Society for the Protection of Nature) says that we won’t get any further official elaboration or explanation from Stavros Dimas. If they are correct, this means we will have to make do with what we already have extracted from him..

I signed the Greenpeace petition supporting Dimas on the genetically modified maize issue, and asked a lot of other people to do the same. I think he obviously should be supported where he deserves it.

But on the issue of “chemtrails”, the conclusion from years of activism is that we are going to have to establish our own “transparency”, if we can.

There appear to be real difficulties with the idea of the “search for proof” as the exclusive or even main axis of strategy.

Intentional pollution is covered by different laws to pollution which is the “incidental” side effect of other, particularly economic, activity. Acknowledgement that one is engaged in intentional pollution means leaving oneself open to lawsuits, including politically motivated lawsuits from “sceptics” and the lobbies that support them. This is one aspect of the mechanism that is keeping the “sceptics” in the driver’s seat.

Take a look at this short video of a lecture by David Keith, who is one of the best-known protagonists of “geoengineering”:

A surprising idea for solving climate change
www.ted.com/talks/view/id/192

Like Nobel-Prize winner Paul Crutzen, David Keith is on record as saying to the media that he would like to see ideas like the spraying of sulphate aerosols in the upper atmosphere “shocking” the public into a realization that climate change is very, very serious.

He has also said one has to keep saying that geoengineering is NOT the most desirable solution to climate change. If it is sold to the public as a “solution” this will take the pressure off the fossil fuel lobbies to stop promoting technologies that exacerbate global warming..

But what happens when citizens responding to the evidence of their senses, and eventually even parliamentarians, conclude that geoengineering ideas are not just ideas and are already being implemented, on a huge scale?
They are told by official spokespersons, including Commissioner Dimas, that their fears and suspicions are without basis.

How can this official stance be of any assistance in promoting the “shocking” effect on the public that Crutzen, Keith and others claim they want to generate? Its effect is the opposite.

It is only citizens coming into this situation as innocent, uncompromised, bystanders, that can play the “shocking” role.

Geoengineering theorists have to be asked this question? What kind of grass-roots action and discourse do you want to see, particularly if you really are reluctant to embark on - or have embarked reluctantly on - global aerosol spraying programmes……..: the politics of denial as articulated by Nikos Chrysogelos, along with innumerable other ecologists and Greens, and by official spokespersons everywhere??. Or the Enouranois politics of analysis and exposure??

Wayne Hall