| Friday, December 10, 2010 Thank you, Wayne. I think that this is a well-reasoned, perceptive analysis of why the opposite of one extreme if not the other extreme but the middle, where truth tends to reside. I feel that we all have been lied to in this, as in most matters; that there is indeed climate change going on, but it is now going on at least throughout our solar system, and likely throughout our galaxy as a natural process of transformation long prophecied by intuitives whose insights are now being proven scientifically as such classified information is being disclosed. The NWO has coopted the mainstream environmental movement, and is using it to justify a depopulation agenda, while locking climate change skeptics into a limited mindset unable to consider the larger framework of cosmic phenomena now dramatically unfolding. As an example of this, I recently contacted Nobel Prize winner Helen Caldicott, founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, about the US Navy's resumed public proposals for genocidal weapons "testing" on the American people living on all of the coast and island areas of the US empire, using, among other things, depleted uranium, the banning of which is supposed to be one of the purviews of her organization. Her response to send me a notice that I was barred from her sending her any more emails; she evidently went "ballistic", but not against those who were violating the alleged principles of Physicians for Social Responsibility! Another example is, that no major mainstream environmental organization, including PSR, has responded either to the chemtrails issue or to the terracide now being perpetrated in the Gulf of Mexico by the US government and BP. REC
--- On Fri, 12/10/10, Wayne Hall <halva1@otenet.gr> wrote:
From: Wayne Hall <halva1@otenet.gr>
Subject: Re: Paper Submitted to the British Royal Society on "Solar Radiation Management"
To: "Claire HENRION" <clairehenri12@gmail.com>, "Campbell Rebecca" <rebeccaphb@yahoo.com>, "Wayne Hall" <halva1@otenet.gr>
Cc: "Andrew Johnson" <ad.johnson@ntlworld.com>, "Bertrand DU CHASTEL" <bertrand.du-chastel@dbmail.com>, "Bonne Fire" <bonne_fire@yahoo.com>, "Catherine Deffontaine Hego" <cath.deffon2@orange.fr>, "chemtrails foroactivo" <planetaesclavo@gmail.com>, "Chemtrails France" <zcontact2@chemtrails-france.com>, "CoenVermoreen" <coenvermeeren@gmail.com>, "Dominique Pélissier" <domy94f@hotmail.fr>, "Dr Nikos katsaros" <katsaros@chem.demokritos.gr>, "Dr Rosalie Berttell" <rosaliebertell@greynun.org>, "Ellen et Ton" <annabelle1946@hotmail.fr>, "Enouranois" <info@enouranois.gr>, "ETC group" <etc@etcgroup.org>, "François Rey" <francoiscamera@googlemail.com>, "Jacques Cléret" <rondeljiac@orange.fr>, "Jean-Charles- Ceruti" <ceruti57@yahoo.fr>, "Johnny de Vulcan" <group@chemtrails-info.dk>, "Jordan Born" <le_roge_@hotmail.com>, "NadialabeilleSlS" <labeille.nadia@wanadoo.fr>, "Patrick Pasin" <ppasinp@yahoo.fr>, "Peter Vereecke" <peter_vereecke@hotmail.com>, "Saskia MESSAGER" <saskia-ronan@wanadoo.fr>, "supahumandignity" <supahumandignity@gmail.com>, "Sylvie Rulekowski" <s.rulekowski@wanadoo.fr>, "Tanker Enemy" <tanker.enemy@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, December 10, 2010, 12:53 AM
The question Rebecca Campbell asks here "if the purpose of solar radiation management" is benignly to prevent global warming, why is it done even now in secret??" is a question that is often asked by Nikos Katsaros, Greece's best-known anti-chemtrails campaigning scientist. Rebecca goes on to say that "many of the now environmentally-conscious public would accept this explanation if it were publicly given", something which is quite possibly - and unfortunately - true, but it is still a surprising remark to come from a person whose views on climate change, as far as I know, tend towards anthropogenic climate change scepticism. Surely climate change sceptics would not number among those who would "accept this explanation". Does not G. Edward Griffin in "What in the World are they Spraying" make heavily ironical remarks about how "when the truth comes out" the geoengineers will say "we did it for your own good". He might joke about this, but is the joking a sign of possible future "acceptance"??? Perhaps I should make this a real question to G. Edward Griffin rather than a rhetorical question. In fact this idea of a future "coming clean" on the part of the geoengineers has always to me seemed the least likely of possible outcomes, and also a factor that makes one wonder just where present official policies of deceit over geoengineering can possibly lead and what the ultimate result of them will be. I cannot see how the geoengineers and their corporate and military-industrial-complex backers after so many years of telling lies are going to be able to negotiate a future "coming clean". Their way of handling the contradictions of their policies consists in telling one story to one clientele: climate change scepticism for the conservatives, and another story: climate change scare-mongering and, surreptitiously, geoengineering to the other: liberals, leftists, ecologists. Internally consistent, dispassionate, persuasive, hype-free scientific narrative is precisely what they have never been able to deliver. How will this be able to change in future? The logic of the political system obliges them to act as they do. They cannot just decide to act differently. The historian and anti-nuclear activist E.P. Thomspon, one of the leaders of the non-aligned European anti-nuclear movement of the nineteen eighties, promoted a satirical quasi-Marxist notion he called "exterminism", which he saw as a phenomenon underlying the nuclear arms race of the "two superpowers", the USA and the Soviet Union. He saw the Cold War as structured around an "inertial deadlock", whose objective by-product was the nuclear arms race. I would like to argue that this same inertial deadlock has been reproduced in today's climate controversy. The protagonists today are not the competing nuclear superpowers of the USSR and the USA but the climate activists on one hand and the climate skeptics on the other. And both sides of that controversy have their supporters, and even to some extent their origins, in the nuclear weapons laboratories of America's side (the winning side) of the Cold War. The experiences that led E.P. Thompson to his theory of inertial deadlock were youthful experiences of membership of the Communist Party. At a certain point he decided that defending pro-Soviet policies of "defensive" nuclear weapons possession was sterile and counter-productive. He went on to become one of the founders of Britain's Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and a pioneering supporter of the demand for British unilateral nuclear disarmament. I see many similarities between the stance of the old-style supporters of "defensive" Soviet nuclear weapons possession and present-day climate change activists who are still unaware of the role of geoengineering in the climate change debate. They have been co-opted into defending one side of a scenario of "inertial deadlock". When the other side, the more aggressive "sceptic" side, gains the upper hand, as occurred with the "Climategate" scandal in the runup to the December 2009 Copenhagen climate summit , they are thrown onto the defensive, and remain locked into the defensive mode. They are becoming increasingly aware that they are "not winning". But who IS winning? The climate change skeptics?? They are not winning either. They are as disoriented at "winning" the climate change debate as they were by winning the Cold War. Climate change has become the magic wand for justifying a whole array of destructive policies from nuclear power generation through genetic modification to carbon trading and geoengineering. Neither the climate change skeptics nor the climate change true believers who are ignorant of geoengineering (the majority) can resist the power of the magic wand: they remain participants in the bipolar debate of mainstream politics whose aim is – precisely – to reproduce the inertial deadlock. The skeptics remain skeptical even of valuable breakthroughs achieved by the other side, such as the moratorium on geoengineering pushed through at the Nagoya Convention on Biologial Diversity. The climate change true believers engage in skirmishes over side-issues: the "don't nuke our climate" initiatives that focus only on the most blatant and superficial forms of disinformation: the idea that nuclear energy is "clean" and "carbon free". Rebecca Campbell's paper on "Solar Radiation Management", submitted to the Royal Society, is an excellent starting point for debate and a powerful exposure of the most obvious kind of deceit involved in the "dialogue" with the public that the Royal Society is now trying to initiate. But the deceit goes much deeper and will not be able to be adequately analysed until other sectors of civil society: the climate change movement, the anti-nuclear movement, begin to show a capacity for much more radical self-criticism and self-understanding. The anti-nuclear movement is in such dire straits at the moment that perhaps some progress can be expected with them, some opening of the mind towards the realities of "chemtrails", for example.
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 10:40 PM Subject: Re: Paper Submitted to the British Royal Society on "Solar Radiation Management"
All right !
I've sent this (in attached).
Some precisions about barium have been added by Ton these two last days (so they are not in the original paper I sent).
Nevertheless, I try to send this final one. If it is not possibie, the most important remains that discusion is going on, because things are improving at each moment !
RING THE BELLS !
Claire
2010/12/9 Campbell Rebecca <rebeccaphb@yahoo.com>
| "Solar Radiation Management": A Sunblock on the Light of Truth The mission of science should be to discover the truth of nature; the mission of philosophy is to discover the nature of truth. It is only when the nature of truth is respected that the truth of nature can be discovered. Respect for the nature of truth is called intellectual and moral honesty, and it is intellecual and moral honesty that would seem to be lacking in this call for papers on the feasibility and desirability of what is here being euphemistically termed "solar radiation management". This is because what is being benignly portrayed here as being merely proposed has, for at least the past fifteen years, been clandestinely practiced, against the very ethics by which authentic, ethical science is supposedly to be governed. Among the ethical and legal principles of science which "solar radiation management" aka "geoengineering" aka "persistent airborne aerosol spraying" aka "chemtrails" violates are the Precautionary Principle, the Principle of Informed Consent, the Disclosure of Initiating Parties, the Nuremberg Principles Concerning Experimentation on Civilian Populations, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutional rights of the peoples of various nations over which such aerial "solar radiation management" is presently being practiced without either public approval or credible explanation. If, as this request for papers implies, the purpose of "solar radiation management" is benignly to prevent global warming, why is it even now being done in secret, since many of the now environmentally conscious public would accept this explanation if it were publicly given? Why is its genesis, technology and those responsible for what we see as persistent airborne aerosol spraying in our skies throughout the world always kept unknown to us? Why is this institute, like so many academic, military and government institutions, and major environmental organizations engaging in the deception that they have no prior knowledge of that which can be so readily observed by all who simply choose to look up and without preconception behold the sky? Empirical observation is the first step of the scientific method. It is the empirical observation of many throughout the earth that our skies are being filled by aircraft-delivered manmade clouds that wash out their color and blot out the sun. Further, it is the observation of many independent -- as opposed to government, corporate and academic-affiliated -- researchers that these lingering web-like manmade clouds are composed of toxic heavy metals, known pathogenic organisms and unknown nanoparticulate and cellular configurations, the latter capable of passing the human blood/brain barrier into the human brain and nervous system with heretofore unforeseen consequences. It is also a fact that a certain transnational agricorporation has filed for a patent for heavy metal-resistent genetically modified seeds. This includes the very toxic heavy metals that have been determined by independent scientific researchers as being present in persistent toxic airborne aerosol spraying that your organization implies does not yet exist in a call for papers to comment on a present practice as if it were a future theoretical possibility. It would seem that, even as sunblock deflects sunlight from the human body, and allegedly still-potential geoengineered persistent aerosol spraying deflects sunlight from the earth, such specious calls for academic papers as this one deflect the light of truth from authentic scientific and journalistic investigation. It purloins time better spent in identifying and holding accountable those who covertly conduct such dangerous experiments as these on civilian populations and their environment; those clandestine practitioners who officially and fraudulently claim to have only abstractly considered "solar radiation management" which, as practiced, violates fundamental scientific ethics, human and natural rights, and universal law. | -- Rebecca Em Campbell | | | | | | | | | |
|
Ingen kommentarer:
Send en kommentar