Το Ελληνικό Υπουργείο Περιβάλλοντος λέγεται “YΠEKA”: « Υπουργείο Περιβάλλοντος, Ενέργειας και Κλιματικής Αλλαγής». Ενισχύεται άραγε η θέση των Ελλήνων ακτιβιστών για το κλίμα με το να συμπεριλαμβάνονται οι λέξεις «και κλιματικής αλλαγής» στον τίτλο αυτού του υπουργείου;

Ο συμβατικός δημόσιος διάλογος για το κλίμα δεν αποτελεί επιστημονική συζήτηση αλλά εξαιρετικά πολιτικοποιημένη διαμάχη, η οποία μοιάζει να έχει διαμορφωθεί με κριτήριο τις ανάγκες του δικομματικού πολιτικού συστήματος των ΗΠΑ, με τους Ρεπουμπλικάνους «σκεπτικιστές» και τους Δημοκρατικούς «πεπεισμένους». Ακόμα και την κατηγορία ότι δεν είναι επιστημονική η συζήτηση, την έχει σφετεριστεί η μία πλευρά τις διαμάχης, η πλευρά των «σκεπτικιστών», πάλι για πολιτικούς και όχι για επιστημονικούς λόγους. Ο συμβατικός διάλογος για το κλίμα είναι παραπλανητικός επειδή το ζήτημα κλειδί τόσο για τις κυβερνήσεις όσο και για τους πολίτες δεν είναι εάν τα κλιματικά φαινόμενα οφείλονται «στον άνθρωπο» ή «στη φύση». Το ζήτημα είναι εάν τα ανθρωπογενή κλιματικά φαινόμενα (δηλαδή τα κλιματικά φαινόμενα που μπορούν να είναι αντικείμενο κυβερνητικών αποφάσεων) οφείλονται σε άσχετες ανθρώπινες ενέργειες ή αντίθετα σε σκόπιμα επιλεγμένες πολιτικές για την τροποποίηση του κλίματος.

Αν οι πολιτικές σκόπιμης τροποποίησης του κλίματος κρύβονται πίσω από επίσημους ισχυρισμούς περί «κλιματικής αλλαγής», τότε αυτό αποτελεί σοβαρό λόγο για αποκλεισμό του όρου «κλιματική αλλαγή» από τα επίσημα κυβερνητικά και διακυβερνητικά έντυπα, όπως και από τα ονόματα των υπουργείων. Τα πράγματα πρέπει να λέγονται με το όνομά τους.

Την 25η Μαρτίου 2014 η Επιτροπή Αναφορών του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου αποφάσισε ότι η διαμαρτυρία εναντίων των μυστικών προγραμμάτων τροποποίησης του κλίματος που είχε υποβάλλει το 2013 η διεθνής πλατφόρμα Skyguards είναι αποδεκτή «σύμφωνα με τις διατάξεις του Κανονισμού του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, στο μέτρο που το θέμα εμπίπτει στη σφαίρα των δραστηριοτήτων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.»

Mακάρι αύτη η στάση της Επιτροπής Αναφορών να αποτελέσει το πρώτο μικρό βήμα προς την αποσύνδεση της Ευρώπης από τα παραλυτικά σενάρια «διαίρει και βασίλευε» που επιβάλλουν επανειλημμένα οι ΗΠΑ: πρώτο μικρό βήμα προς μια αυτόνομη Ευρώπη των πολιτών.

Υπάρχουν σκεπτικιστές για τις κλιματικές αλλαγές οι οποίοι συνηγορούν υπέρ της κατάργησης της Διακυβερνητικής Επιτροπής για την Αλλαγή του Κλίματος (IPCC). Ο Δρ. VincentGray της Νέας Ζηλανδίας λέει, για παράδειγμα: “Η IPCC είναι θεμελιακά διεφθαρμένη. Η μόνη ‘μεταρρύθμιση΄ που θα μπορούσα να φανταστώ θα ήταν η κατάργησή της.”

Άλλοι σκεπτικιστές προβάλλουν πιο επίμονα και με εκτεταμένη τεκμηρίωση το ίδιο αίτημα. Η συγγραφέας και ακτιβίστρια DonnaLaframboise τελειώνει το βιβλίο της «O Έφηβος Εγκληματίας – Ξεσκέπασμα της IPCC» με την παρότρυνση «Διαλύστε την IPCC”». Γράφει: «χρειάζεται επανεξέταση η υπόθεση (των κλιματικών αλλαγών) – με ολοκαινούργιο δικαστή, ολοκαινούργιοι ένορκοι, ολοκαινούργιο εισαγγελέα. Αυτή η νέα αμόλυντη ομάδα θα πρέπει να ξαναρχίσει από την αρχή.» “Επί χρόνια μας έλεγαν ότι η Διακυβερνητική Επιτροπή για την Αλλαγή του Κλίματος είναι αξιοπρεπής οργάνωση επαγγελματιών (…) Στην πραγματικότητα είναι παραβατικό αναξιόπιστο τσογλάνι. Αποκλείεται να μη συμφωνούν οι ακτιβιστές για το κλίμα και οι σκεπτικιστές τουλάχιστον στο σημείο ότι το μέλλον του πλανήτη είναι πολύ σοβαρή υπόθεση για να αφήνεται σε τέτοια χέρια. Θα έπρεπε οι κυβερνήσεις να κόψουν αμέσως τα κονδύλια και να διαλυθεί η IPCC.”

Τάδε έφη Donna Laframboise. Αυτή η τολμηρότατη πρόκληση αξίζει ανταπόκρισης. Η Donna και οι ομοϊδεάτες της είναι άραγε αρκετά αντίθετοι στην IPCC ώστε να είναι έτοιμοι να επιχειρήσουν τη δημιουργία της “νέας IPCC” σε συνεργασία με τη διεθνή πλατφόρμα Skyguards και τις ομάδες πολιτών που έχουν ίδιους στόχους;

7 Ιανουαρίου 2015

The Greek Ministry of the Environment is called “YPEKA”: Ministry for the Environment, Energy and Climate Change. Is the cause of climate change campaigners in Greece strengthened by having the term “climate change” included in the name of this ministry?

The conventional public debate on climate is not a scientific debate. It is a highly politicized debate which appears to be structured around the needs of the two-party political system of the United States, with Republican “climate change sceptics” and Democrat “climate change believers”. Even the accusation that the climate debate is not scientific but political has been misappropriated by one side of the conventional debate, the “sceptic” side, for purposes, again, not scientific but political. The conventional climate debate is misleading because the key issue for governments and citizens is not whether climatic phenomena are “man-made” or “natural”. The key issue is whether anthropogenic climatic phenomena (the kind to which governmental policy decisions can be relevant) are the result of human activity unrelated to climate policy or the result of deliberate policies of climate modification.

If policies of deliberate climate modification are being concealed behind allegations of “climate change”, this is surely adequate grounds for banishing the term “climate change” from governmental and intergovernmental policy documents, and from the titles of ministries. Phenomena should be called by their real name.

On 25th March 2014 the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions ruled that the charges against clandestine climate modification raised the previous year by the active citizens of the Skyguards civic platform 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.”

How desirable it would be if this ruling of the Committee on Petitions could comprise a first step towards Europeans extracting themselves from the paralyzing divide-and-rule scenarios continually being imposed by the United States, a first step towards a Europe of autonomous citizens.

There are climate change sceptics who advocate the abolition of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand says, for example: “The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only ‘reform’ I could envisage would be its abolition.”

Other climate change sceptics make the proposal more persistently and with full documentation. The author and activist Donna Laframboise finishes her book “The Delinquent Teenager” an expose of the IPCC” with a chapter entitled “Disband the IPCC”. She says: “The (anthropogenic climate change) case must be examined anew – with a brand new judge, a brand new jury, a brand new prosecutor. This fresh, untainted group must start from scratch. (…)” “For years we’ve been told the IPCC is a reputable and professional organization. (…) In reality, it’s a rule-breaking, not-to-be-trusted delinquent teenager. Surely climate activists and climate skeptics can agree on this one thing: the future of the planet is too important to be left in hands such as these. Governments should suspend funding immediately. The IPCC must be disbanded.”

So speaks Donna Laframboise. Her bold challenge deserves to be taken up. Are she and her fellow thinkers strongly enough opposed to the IPCC to be willing to try to build “a new IPCC” in conjunction with the Skyguards civic platform and the citizens’ groups that share its objectives?

7th January 2015

(Address to the seminar on climate modification and HAARP organized by the Healing Sound Movement, Amsterdam, 7^th December 2014)

Click here for the .pdf of the presentation: The next step for the movement against climate modification and HAARP.

Please note: clicking on external links in the .pdf will lead you away from the page. Please right-click on links and select Open Link in New Tab to navigate to the linked content without leaving the presentation .pdf.

14th December 2014

Α Challenge to the Islamic State?

W. Hall 28^th September 2014

In an article dated 25^th September 2014 the journalist and former American Treasury policy maker Paul Craig Roberts posed the question: ‘Will Russia and China hold their fire until war is the only alternative?’
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/09/25/will-russia-china-hold-fire-war-alternative-paul-craig-roberts/

Roberts characterizes Obama’s September 24 speech at the UN as Obama’s September 24 speech at the UN as “the most absurd thing I have heard in my entire life. It is absolutely amazing that the president of the United States would stand before the entire world and tell what everyone knows are blatant lies… It is even more amazing that every person present did not get up and walk out of the assembly. The diplomats of the world actually sat there and listened to (these) lies from the world’s worst terrorist. They even clapped their approval.”

“It is impossible,” he continues, “ to pick the most absurd statement in Obama’s speech or the most outrageous lie. Is it this one? ‘Russian aggression in Europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small ones in pursuit of territorial ambition. Or is it this one? ‘After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular protests and calls for reform, their corrupt president fled. Against the will of the government in Kiev, Crimea was annexed. Russia poured arms into eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict that has killed thousands. When a civilian airliner was shot down from areas that these proxies controlled, they refused to allow access to the crash for days. When Ukraine started to reassert control over its territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the separatists, and moved troops across the border.’”

“The entire world,” says Roberts, “ knows that Washington overthrew the elected Ukrainian government, that Washington refuses to release its satellite photos of the destruction of the Malaysian airliner, that Ukraine refuses to release its air traffic control instructions to the airliner, that Washington has prevented a real investigation of the airliner’s destruction, that European experts on the scene have testified that both sides of the airliner’s cockpit demonstrate machine gun fire, an indication that the airliner was shot down by the Ukrainian jets that were following it. Indeed, there has been no explanation why Ukrainian jets were close on the heels of an airliner directed by Ukrainian air traffic control.”

“Who are the extremists – ISIS which cut off the heads of four journalists, or Washington which has bombed seven countries in the 21st century murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians and displacing millions?”

“Who is the worst terrorist–ISIS, a group that is redrawing the artificial boundaries created by British and French colonialists, or Washington with its Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign policy, which declares Washington’s dominant objective to be US hegemony over the world?”

“ISIS is the creation of Washington. ISIS consists of the jihadists Washington used to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent to Syria to overthrow Assad. If ISIS is a ‘network of death,’ a ‘brand of evil’ with which negotiation is impossible as Obama declares, it is a network of death created by the Obama regime itself. If ISIS poses the threat that Obama claims, how can the regime that created the threat be credible in leading the fight against it?”

So speaks Paul Craig Roberts. But he does not, in any case, advocate fighting against the Islamic State. He deplores the way that Russian and Chinese fears of discord among their own Muslim populations have “caused both governments to make the extremely serious strategic mistake of aligning with Washington against ISIS and with Washington’s policy of protecting Washington’s status quo in the Muslim world.”

“If Russia and China understood the deadly threat that Washington presents, both governments would operate according to the time honored principle that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ Russia and China would arm ISIS with surface to air missiles to bring down the American planes and with military intelligence in order to achieve an American defeat. With defeat would come the overthrow of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and all of the American puppet rulers in the area. Washington would lose control over oil, and the petro-dollar would be history. It is extraordinary that instead Russia and China are working to protect Washington’s control over the Middle East and the petro-dollar.”

Even if it were desirable to do so, European citizens cannot force the governments of Russia or China to follow Paul Craig Roberts’ advice and arm the Islamic State with surface-to-air missiles and military intelligence. Something that is within our power, however, is to at least try to discover whether these terrorists will publicly acknowledge seeing the world the way Paul Craig Roberts sees it or whether they prefer to support the way Obama claims to see it, so confirming the allegations that they are mere constructs of US and Israeli secret services.

Many, if not most, jihadists – and people who identify with them – appear to accept, and want people to accept, the official US conspiracy theory that Osama Bin Laden and/or other Islamic warriors were responsible for, or at least involved in, the terrorist attacks on the United States on 11^th September 2001.

Should the Islamic State and its proclaimed caliph, or “caliph”, be challenged to determine which side they are in relation to the events of 11^th September 2001 and all that has followed in the subsequent “War against Terror?” Is it possible, and/or acceptable to attempt to address the “Islamic State”, and any possible competing would-be caliphates, directly?

A possible challenge to would-be caliphs could be worded as follows:

1. Impartial examination of existing evidence supports the allegation that the Malaysian Airlines aircraft that crashed in Ukraine on 22nd July was brought down not by a missile fired by Ukrainian separatists or by Russians but by Ukrainian fighter aircraft. http://www.perdana4peace.org/2014/support-mh17-truth-osce-monitors-identify-shrapnel-and-machine-gun-like-holes-indicating-shelling-no-evidence-of-a-missile-attack-shot-down-by-a-military-aircraf/
2. Impartial examination of existing evidence supports the allegation that the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001 were not the work of Osama Bin Laden or any other jihadist fighters but were conducted by, or with the complicity of, the US government itself. They were a “false flag operation”. http://www.perdana4peace.org/events/conferences/911_revisited/
3. The Islamic State and its proclaimed caliph (and all other Jihadist groups challenging the credentials of the Islamic State’s caliphate, or “caliphate” and/or advancing competing claims to be a caliphate) are asked to state whether they support the above two assertions.

It is often said that with the dramatic, but never properly examined, events of 11^th September 2001 and the subsequent “War on Terror”, the United States has created a Frankenstein monster in the form of global jihad. But the jihad and the jihadists are not the only monster. There is also the monster of a hysterical and intellectually empty “public opinion” that has provided the fuel to drive every new phase of the never-ending avalanche of destruction that has proceeded since that time.

Footnote: In response to the above article, Matthias Chang, co-founder of Malaysia’s Perdana Global Peace Movement, reiterates his view that “ISIS is a CIA, Mossad, MI5, NATO construct and there is no need to have any dialogue with this bunch of mercenaries doing the bidding of the war party. There is nothing they can add to the 9-11 truth movement…. The truth movement in the US should focus on the internal forces responsible for 9-11.

---

George Perdikis – Cypriot Parliamentarian
“Geoengineering”/clandestine spraying
The resistance from European citizens:
From the municipal council of Aegina to the European Parliament

On Sunday 8th June 2014, under the auspices of the municipality of Aegina in Greece, the parliamentarian of the Cyprus Greens George Perdikis spoke in Aegina on the taboo subject of the clandestine “chemtrails” spraying.

It should be noted that while ever more academic specialists make public statements in support of the idea of spraying the planet’s skies with sulphates or with aluminium or other toxic metals, allegedly as a measure of mitigating climate change, discussion around the view that such spraying is already in implementation – planet-wide – remains systematically prohibited within the political system and the mainstream media. Anyone arguing that “chemtrails” are a reality is ridiculed and rejected as a “conspiracy theorist”.

Nevertheless, as a result of the action of activists throughout Europe, the European Parliament has now decided that the related discussion is “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.”

(See here the report of the Cyprus Greens on the spraying.)

In 2012 Mr. George Perdikis gave an interview in Athens on the spraying.

Seven parliamentarians in Greece from almost all parties have asked questions in Parliament about the clandestine spraying. (for subtitles click rectangle on right under the picture)

Aegina occupies a distinguished position in the history of citizen reaction against these spraying programmes conducted behind the back of the public. In 2003 it emerged as the first municipality in Europe to attempt to take action for investigation of the subject. There is a relevant video online with the present (June 2014) deputy mayor of Aegina Nektarios Koukoulis.

Here are some photographs from George Perdikis’ June 2014 visit to Aegina.