Category: English

(A test case in what happens when activists work together rather than against each other)

Karen: I need some help in response to this please. Facts only. This is someone who is adamant that the scientific community cannot be wrong about climate change and that carbon dioxide is causing it. Absolutely against Geoengineering possibility and believes nothing bad about Paris treaty.

This was the last response:

“Over 97% of climate scientists accept the science of global warming and that fact is established by a number of independent studies. Your suggestion that thousands of climate scientists are somehow all corrupt is utterly unrealistic and simply not true. There is utterly no evidence that suggests CO2 is not playing the major role in warming our planet. Yes, if you want to listen to the denialist blogs, they will tell all sorts of stories but scientific facts are very clear and supported by every scientific institution on the planet. You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the issue but you cannot have your own facts.”

Emily: I wouldn’t bother because they are clearly ‘blindsighted by science’ (or what they think is science) as if it were a religion. If they cared about research they would do it themselves.

Karen: I want to bother though because it’s the first time a friend of mine has been open enough to post anything on it and put herself out there so she needs support.

Shane: Do you know the effects of carbon emissions have on trees? They love it, they grow faster and healthier balancing the thermal and oxygen input / output. I would provide links but I am working from my phone.

Karen: I do but I need some really good evidence. I am not silly enough to punch above my weight. I am not a scientist so like most people here I get laughed at and don’t always have the exact scientific numbers in front of me. I am a mum who is concerned about the future of this planet for my children, their health, my health and how the hell we get people to ‘see’ this. Thank you, if you do have some links I will very much appreciate them.

Julie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pruTqY_JLcg&feature=youtu.be

Karen: Thank you.

Julie: I’d point her in the direction of this initially. Then to something called “climategate” where a group of scientists hid the decline in a graph indicating that global temperatures are going down not up. There is also a petition signed by a number of scientists who are saying that the official story is not settled. Can’t remember where I’ve seen it though. Don’t trust Wikipedia though. Anything the agenda wants pushing is changed on Wikipedia.

Sezur: It’s always just OUR opinions or facts isn’t it? I would respond in the following manner: Yes the globe is in meltdown. How else would ice caps be melting, methane hydrates thawing, record-shattering temperatures in countries and oceans around the world being measured, sea levels rising, hotter water fish being found in normally cold waters, etc. However, if carbon was the primary factor for global warming, according to YOUR establishment’s scientists, for every degree Celsius rise there should be 7 percent more moisture in the atmosphere therefore raining more often. Carbon-laden rain would stimulate more growth hence absorbing more carbon. That is earth’s natural way of self-repair. But what do we have instead? Record droughts and the occasional deluge. Oceans are layering and building up with heat. The El Nino should have occurred long ago but what is stopping it? The ozone layer is being torn apart. The UV is far more intense every summer. What is causing this? Surely its not only CFCs or HFCs (refrigerant gases) considering the rate of UV intensity. I work in the industry and I for one can tell you how strict they are becoming around Western countries with the handling of the gases. Surely this same scientific community know there’s something missing in this equation and what it is. The reason why they don’t speak out is because: A. some of them are very heavily brainwashed. B. Compartmentalisation, therefore the bigger picture cannot be formed amongst them with their collective data. C. A lot of them are afraid to speak out as they have signed non-disclosure agreements. D. A lot people only care about self-preservation so they turn a blind eye to the corruption they witness, worry about the pay check and retirement. E. Some do speak out and we see what happens to whistle blowers. At best their reputation is ruined, at worst they incidentally suicide by shooting themselves 3 times in the head. Any person that has a basic sense of reasoning and acknowledges the human condition’s potential to create evil, especially on grand scales as it has occurred in history, should have the common sense to estimate the possibility of global coordinated crime, especially in a world where people are subjected to fear and are controlled by money. Otherwise don’t bother with them.

Karen: Thank you Sezur.

Julie: Brilliant. It’s true actually. I used to really get uptight about trying to convince people but I started to realise that that was my Story… Wanting to be “right”… Now I realise that all you can do is give them information and let them do what they will… Sometimes it sticks and they will go on to research themselves… Sometimes it won’t …l learnt to live MY truth. They will get to theirs one day. But I continue to talk about and I know that it’s their fear that stops them believing. Don’t forget the massive change in worldview that happens when you wake up.

Sezur: I always respond to such deniers by saying our perception is irrelevant.The truth is relevant and I strive to align my perception with the truth. Generally if I feel that they keep adding stones to their wall as I speak I keep it short and move on. Either way the truth will eventually rip their heads out of the ground.

Julie: A lot are paid to disagree in this medium.

Wayne: If all else fails there is an alternative approach that I try out in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX52VTYTAj0 It makes it clear that it is irrelevant which side of the mainstream climate debate you are on because there is a built in irrationality in the debate as a whole. The following presentation also, from Amsterdam http://enouranois.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/next_step_for_the_movement.pdf has a couple of useful links: one in which Paul Mac extracts from a member of the IPCC an acknowledgement that “geoengineering” is already being implemented: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtbRDAwjaNM&list=UUC2Q2KRhniYuqpJP6LoXKjw It also includes an anti-ecologist rave from a Berkeley activist that might make an impression. http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2014-11-14/article/42701 This last-mentioned I leave to your discretion because the activist concerned, Vivian Warkentin, might be too easily classifiable as a “climate denialist”, despite her display of “liberal credentials”.

Karen: Thank you so much.

Fiona: Max Bliss mentions several academic papers or documents in his video. You could glean info here or send it to your friend to watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg_xpkxWhe8

Wayne: “Punching above one’s weight” is exactly what happens when the rank-and-file chemtrails activist tries to get involved in the mainstream climate debate. It is not necessary. In any case both sides of that debate are corrupted. They studiously avoid any contact with our problematic. They would much rather argue with each other endlessly and heatedly than have a sober discussion with us.

Karen: Which is why I don’t want an argument about it because I realise this but supporting people who are awakening to what’s going on is very much needed. I have noticed that when the heat gets put on and questions asked by ‘shills’ or whatever they are called today that everyone runs for the hills and doesn’t come out of private Facebook groups to support, encourage and educate. No fighting required, needed or wanted but support from a knowledgeable community is. Kind regards.

Fiona: Yes it is hard when people do not turn up for events and stay behind facebook cover. We have to get so determined to make an impact to change the status quo – for our kids and grandkids. Righteous anger is what drives me to do whatever it takes. The next thing I intend to do is go to our local MP for a meeting armed with documents I have printed and quote out of them face to face. Let them know that I know this is a classified program and I won’t buy the contrail fluff script they have ready for us. Then make them accountable to bring it up at parliament. Worth a shot anyway.

Paul Mac: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiFJ4AJagIw

Karen: Thank you so much.

Paul Mac: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUjf_ldXMd0 The data is clearly being twisted and cooked to suit the “peer reviewed” science communities and govcorps own ends. Karen, one can present gold plated truth and it will be denied as fabrication by these people. The agenda must be pushed forward by them in no uncertain terms….and we must resist.

Wayne: Nevertheless, political alliances with climate sceptics who are not first and foremost chemtrails activists do not seem to be feasible. They will agree with all of the analysis about the cooking of the books to suit the “peer reviewed” science communities. They will aggressively put forward this critique themselves. But they will NOT accept that global spraying is an established reality. Meanwhile the predominant side in the climate debate, the side that is organizing COP21, are perpetually on the lookout for evidence that we, the “conspiracy theorists”, are enemies because we are climate change sceptics.

Karen: So essentially we are trying to be honest and do the right thing but we are fighting an unbeatable beast? No wonder I get down about all of this. Hope is just about gone in me. All I truly give a shit about is stopping this crap impacting my family’s life and health and ensuring there is any kind of decent future for my children. The science stuff shits me to tears because I recognise both sides are bought and paid for. I have no idea who to trust any more so I trust no one, but I am a mum at her wit’s end watching tyrannical governments, insane scientists and idiotic people tax the crap out of our lives, drop chemicals on our heads and knowingly participate in destroying the planet. I think I am close to shutting all this off, going to my farm and hoping I can live in peace because nothing else is making much sense anymore. Thanks for the help guys. I will just leave it alone, I think. The beast is bigger than me.

Paul Mac: It doesn’t mean we do not try, this is why we have been attending climate change rallies and handing out information to people who clearly only have half the picture and half a lie…our silence (otherwise) becomes consent.

Wayne: Paul Mac’s attitude of determination is right. I think it is better not to weaken ourselves by trying to win two arguments at the same time, but giving up is worse.

Karen: Kinda feel like I am damned if I do and I am damned if I don’t. I have been belittled and attacked by both sides (of climate change and of geoengineering) now on multiple occasions (mostly because I am not a ‘scientist so therefore how do I know anything’) and have continued to be passionate about what I have learned, what I see and have personally experienced while living in the USA and Europe and how my health and my family’s health has been impacted, but as everything ramps up I feel very lost some days in a sea of insanity that I am starting to wonder about absolutely everything and everyone’s intentions – no friggin wonder the world is in the state it is in. I have attended every March Against Monsanto (one in London) and also some climate change gatherings in Europe, one meet up here in Melbourne but the numbers at every single event were so embarrassingly dismal it took me a while to regain belief in myself that my voice can actually do anything in the sea of minions and against the immense power and corruption that exists. Not a nice feeling as a mother of small children when I am not sure some days how to explain the world to my children. Thank you for your information I have seen some of them but will go through it all.

Jolanda: http://joeforamerica.com/2015/09/greatest-hoax-21st-century-98-scientists-not-believe-man-made-climate-change/

Wayne: Jolanda are you assimilating what we are talking about?

Jolanda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0&app=desktop

This guy has facts:

https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=101728306584541&tsid=0.0365952611900866&source=typeahead&hc_location=ufi

Wayne : Jolanda, Greek lignite is actively campaigning against the “greatest hoax of the 21st century”. But do you see what he says to us? http://enouranois.eu/?p=1049 Please don’t just post another link. If there is an economic incentive behind the spraying of coal ash in the atmosphere (a profitable way of disposing of it) then the climate change debate is irrelevant and the “greatest hoax of the 21st century” even more irrelevant.

Paul Mac:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11591193/Australia-PM-advisor-says-climate-change-a-UN-led-ruse.html

Some great information and discussion in this thread.

The Russian writer Leo Tolstoy made an interesting observation regarding the role of scientists in maintaining untouchable dogmas.

 “Science in our time occupies exactly the place that hundreds of years ago was occupied by a pagan priesthood. The same type of priest-teacher is involved, the same caste system, with a priesthood of science in the Academy, in universities, at conferences. The same trustfulness and the same absence of criticism from the faithful. Among the priesthood the same differences that for some reason do not start a process of creative confusion. The same incomprehensible words. Instead of thought and reflection the same self-confident pride. “

Has anything in the meantime changed?

No. Sadly, human nature does not change on a time scale measured in hundreds of years.

You have become a victim of a scientific inquisition. The Grand Inquisitor Wikipedia has shown its face. What can you say about the Orwellian deletion of texts from your Wikipedia profile?

Wikipedia, like many Internet sites, has a major flaw by allowing “screen names” to be used instead of one’s verified identity. Anonymity often cloaks deceit. If people could only make comments under their own identities, there might be some improvement. Even so, those with their own agendas will act to shield and/or promote those agendas. Wikipedia cannot be trusted, and I know of no activity to improve that situation.

What is the role of the “politically correct” scientific elite in suppressing the truth about climate engineering.

In 1951 the USA was by far the undisputed leader in science, and was a world role model to be followed. In that year the US National Science Foundation was established and literally wrote the rules on how civilian research would be supported. But the rules were flawed, and those laws have led to a persistent corruption of science. For example, one’s competitors were allowed to review proposals for financial support, and were allowed to review them anonymously.

Well, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what happened. And what happened is just like what happens in a totalitarian government with secret police. If a scientist wanted to get support he/she had to be very careful not to contradict anyone that might be a reviewer. Science is all about finding out what is wrong with existent ideas and presenting an improved understanding. But if a scientist did that, then there is a strong possibility that someone would seek revenge through the anonymous peer review. So, the scientist adopted the idea of “political correctness” before that term came into being.

More than a half century of such behavior has led to a severe weakness in the scientific community. So, when the whole “global warming”/“climate change” agenda came into place academic scientists were well trained to become willingly subservient. The real agenda, though, has been driven by military and commercial interests. Academic scientists, at universities and at some prestigious research institutes, have acted like pawns or shills.

It is deceitful that such scientists should talk about geoengineering as if it might be some future possibility, when in fact it is an ongoing activity that has been going on at full scale for several years, and experimentally perhaps for 15 years. (N.B. Dr. Herndon is here underestimating the length of time that the spraying has been in progress.)

Would David Keith defend his crazy ideas if there were be an open forum for dialogue with serious opponents?

There should be in science serious dialogues, but people are afraid to speak out because, if they do, they might lose their financial support. In 1979 I was a young scientist looking towards a career in academia. I came to realize that the inner core of the earth might not have the composition that people had thought for 40 years.

I wrote a paper suggesting a different composition; it was communicated to the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London by Nobel laureate Harold C. Urey, and I received a highly complementary congratulatory letter from Inga Lehmann, the woman who had discovered the inner core. I thought that there would be debate and discussion, and I thought that people with well-established laboratories would take up the idea and make many advances. Instead, there was silence: it was as if the paper had never been published, and soon my proposals for funding encountered obstacles. I was excommunicated. And the science environment has worsened since that time.

The campaign against the scientists willing to speak up ranges from belittling their scientific credibility to their physical liquidation. What motivated you in such circumstances to speak out about the dirtiest secret – the spraying campaign?

At the beginning of 2014 I noticed the near daily spraying, which increased to daily spraying. Nobody seemed willing or knowledgeable to find out what the composition is of the main substance being sprayed. What I found is strong evidence that the main substance being sprayed to make artificial clouds is coal combustion fly ash. This is a toxic nightmare, a substance that in the presence of water releases many toxic elements, including aluminum in a highly mobile form. When utilities burn coal, the heavy ash settles out, while the very fine particles, the so-called fly ash goes up the smokestack. But coal fly ash is so toxic that in Western countries regulations require it to be trapped electrostatically and not allowed to go up the smokestack into the environment.

I think one of the best military secrets is that coal fly ash is the main component being sprayed in the troposphere for weather modification or geoengineering reasons. You have to wonder what kind of fools are our political leaders that approve aerial spraying of a substance such as coal fly ash. Maybe they were not told what would be sprayed? Maybe they never asked? Maybe they were deceived? But they are allowing the people who elected them, as well as their own families, to be exposed to this toxic substance.

When coal formed, millions of years ago, it trapped many toxic elements. When coal is burned, those toxic elements become concentrated in the coal fly ash. Consider just one of the toxic substances, aluminum. The crust of the earth contains approximately 8% aluminum, but the aluminum is tightly bound as oxides and as silicates; it takes extreme chemistry to render that aluminum into a form that it dissolves in water. Recall the debate in the 1970s about acid rain. One of the major concerns about acid rain is that it would liberate aluminum in a chemically mobile form, which could lead to forest die-offs, for example.

The fine particles of coal fly ash sprayed into the air can enter the body through the lungs, through the mouth, through the skin, and even through the eyes. These very fine particles embed themselves in deep into the lungs which can cause inflammation; moisture from the body can extract the toxins including aluminum in a chemically mobile form. Aluminum has been implicated in autism, Alzheimer’s disease, and other neurological diseases. With the ongoing spraying, is there any wonder why these neurological diseases are on the increase?

For the military, coal fly ash is an ideal substance. It is a cheap by-product, the production and transportation infrastructure is already in place, the particles are extremely fine and remain suspended in the atmosphere for some time. They also retard Earth’s loss of heat as well as retarding rainfall. Moreover, the elements that leach out into the tiny droplets of water make that water electrically conducting, which plays into the bigger picture of controlling the movement of clouds. Coal fly ash is ideal for the military’s application, as long as the military and political leaders have no regard for humanity, which seems to be the case.

The role of coal fly ash then, as I see it, is the main substance for the military’s weaponizing weather and geoengineering. It is also a base substance to which all sorts of other substances can be added for specific purposes, such as to precipitate ice, or perhaps to control populations. There is no limit to the nature of experiments that the military is permitted to use over unsuspecting populations. There is no moral fiber, there is no humanity.

In addition to the presence of aluminum powder in the form of nanoparticles and heavy metals you also find dust created by burning coal – “coal combustion fly ash”. What is the role of this component?

At first we saw the white marks in the sky. They call them contrails. Now it is “persistent contrails”. More recently we can see darker elements – black shadows – is this a sign of fly ash? At first I saw, and now I see sometimes, the typical white trails that diffuse into cirrus-like clouds which further diffuse into a white haze. Sometimes this spraying is so heavy that the clouds take on a brownish appearance. Sometimes huge masses are dumped at once. These make brownish clouds that gradually spread out and become whitish clouds, eventually becoming a white haze. I think the brownish appearance IS a result of the coal fly ash.

What are the consequences of inhaling these particles?

Studies have shown that air pollution particles less than two micrometres in size can shorten human life. Coal fly ash particles can do the same thing, plus they release a multitude of toxins deep in the lungs including radioactive uranium and thorium, which can cause cancer. One of the toxins that are released is arsenic, which can cross the placenta of a pregnant woman and get into her yet unborn child. I am sure that I am describing just the tip of the iceberg, a very dirty iceberg indeed.

Do you believe in the story of anthropogenic causes for warming the planet, and the role of CO2?

The simplistic anthropogenic global warming story is based upon a flawed understanding of the dynamics of our planet. It is based upon the assumptions that the heat from the sun is constant and that the heat exiting Earth from within is constant. These are flawed assumptions. Heat coming out under the ocean, for which there is evidence, heats the ocean which releases some of the dissolved CO2. That is not taken into account in the simplistic global warming/climate change models.

But then one must really ask the question, with all the ongoing geoengineering that changes the climate, whether the warming we are witnessing is a natural phenomenon or is induced by the spraying. Is the goal to cool planet Earth or to melt the Arctic ice to make available the oil beneath it and to open Northwest passages?

Obama recently announced that cow dung emits methane, which is more dangerous than CO2. He declared war on cow dung, and proposed that the cows must eat food additives to reduce the methane in their dung. On that occasion it was announced that the feed industries already own the formula for this supplement. Can we expect the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt a law on mandatory feeding of these supplements to livestock, regardless of the lack of testing on the functioning of such modified meat and dairy products on the human body?

The EPA, NASA, NIH and presumably all government agencies are “in the tank”. They are party to what’s going on and have no independence. They are not to be trusted. Early in 2014, instead of ruling that coal fly ash is a toxic substance as many expected, the EPA classed coal fly ash as a solid waste. Previously, the EPA had raised the permissible limits for aluminum and barium in drinking water by a factor of four.

Does the FDA ever carried out by measuring samples of water and soil to aluminum and other heavy metals?

I doubt they measure samples; they are primarily concerned with food and medicines.

You did it independently by yourselves. Do they accept your findings?

There is a major effort to suppress my scientific publications. The first paper in Current Science received a whole list of criticisms and a demand for retraction. The editor provided verbatim comments and wisely asked me to respond in writing, which I did. The person complaining however would not allow his name to be used, so my response was never published. The editor of my second paper in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health was similarly attacked. He never provided verbatim comments and retracted my paper based upon lies and misrepresentations.

I am enclosing an attachment that describes the situation. I do not accept that retraction. I have filed a formal complaint against the editor for academic malfeasance at his university and I will continue to file formal complaints throughout the international scientific community until truth and reason prevail. Incidentally, I recently was shown a quote from someone on the web who bragged that he had paid a visit to the editor and after five minutes conversation convinced him to retract my paper. There are serious matters of ethics-failure here.

The Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovitch, a mathematician and author of scientific papers related to “celestial mechanics”, around 1920 published a formula for calculating the temperature of our planet, foreseeing its gradual cooling up to a final ice age. Are you familiar with his scientific work?

I am familiar with the Milankovitch Cycles.

Modern science does not take into account these cosmic changes and their impact on the climate? Do you think that Milankovitch’s work can help in understanding this influence?

Yes.

You’ve drawn attention to the ‘modellers’ and said that quasi-science is unable to predict future climate. Can you predict the consequences of climate engineering for the living world?

Climate engineering of the kind presently ongoing will, if allowed to, devastate all the creatures of the earth, corrupt our planet’s natural systems of equilibrium and ultimate enslave human populations.

Indian scientists have approached you regarding your research papers on the impact of aluminum and coal fly ash. To what extent is India open to scientific dialogue?

India (praise be) has not yet capitulated to the new Empire that is flexing its muscles.

Spraying is observed over countries that are NATO members or sympathizers. When did spraying start in  India?

I have no reason to believe that spraying is actually taking place in India, although spray may reach their shores.       

A video from India suggests the contrary. [W.H.]    

In Serbia the spraying began after the “democratic changes” of 2005 that brought the pro-NATO politicians to power. They signed a protocol on “Open Skies” with NATO, the content of which has not been disclosed. From that moment on there was an obvious presence of aircraft leaving persistent trails, with an effect on the albedo. Our mainstream media call them “persistent con trails”. What will be the next step in the Paris conference – legalization of clandestine activities?

That is the fear of many rational scientists who look at the sky in dismay.

Serbian activists have tried to get an answer from the Ministry of Nature Protection about the nature of the substance being released from the planes, but we found out that no ministry in Serbia  is responsible for monitoring the presence of heavy metals in air and water. Is it the same in your country?

The government does not tell the truth in my country.

What do you expect from the meeting in Athens?

I hope it will help to bring to public consciousness the crimes against humanity being perpetrated. I will give a short address via video.

Interviewer: Mara Kern

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p4VJdtFhYo?t=28m20s

Public Notice of the Author’s Rejection of the Retraction of the Peer-Reviewed and Published Scientific Article “Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health” by the MDPI journal, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

Troll message http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/09/10/jeremy-corbyn-and-the-contagion-of-conspiracy-theories/#

Piers Corbyn’s site http://www.weatheraction.com/

Source: GeoengineeringWatch.org

Foteini Athanasopoulou was forced to resign her candidacy for vice presidency of Greece’s Food Authority when parliamentarians from the former governing party PASOK and the new “centre” party POTAMI used personal facebook material to publicly expose her as a “conspiracy theorist”.

Mrs. Athanasopoulou is a leading member of ANEL, (Independent Greeks), SYRIZA’s sovereignist coalition partner in the present Greek government. POTAMI would like to see SYRIZA split with its left wing and form a government that would also exclude the “right-wing populist” ANEL and include POTAMI, in a “centre-left” coalition of a type very familiar in Europe and representing what is regarded as “normality”. POTAMI is evidently prepared to hit below the belt to achieve this (probably unachievable) objective and they have many willing helpers in the European Union “mainstream”.

Despite the brief public scandal that ensued from Mrs. Athanasopoulou withdrawing her candidacy, and despite pressing requests from the mainstream media, she did not take her case to them. She went back to her own area (she is a professor at the University of Thessaly) and spoke only to a local television station in the town of Trikala, where her relations with people are personal. This is the interview, with English subtitles:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ4zhb7oI0Q&feature=youtu.be

As a footnote, it might be worth mentioning that a former president of the Food Authority is Nikos Katsaros, one of the earliest activists against the global clandestine aerosol spraying (popularly known as “chemtrails”).

POTAMI was established as a “centre” party, at the initiative of the journalist Stavros Theodorakis. But before moving into politics, Theodorakis had made a programme whose purpose was clearly to intimidate “conspiracy theorists” whose claim is that “they are spraying us”. This included the seven or so parliamentarians who have raised the subject in the Greek parliament.

Here is a relevant extract from this programme, with English subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaYe64tQyxI

The entire programme is also online, with English subtitles, unfortunately not well synchronized: https://vimeo.com/76750641

There is an examination of the course of POTAMI from the programme against “conspiracy theorists” to the subsequent participation in the European elections and the election of two Europarliamentarians, including Giorgos Grammatikakis, a participant in the programme http://enouranois.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/next_step_for_the_movement.pdf  It starts on p. 13 of the 19-page text with the words: “And what do the mainstream media in Greece have to say about us?”

Source: Geoengineeringwatch.org