Author: admin

W. Hall

Original text

President Obama, just a few weeks before leaving office and handing over to his despised (by leftists, ecologists, liberals) successor  Donald Trump, made a much publicized gesture of banning drilling for new oil and gas reserves in US waters in the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans.  His presidency thus ended on a   grandiloquent note comparable to the way it had started, when he made equally widely publicized (and in practice totally ignored, by himself) gestures of nuclear disarmament. Left-wing supporters of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) typically criticize this kind of hypocrisy, and indeed the related hypocrisy of “greenwash”, but how many of them appreciate how truly deep the hypocrisy  goes?

Does it make any difference to the credibility of established climate policy whether the threat it is supposed to be confronting  is the threat of global warming or the threat of a new ice age?

Forty years ago it was the new ice age and not global warming that was at the focus of official (and media) concern.

The “New York Times” of July 18 1970 reported that “The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.” Every major climate organization at that time endorsed the theory of global cooling, including the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The CIA was also issuing statements along similar lines.

A 1973 newspaper report tells us that “a group of scientists meeting under the auspices of the National Science Foundation have again come up with a warning that the world may be nearing the end of the present inter-glacial period and that the Arctic ice sheet has begun what may prove to be another relentless advance over northern North America and Europe. The 46 scientists who gathered at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, for a symposium on “The End of the Present Interglacial” agreed that there is evidence of an ominous world-wide cooling of temperatures in the past two decades.”

A 1974 report by oceanographer and paleontologist James D. Hays revealed that “the suspicion that winters are simply getting colder is no longer merely a suspicion among climatologists. Over the last 30 years permanent snow on Baffin Island has expanded. Pack ice around Iceland in the winter  is increasing and becoming a serious hazard to navigation. Warmth-loving armadillos that migrated northwards into the Midwest in the first half of this century are now retreating southward toward Texas and Oklahoma. Russian crop failures are on the increase.”

“The Canberra Times” of November 1974 reported: “A new ice age could grip the world within the lifetime of present generations. (…) A major (BBC) television documentary shows that international scientists have changed their minds about the speed with which the world’s “weather machine” can change gear. ‘The threat of a new ice age  must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind,’ says science writer Nigel Calder. (…) “Latest studies show that ice ages are much more frequent than scientists once thought – and the next one seems to be overdue. According to one theory, “Toronto, Leningrad and Glasgow ought by now to have disappeared under thick ice sheets.”

Mainstream climate change sceptics interpret retrospective data of this kind as evidence of the perennial fraudulence and/or naivety of “global warming/climate change alarmists”, but another interpretation is possible, and it has been put   forward by researcher Dylan Jones:  “A constellation of evidence points towards the reality of an ongoing, clandestine, climate modification campaign, originating, at the very least, from the 1970’s, of unprecedented proportions and the utmost audacity and arrogance. Its overarching aim is to convert the Arctic ice into a meltwater, opening it up for its vast resources of oil, gas and minerals and to alter the global climate to one more favourable to the northern temperate zones and less favourable to equatorial and semi-tropical zones. The scientific establishment up to 1975 seemed also to have been concerned that the earth was entering a long-term Ice age. This may have been a genuine concern but may also have been a means of drumming up support.”

In other words the idea that the Arctic was becoming colder (too cold) could have been designed to buttress the idea that it needed a climate modification programme to warm it up.

But there were other ways also to persuade politicians of the necessity for climate modification, other possible approaches and other arguments, and they were duly enlisted.  Dr. Edward Teller invited the US Senate’s Preparedness Subcommittee to “imagine, a world … where the  (Soviets) can change the rainfall over Russia … and influence the rainfall in our country in an adverse manner.” Dr. Henry G. Houghton of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, shuddered “to think of the consequences of prior Russian discovery of a feasible method of weather control. …  Unless we remain ahead of Russia in meteorology research the prospects for international agreements on weather control will be poor indeed. An unfavorable modification of our climate in the guise of a peaceful effort to improve Russia’s climate could seriously weaken our economy and ability to resist.”

“A number of specific projects have been proposed to alleviate the harsh Russian climate with attendant benefits to agriculture, navigation, and resource exploitation. These include removal of the Arctic pack ice, damming of the Bering Straits, and diversion of Siberian rivers. These programs clearly might affect the climate of other parts of the world, including the United States and its allies. Even marginal changes in temperature and rainfall could drastically damage agriculture, shipping, and indeed the entire economy.  Military operations would also be impacted if the boundaries of pack ice, the ice-free seasons of naval bases, the frequency of obscuring clouds, etc. were altered.  Thus climatic changes are clearly potentially grave threats to national security, and have consequent implications for military planning.”

The long and short of the story is that industrialists, scientists and others with vested interests in such projects have been looking for ways to warm the Arctic for well over  100 years, beginning in 1877 when Harvard geologist Nathaniel Shaler proposed diverting warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean.

In 1962 MIT meteorologist, Harry Wexler proposed 3 schemes for increasing the temperature of the Earth by 1.7°C.

(1) Detonate 10 hydrogen bombs in the Arctic Ocean to send ice crystals into the polar atmosphere
(2)  Destroy the ozone layer by using aircraft to spray chlorine or bromine into the stratosphere .
(3) Launch dust particles into equatorial orbit to diffuse light to heat to warm the polar regions.

Wexler’s ideas began to gain traction in the 1970s, at which time nobody “important” was calling him a lunatic.  But following his untimely death in the same year the problem of how to warm the planet underwent a reversal.  It was now presented as absolutely imperative that ways be found to cool the planet and keep the atmosphere from warming.  Bear in mind that the stated goal of the COP21 Climate Change conference in Paris in 2015 was to limit average global temperature rises to 2°C. This would be compatible with Wexler’s 1962 proposals for bringing about a temperature rise of 1.7°C.

CONDENSATION TRAILS

One of the proposed climate modification methods was deployment of aircraft condensation trails.

A juxtaposition of extracts from the following two documentaries casts a light on the ambiguous, indeed contradictory, nature of official statements on the effects of aircraft condensation trails on global temperatures, and on the practical projects extrapolated from those effects.

(From the European Commission) “Air traffic  has risen sharply in recent years and the impact of aviation on climate change is causing increasing concern. ‘Emissions are rising by four to five percent year on year, and that is what  we are seeing right now. And if year on year you have four to five percent growth in emissions, that means in fifteen years a doubling.’ For the European Commission it’s urgent to act, since aviation, unlike other means of transport, is not taxed on fuel, so there is little incentive for it to cut its CO² emissions. ‘We cannot continue to be successful in one sector and to neutralize that positive result by developments in other sectors, and aviation is one of the most striking examples.’ The European Commissioner for the Environment wants to see aviation take on its share of the effort to combat climate change. The Commission is therefore proposing to include air transport in the CO²  emissions trading scheme the European Union has pioneered as a means of meeting the Kyoto protocol objectives. ‘In order to tackle this problem in the most cost-efficient way we need to include aviation emissions in our highly successful emissions trading scheme.’ The European Commission sees the emissions trading scheme as the most cost-effective way to control aviation emissions, less expensive than a tax on fuel, for instance. Being in the scheme will push the aviation sector into a new way of thinking that gives as much attention to its environmental performance as to its economic efficiency. Bringing the aviation sector into Europe’s emissions trading scheme is expected to lead to big savings in CO^2. emissions from aircraft. By 2020 these savings could be 180 million tons annually, twice the level of greenhouse gases Austria emits each year. With this measure, Europe is taking another vital step towards preventing another global climate disaster.”

(And from the BBC)  “As aircraft plough through the upper atmosphere, above 26,000 feet, they often leave white, bright trails behind them. These long white tails, called ‘contrails’, are caused by the water and soot from the aircraft’s jet engines. As the hot water and dirt comes out of the engine it hits the air, where it’s about minus forty degrees. It’s an explosive reaction. Natural cirrus cloud sits at about 26,000 feet and reflects some of the sun’s rays back into space, having a cooling effect on the earth beneath. When a condensation trail disperses, it turns into a form of cirrus called ‘contrail cirrus’. More reflective than natural cirrus, it can spread over an area as big as sixty thousand miles (sic!). Now more and more scientists have suggested that this contrail cirrus is affecting the temperature of the planet. After the 911 attacks in New York in 2001, they were given an opportunity to check this theory. Aircraft across the United States were grounded for three whole days. So that’s no contrails for three days. After all the data was analysed there was an increase in temperature. A very slight increase, but an increase all the same. That suggests that contrails cool the planet.”

The doctrine that increased carbon dioxide emissions are warming the planet became “official” for media consumption in 1966 when Gordon MacDonald – Chairman of the new ICAS (Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science) Select Panel on Weather and Climate Modification stated:  “Carbon dioxide placed in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has produced an increase in the average temperature of the lower atmosphere of a few tenths of a degree Fahrenheit.”

If man-made clouds resulting from aircraft emissions contribute  to global warming as alleged by the European Commission, is it possible that heating of the atmosphere could be part of an overall scenario for 1) creation or exacerbation of ‘global warming’ 2) subsequent presentation of a ‘solution’ to global warming? According to Dane Wigington of “Geoengineering Watch” aircraft emissions can have the effect both of local cooling and overall warming. Although Dane wishes it to be understood that he has never portrayed climate engineering as an effective or acceptable mitigation for Earth’s life support systems, the local cooling idea fits in with the scenarios of geoengineers. And, as Dylan Jones interestingly points out: “The stated goal of the recent Climate Change conference in Paris of limiting average global temperature rises to 2°C would seem to be in harmony with Wexler’s proposals to bring about temperature rises of 1.7°C. Perhaps this is the point where official geoengineering future proposals to cool the planet will be brought into play in order to maintain this oprtimal figure for Arctic Modification and Catastrophe Capitalism”.

The confusion over global warming is perpetuated by the encouragement of a bipolar dispute over the extent to which it is  (a) a reality and (b) anthropogenic. Again to quote Dylan Jones: “Both the proponents of anthropogenic global warming and skeptics are funded and controlled in their upper echelons by the same source. Both sides are kept in perpetual conflict and ignorance of this inconvenient truth. Big Oil and the Climate Mafia are one and the same. When they call each other liars they are just being honest. The aim is to impede the public awareness of a warming world and its true causes for as long as possible, transferring the guilt and the cost onto the unsuspecting masses whilst profiting from the consequences of a melting Arctic and worldwide crisis. As catastrophe and carbon taxation looms large, it’s important to recognize that as always, the costs of taxes levied on corporations are passed onto the poor. Wealth is de-distributed up the pyramid.”

Economic analysts who have not involved themselves in the climate debate have made passing remarks that, given the corresponding will, could be elaborated into comprehensive, and politically powerful, critiques and interventions. Yanis Varoufakis for instance, in his “Erratic Marxist” article said: “The best example of neoliberal crassness is the debate on how to deal with climate change. Neoliberals have rushed in to argue that, if anything is to be done, it must take the form of creating a quasi-market for “bads” (e.g. an emissions trading scheme), since only markets “know” how to price goods and bads appropriately.”

Among the “six pillars” in the programme of Varoufakis’ citizens’ organization DiEM25, item 5 “Green Investment” proposes: “Channeling large-scale investment funding to green energy and sustainable practices, securing Europe’s technological sovereignty”.

Is opposition to “neoliberal crassness” a strong enough motivation to enable DiEM25 to overrule the (very real) resistance of the Climate Mafia (including the majority of ecologists not normally identified as mafiosi)  to the ideas put forward in the present article? Does DiEM25 at least have the ability unequivocally to oppose emissions trading?

Could J. Marvin Herndon’s conclusion that coal fly ash from coal-burning power stations is a prime ingredient being used in clandestine climate modification programmes be utilized to reinforce the positions of opponents of fossil fuel use for energy generation? So far ecologists (apart from in Cyprus) have proved no more willing than mainstream climate skeptics to examine (or tolerate) Dr. Herndon’s findings.

Leftists, ecologists and liberals face the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency with extreme hostility, portraying the new Republican president (plausibly) as a man under the control of oil and coal lobbies with zero concern for the environmental devastation those lobbies now seem about to perpetuate and accelerate. But the fact remains that the first uncensored public analysis since Trump’s election of some of the factors touched on in this article was hosted by an organization situated squarely in the pro-Trump climate-change-skeptic camp. I am referring to Jim Lee’s paper “Geoengineering, Weather Modification and Weaponizing Nature”, delivered on December 3^rd 2016 at Freedom Force International’s 3^rd Conference in Phoenix, Arizona. Jim Lee claims to have won over the high-profile climate change skeptic “Lord” Christopher Monckton to his own positions. But Christopher Monckton portrays anthropogenic climate change as an ideological fabrication of the IPCC. Is he likely now to adopt Jim Lee’s position that global warming is an actually existing result, partially or totally, of climate modification? I don’t think so.

To give the last word to Dylan Jones: “Man’s folly would certainly seem to take the form of a blind trust in untrustworthy world leaders, corrupted and compromised by the corporate power structure and its overarching banking oligarchy, together forming a single, psychopathic syndicate.

Does the nature of this folly lie in a blithe disregard towards the crime against the planet carried out by unrestrained burning of fossil fuels, pollution of the atmosphere and water supplies, decimating of forests, and the countless other sins that Big Oil, and implicitly, humanity itself, is guilty of?

Or, does it lie in an ignorance of a stolen march towards the final consolidation of a tyrannical, planetary police state, carried out by the Climate Mafia? One in which a global carbon tax, levied on humanity for its supposed role in anthropogenic global warming (AGM), would form a cornerstone.

The followers of each camp, AGW proponents on one side and skeptics on the other, perpetually rail against one another.

Whoever holds the monopoly on truth holds the monopoly on deceit. What has been achieved finally is  the ultimate confidence trick, managing to corral concerned people from all over the world into two camps and turn them against each other.”

Scientists march on Washington

[embeddoc url=”http://enouranois.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Subject-intervention-for-Scientists-March.docx” download=”all” viewer=”microsoft”]

A Presentation by Jim Lee of ClimateViewer News given at the Freedom Force International’s 3rd Congress in Phoenix, Arizona.  December 3, 2016.
G. Edward Griffin’s “Global Warming: an Inconvenient Lie”
InconvenientLie.com

This PowerPoint presentation may be freely downloaded, distributed, and is intended to raise public awareness of a critical issue facing every organism on our planet: Geoengineering and Weather Modification.  This presentation will shatter every conspiracy theory and educate you on the long history of hacking hurricanes, altering weather, and avoiding liability.  Please download these files and share them with your representatives, the time for action is now!

Link to complete presentation (VIDEO).

DOWNLOAD .PDF (Enouranois Mirror)

Link: Defend Democracy Press

The Cyprus Greens are the only Green party in the world to have taken up, at leadership level, the issue of clandestine global chemical spraying that is dismissed by the political system and the mainstream media as “conspiracy theory”. The story of the campaign in Greece and Cyprus that culminated in last year’s discussion in Cyprus’ House of Representatives is related here: http://enouranois.eu/?p=1253

In the new situation created by the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president, it is worth pointing out that, internationally, activists against the clandestine spraying are divided into two camps: those who agree with Trump that “anthropogenic global warming/climate change is a hoax” and those who, like the American activist Dane Wigington and his site Geoengineering Watch (and like the Cyprus Greens) dispute this assertion.

In his pre-election campaigning Donald Trump promised to withdraw the United States from last year’s Paris Climate Agreement. To celebrate this, and celebrate Trump’s election victory, climate change sceptic (and anti-spraying activist) G. Edward Griffin has programmed a conference of anthropogenic climate change sceptics for early December in Phoenix, Arizona. Griffin invited Geoengineering Watch to attend the conference and Dane Wigington has so far declined the invitation.

This is Griffin’s view of the situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L35YtNbaAB0
And this is Wigington’s: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/is-global-warming-an-inconvenient-lie/

And this is the Cyprus Greens’:

15th November 2016

Statement

On the spraying – again

We wish to share our unease at the new instances of intense chemical spraying which are obviously related to geoengineering experiments or climate manipulation progammes. Our local offices have been receiving very many complaints lately from citizens observing this phenomenon in the sky.

It has in any case been well-known for years that, together with the international mobilization for reduction of the industrial pollution that is responsible for climate change, the geoengineering theory is being elaborated in certain scientific centres in the United States of American, Britain and elsewhere.

Geoengineering has to do specifically with intervention in the climatological conditions with the assistance of technology. The most recent, for the last twenty years, version of geoengineering speaks of the development of techniques for reducing the impact on the earth’s climate of the increase in greenhouse gases. In the context of geoengineering various schemes are being promoted, such as for example the well-known scheme for aerial spraying with microparticles of aluminium and barium, which appears in the sky as suspicious trails from aerial spraying, better known as “chemtrails”. According to the “Guardian”, the CIA and NASA have already funded relevant research and the University of Cambridge regularly holds seminars on the subject.

Although, in the past, initiatives have been taken in the Parliament by our movement, requesting information on the phenomena that are to be seen in the sky over Cyprus, convincing answers have never been received.

Even last year’s commitment by the Minister for Agricultural Development and Environment Mr. N. Kouyialis to conduct a reliable independent study has not been kept.

Cyprus Greens – Citizens Cooperation

http://www.cyprusgreens.org

Dylan Jones’ comment

DEFEND DEMOCRACY PRESS

“The best example of (…) neoliberal crassness is, of course, the debate on how to deal with climate change. Neoliberals have rushed in to argue that, if anything is to be done, it must take the form of creating a quasi-market for “bads” (eg an emissions trading scheme), since only markets “know” how to price goods and bads appropriately.” (Yanis Varoufakis)

(Extracts from Vivian Warkentin’s “The Real Inconvenient Truth” (from The Berkeley Daily Planet), as a response to Chloe Maxmin’s ‘What the Climate Movement can Learn from the Neoliberal Coup” (“We know that we need Hillary, and we must do everything we can to elect her.”) 

Vivian Warkentin writes: As a decades long, left leaning, KPFA listening and sponsoring, commuter bike riding, composting, plastic avoiding, bring your own cloth grocery bag environmental activist, I am seeing too much hypocrisy and closed minded smugness, and a lack of critical thinking on the part of those who I have always thought of as my people. I have come to the conclusion that those with liberal roots like me, have been sent on a fools’ errand, sucked into an unquestioning group-think and religiosity by a well-funded corporatized environmental establishment, that is scaring us into accepting top-down, pre-prescribed faux solutions that have never had public input and are designed to enrich bankers, diminish the rights of ordinary people, and funnel us into a controlled technocratic society.

It is my observation that all aspects of the left alternative media from the progressive weeklies to KPFA radio, are conducting the environmental wing of the global war on terror, never missing an opportunity to frighten and guilt trip us that we will cause “game over for the planet” if we don’t vote for “climate change legislation”, aka carbon taxes and carbon trading, and support “smart growth” policies. We are schooled that only crazy right-wingers could possibly question the “settled science” and the “settled” remedies. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is always cited as the trusted go-to body of expertise, even though their integrity was discredited with the “Climategate” scandal based on leaked emails, in which head scientists at the IPCC, Michael Mann of Penn State and Phil Jones of East Anglia University discussed doctoring the data on the “hockey stick” graph created by Mann, and punishing scientists and scientific journals that print contradictory evidence. (Note by Wayne Hall: The Climategate Scandal was launched just prior to the Copenhagen Climate Conference, for the purpose of wrecking it. It was entirely successful in achieving this. There are two sides to this game, both corrupt.)

So many are now feeding at the trough of climate change disaster capitalism that a rational open debate is almost impossible. City councils throughout the land are curiously all subscribing to the same developer, banker- enriching, land-grabbing policies of “smart growth”. Unelected, unaccountable regional boards, made up of selected local officials, along with corporations and non-governmental organizations are drawing up dictatorial regional plans for growth that supersede city governments, depriving citizens of the right to affect their own local land use policy. In the name of climate change remediation, we are told we must pack more people into smaller areas of land, as our towns are being transformed into mega-Manhattanized cities with tall multi-unit apartment buildings that take our sunlight, and ultimately our connection to the land and nature. Old buildings, neighborhoods, and communities are wastefully being torn down and made over to fit the vision of elite ideologue urban planners. In the upheaval, small local independent businesses are lost and replaced with national chains. This is not protection of nature, but a transfer of wealth, power, property ownership, and autonomy of cities, towns and rural areas, away from ordinary citizens.

Today’s “environmentalists” are working towards increased government and corporate control and surveillance over our lives through bio-hazardous technology, i.e. smart grid and smart meters, with no regard for thousands of independent scientific studies proving that digital microwave radiation damages biology. Instead of a call to decentralize, simplify and conserve, citizens worldwide are being forced to apply “smart” meters to their homes, even as they are complaining of heart palpitations, extreme fatigue, mental confusion, sleeplessness, headaches, ear ringing, dizziness and more. A technology is neither “green” nor “sustainable” if its byproduct harms humans, insects, plants and animals. This unseen pollution from smart meters and smart grid infrastructure is increasing exponentially with no objections from official environmentalists. Unlike the old meters, smart meters use energy to power themselves 24/7. They are only advantageous to a centralized corporate model of energy control.

Most shockingly, the left, who claim to have the corner on environmental stewardship, are among those giving credence to geoengineering-solar radiation management, (the spraying of chemical nanoparticle pollution, such as aluminum oxide and sulphur dioxide via jet aircraft into the atmosphere in order to block the sun), as a solution for global warming. On May 9, 2013, the Earth Island Institute sponsored a debate cavalierly dubbed, “Hack the Sky?” at the Brower Center in Berkeley CA. The purported adversaries were Stanford geoengineer, Ken Caldeira, and so called “ethicist”, Clive Hamilton, who belongs to the same geoengineering promoting, Solar Radiation Management Governance Group with Caldeira and other geoengineers. That very morning the two “debaters” made an appearance on liberal KALW’s “Your Call”. A few months later the apprentices on Progressive radio KPFA”s “Full Circle” hosted the same performance duo. Why are environmental groups and left media putting on rigged debates legitimizing and normalizing a preposterous technology, which poisons and desecrates nature, and can only cause irreparable harm, when they should be screaming warnings from the rafters that scientists are recklessly playing God with our world. These left media outlets are unconscionably frightening their following into accepting what amounts to nothing less than the corporate scientific intervention into our natural weather and climate systems.

The environmental establishment chooses to ignore a whole area of inquiry relevant and crucial to the climate change equation; that of scientific, military, university, and governmental, (NASA and NOAA) experimentation with our atmosphere and weather, which has been going on for many decades. The book “Angels Don’t Play This HAARP” by Nick Begich and Jeanne Manning, documents the history of military experimentation with the earth’s atmosphere, and chronicles the development (including twelve patents) of the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project, (HAARP), a field of giant antennas which can boil the upper atmosphere with a focused steerable billion watt electromagnetic beam, sending electromagnetic waves back onto a target on earth, causing changes in the jet stream and weather. The Department of Defense and their military contractors operate outside of all laws that protect the environment.

The climate change activists of today are listening to and trusting the very moneyed, powerful entities who have brought us to the brink of ecological collapse and forced us into fossil fuel dependency, for diagnosis and treatment of our environmental calamities. The Rockefellers, one of the biggest funders and grant givers to the current environmental “movement”, have throughout the decades, used their wealth and influence derived from BIG OIL to remain in control of energy. They financed Prohibition in the 1920s and ’30s to keep farmers from making their own alcohol fuel, and worked to criminalize hemp, from which fuel was made. They killed the electric car and the municipal electric railways and influenced our government to suppress more than 5000 energy technology patents, which have potential to end our energy crisis.

The rhetoric we hear of creating economic and environmental equity among people and nations, rings hollow when you realize that the environmental establishment is being bought and commandeered by the richest fat cats in the world, who have the inordinate means to create equity overnight, and to stop their destructive environmental practices, if that were their true purpose. Instead they are financing and manufacturing a phony grassroots campaign to pin the blame for environmental devastation on the “everyman” who is living in a world choreographed by the corporate financial elite. Their message is that the future of the planet is impossible unless we the little people submit to the measures outlined by them. They have frightened, panicked, and demoralized the very people who would be fighting them with every breath into being the enforcement arm for their vision of our future. Fear of climate change is being manipulated to get the left to aid in the stealing of citizen rights and the corporatization of our local government, land, business, nature and weather.

While the environmentalists are stuck on climate change, the nuclear accidents, toxic spills, pesticide contamination, deep sea oil drilling, fracking, tree cutting, electromagnetic radiation, introduction into the ecosystem of new dangerous technological compounds and organisms like GMOS, synthetic biology, nanoparticles, the geoengineering of our skies, destructive war and weapons, and much more, continue unabated.

Now left wing pundits like The Nation’s, Mark Hertsgaard, tell us to be impressed, that the big time financial fleecers and scammers, “Hank” Paulsen, hedge fund billionaire, Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg have come on board with climate change, as if they haven’t always been. The War On Climate Change has gone publicly mainstream as the likes of BP, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Dow Chemical bankrolled the “Peoples” climate march in New York City in Sept. 2014.

No. It is way past time for the left to question where blind belief in billionaire, banker funded environmentalism is taking us

(Final note from Wayne Hall: The climate debate is a decades-long and highly successful bipolar diversion from what should be a prime concern not only of ecologists but of all citizens, namely the clandestine planetary-wide spraying of toxic aerosols, which sometimes in an off-the-record way tries to justify itself through appeals to one of the two sides of the climate debate (saying either that the spraying is not the best solution to a real climate change problem [i.e. that it is a “solution” imposed by climate change sceptics], or alternatively that the prime culprits for the spraying are those who allege a fake climate change problem [i.e. ecologists]. Both sides of this false dialogue betray primary loyalty to the climate change debate, not to investigation of the spraying, whose reality is totally denied by all “authorities”.

Links to “Two articles by Dylan Jones

According to the local newspaper of Magnesia province, Greece, Tachydromos, legal action has been initiated against a local teacher in the city of Volos for “disseminating false information” via Internet.

The newspaper claims: 1)  that an investigation has been launched by police and the public prosecutor in the town of Veria, 2) that the Ministry of Education has been notified, and 3) that  an administrative inquiry by the Magnesia Secondary Education Directorate is expected to commence in the following days, “or has already commenced”.

According to the “Tachydromos” report, the teacher in question runs a website  “hosting articles that list reasons why parents should not have their children vaccinated, articles on climate change and ‘even on aerial spraying’”, which prompted “a citizen” to take out a lawsuit charging her with “disseminating false information”. The plaintiff also notified the Education Ministry “because the accused is a teacher and her implication in a penal issue entails administrative sanctions”.

The newspaper continues that this teacher’s website “hosts dozens of articles and comments against vaccinations for children, including a study asserting that ‘vaccines inject infections into our children and that certain vaccines are even responsible for specific epidemics’”.

No names are currently being mentioned, so no names will be mentioned in this article either. The point is simply made that “the dossier on the case is already in the hands of the relevant authorities.”

Though from a legal viewpoint the accused would seem to have a right to assert his/her right to “freedom of speech”, this is not all that is involved. Every scoundrel, after all, can claim to be exercising a right to freedom of speech. In this particular case, after the Greek public’s experience with the 2009 swine flu scare, not to mention the extensive public discussion of clandestine aerial spraying, including in the Cyprus Parliament, and in the European Parliament, whose Committee on Petitions resolved in March 2014 that  “the issues which you raise are admissible in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, insofar as the subject matter falls within the sphere of activities of the European Union”, there seems to be a strong argument for saying that it is the accusers of this Volos teacher who should be in the dock for disseminating false information, or rather scurrilous innuendo, because no information has been provided by them.

Dane Wigington
geoengineeringwatch.org

Marcia McNutt is the president of the National Academy of Sciences. Within a few hours of the Geoengineering Watch “Stop Geoengineering” legal notice press release, McNutt contacted us. The demeanor of her first message below is certainly shocking and unprofessional when one considers the fact that this is the president of the NAS. Her first response is also especially perplexing since Marcia McNutt has given numerous presentations on the subject of geoengineering. Is Marcia McNutt actually completely oblivious to the blatant geoengineering programs that have been fully deployed and operational for over 70 years? Or is the NAS president paid to try and put out the rapidly expanding fires of public awareness in regard to the ongoing geoengineering attrocities?

Thanks for giving me a laugh. Taking money from people to stop an activity that isn’t happening. Talk about easy money. I knew that the legal profession was hard up, but this is above and beyond.  I hope it is okay to use this in some of my future presentations on ethics in science as compared to those in the legal profession.

NASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNAS
Dr. Marcia K. McNutt, President
National Academy of Sciences    Physical location:
500 Fifth Street NW            2101 Constitution Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001            Washington, D.C. 20418
mmcnutt@nas.edu                 (202) 334-2101 (office)
NASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNAS

My first response to NAS president Marcia McNutt is below:

Hello Marcia, as the president of the National Academy of Sciences,  thank you for making  your position ….. so very clear and inarguable. We will now prepare a post with your response and your public contact information so that the population at large can also be crystal clear on the part you are playing in covering up the ongoing climate engineering crimes of omnicide. Once the public is fully awakened to what has been done to them, and to who participated, will Nuremberg type trials ensue? Time will soon enough reveal the answer to this question. Populations around the globe are waking rapidly now, we at GeoengineeringWatch.org  will do our best to make your statement, and your official position, known to all.

Sincerely,
Dane Wigington
geoengineeringwatch.org

Marcial McNutt’s 2nd message:

Dear Mr. Wigington:

I certainly didn’t mean to offend you or anyone else at Geoengineering Watch, a group I have not heard of and a website that does not seem to open. I do sincerely believe that this attorney is taking advantage of your organization. I would be interested to learn what evidence you have that anyone is conducting albedo modification. I am not aware of any.

Sincerely,
Marcia McNutt

NASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNAS
Dr. Marcia K. McNutt, President
National Academy of Sciences    Physical location:
500 Fifth Street NW            2101 Constitution Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001            Washington, D.C. 20418
mmcnutt@nas.edu                 (202) 334-2101 (office)
NASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNAS

My second response to McNutt included the shocking photo taken over the Yosemite valley shown below.

Ms. McNutt, every attorney involved has long since examined the mountain of evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt that global geoengineering is a reality, not just a proposal. Every attorney is working pro bono and more are joining as they realize what is at stake.  The geoengineering issue will be brought to the light of day, the awakening is accelerating. I can only believe that all those who helped to hide these programs (especially in the academic community) will face unimaginable angst and demands for prosecution from populations that realize the degree to which they have been betrayed by the very “scientists” they were trained to trust.

We have so much data, Marcia, including historical Senate and Presidential documents. We have ever-growing files of state certified lab test results that prove conclusively agencies like EPA are not disclosing the mountain of heavy metal contamination (matching climate engineering patents exactly) that is raining down on us all. We are even communicating directly with some FED EPA employees that are in the process of being fired for trying to disclose the climate engineering contamination, they will soon tell all.  Yes, the truth will be disclosed, and the public is finally waking up to the climate engineering atrocities and all those who have helped to hide these crimes.

The photo below was taken over Yosemite National Park,  do you expect us to believe this is just “commercial jet traffic, Ms. McNutt?  Really? Stay tuned, as we will not yield in our efforts until the truth is fully exposed along with all those that helped to hide it in exchange for a paycheck and a pension.

Sincerely,
Dane Wigington
geoengineeringwatch.org

Yosemite National Park, California. Photo credit: Sydne Pomin

And now Marcia McNutt’s final message in response to mine. The NAS president displays a profound change of tone and demeanor considering this exchange took place over a very short span of about 2 hours.

Thank you for letting me know that the attorneys are all working pro bono. I feel much better. I look forward to evaluating the scientific evidence that the government is conducting albedo modification sub rosa. I imagine that the NAS would be asked to weigh the evidence brought forward, so at this point it would be probably best if we not communicate on this topic further lest it be construed that the NAS is working with you on this topic. I was not aware of any credible scientific evidence of such activity. Certainly none was brought forward when I chaired the academy report on climate engineering. That was more than 18 months ago. Perhaps new evidence has materialized.

NASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNAS
Dr. Marcia K. McNutt, President
National Academy of Sciences    Physical location:
500 Fifth Street NW            2101 Constitution Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001            Washington, D.C. 20418
mmcnutt@nas.edu                 (202) 334-2101 (office)
NASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNASNAS

Are we to believe that individuals like Marcia McNutt, the NAS president, have no clue whatsoever about the ongoing and blatant climate engineering atrocities on our skies? Are we to believe that the entire climate science community is also completely blind to the massive global geoengineering/solar radiation management assault that is so clearly visible to any who bother to look up and do the slightest bit of objective investigation? Climate engineering is nothing short of an unfolding global cataclysm, volumes of available data confirm this fact.The illegal federal “gag order” that has been put in place against all National Weather Service and NOAA employees is further confirmation of the covert government climate intervention/weather warfare operations. If you are not OK with the official narrative of denial being pushed by leaders of the science community, if you are not OK with “elected officials” and the corporate media doing the same, then use their public contact information and let them know how you feel. If you do so, please send a professional, carefully crafted, and articulate message, this is what is most helpful to advancing the critical cause of exposing and halting climate engineering. Attach credible climate engineering introductory and follow-up information to any and all such communications, which is imperative. We must all make our voices heard at this most critical hour, time is not on our side.
DW

May be freely reprinted, so long as the text is unaltered, all hyperlinks are left intact, and credit for the article is prominently given to geoengineeringwatch.org and the article’s author with a hyperlink back to the original story.

Dane Wigington
geoengineeringwatch.org

Our society is taught and conditioned to accept the dictates and opinions of the so called “experts” without questioning their conclusions. In so many circles of academia honesty and morality has long since been abandoned in exchange for a paycheck and a pension. When one branch or group of the science community completely contradicts another group from the same field of study, shouldn’t that be a glaring red flag? Nowhere do we have a more egregious and criminally negligent example than with the climate science community’s complete denial of the climate engineering issue and its overall effect on the planetary thermostat. While the vast majority of climatologists/scientists and governments around the globe are either “investigating” or pushing for global geoengineering/solar radiation management to be deployed for global warming “mitigation” (as if geoengineering has not been going on for over 70 years already), other camps in the science community have long since confirmed that jet traffic and “contrails” (sprayed particulate trails) are actually a major contributor to global warming. A dozen sample articles are below which confirm the overall warming effect that is caused from jet aircraft traffic and “contrails”.

“Clouds Caused By Aircraft Exhaust May Warm The U.S. Climate” (NASA)

“Aircraft contrails may be causing more climate warming today than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation” (Think Progress)

“ScienceShot: Jet Contrails a Big Global Warmer” (Science magazine)

“Airplane contrails and their effect on temperatures” (Christian Science Monitor)

“The Contrail Effect”  (From NOVA and PBS)

“Jet Contrails Actually Do Alter The Weather” ( Discovery Magazine)

“Flying Further To Avoid Jet Contrails Might Help With Global Warming” (Popular Science)

“Plane Contrails Worse Than C02 Emissions For Global Warming” (Phys-Org)

“Airplane Contrails Boost Global Warming” (National Geographic)

But are we really witnessing “contrails” in our skies? Can “contrails” be turned on and off? No.

ALL commercial jet aircraft and ALL military tankers are fitted with “high bypass turbofan jet engines”, does this type of prolusion system typically produce any “condensation” trails? No again.

The grand deception is this, all available data proves beyond reasonable doubt that the trails being used to blot out the sun and alter the weather around the globe are intentionally sprayed (and highly toxic) particulate trails that are the direct result of ongoing covert climate engineering programs. The closest the climate science community has come to telling the truth is to admit that “contrails” may be causing “accidental” geoengineering. How is it possible that we live in a “civilized world” in which such massive, obvious, and unimaginably destructive programs can be carried out in plain sight while the climate science community (and academia as whole) adamantly and criminally denies this verifiable reality? The quote below from climate scientist, Sarah Myhre, sheds some light on the mindset of many in academia (though still, of course, omits the issues of geoengineering/solar radiation management).

(Sarah Myhre is an ocean and climate scientist with expertise in the marine ecological consequences of abrupt climate warming.)

How bad is the true state of the global climate? As dire as the recent article excerpt below may seem, the unfolding reality on the ground is far worse and global climate engineering is helping to fuel the overall fire.

A so-called “Blue-Ocean Event” — a period during the melt season with less than 1 million square kilometers (a little over 386,100 square miles) of Arctic sea ice — was not expected to occur until 2070 to 2100 by most science modeling projections of the early 21st Century.

Recent polar ice observations, however, indicate extreme loss of volume. Daily sea ice loss rates since late April 2016 have averaged about 75,000 square kilometers (about 29,000 square miles) per 24 hours, resulting in continuously record low levels.

Many climate scientists now project the first “Blue-Ocean Event” within a decade or less. Some experts speculate it may even occur during the melt season of 2016.