It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature

[jayreynolds]

Is this the same Rosalind Peterson who claimed that the bill S-517 was on fast track to be passed in early 2006?

"Introduced: Mar 3, 2005
Last Action: Dec 8, 2005: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 319.
Sponsor: Sen. Kay Hutchison [R-TX](no cosponsors)
Cosponsors- none"

Or is this the Rosalind Peterson who claims that she sees "supersonic" jets leaving "chemtrails"?

Those who know the meaning of the word laugh their ass off to see such a trollop!



http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22rosalind+peterson%22+supersonic&btnG=Search


Wayne, your people have been and always will be just another laughingstock of the internet.
You have a perfect right to make fools of yourselves, however, just as those of us have the right to watch your freak show!

[halva]

bump

[jayreynolds]

what a chump!

[halva]

No Campaign, No Gain


California climate deal could help Schwarzenegger win reelection
By Amanda Griscom Little
08 Sep 2006


He rose to fame as a cyborg warrior fighting to wipe out life on the planet. Now he's fighting to save it. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is about to sign into law the most ambitious global-warming legislation in U.S. history -- and in a twist worthy of a Hollywood blockbuster, the Republican's support for mandatory emissions caps may actually help, not hurt, his chances of winning reelection in the upcoming California gubernatorial contest.

Last week, Schwarzenegger and leaders of California's Democratic-controlled legislature struck a landmark deal on a bill that would make California the first U.S. state to mandate greenhouse-gas reductions at factories, utilities, refineries, and other industrial sites. The law will require these facilities to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 -- an estimated reduction of 25 percent.

The announcement threw a curveball at Schwarzenegger's Democratic opponent, Phil Angelides, and at the California environmental groups that have been backing the Democrat.

"It's hard to deny that this legislation will make it more difficult for voters to see a contrast between Angelides's environmental record and the governor's," said Rico Mastrodonato of the California League of Conservation Voters.

But despite the climate deal, which Sierra Club California attorney Bill Magavern characterizes as "the most important global warming legislation in the country," none of the three main green groups supporting Angelides -- Sierra Club, Vote the Coast, and the California League of Conservation Voters -- are expected to shift their support to the incumbent. Sierra Club and Vote the Coast have already formalized their Angelides endorsements, and CLCV is expected to do so within days.

Greens reason that Angelides has built a strong environmental record as state treasurer, and that they can trust him to pursue a more ambitious agenda in office than Schwarzenegger. "At the end of the day, we believe that stronger environmental protections for California would occur under a Gov. Angelides than under a Gov. Schwarzenegger," said Magavern.

Some see Schwarzenegger's support for the climate bill -- which was authored by members of the state legislature, not the governor's own team -- as less than wholehearted or sincere. "The governor spent the entire summer trying to weaken the bill with various loopholes, most of which were rejected," said Magavern, and when the legislature stood its ground, Schwarzenegger had little choice but to capitulate. A veto this close to Election Day would have made Schwarzenegger look like a hypocrite on the climate issue, and delivered a shot of adrenaline to the Angelides campaign.

One amendment proposed by Schwarzenegger would have given political appointees the authority to implement and enforce the bill, rather than the state's Air Resources Board. The governor also tried to add a clause requiring that the emissions reductions be carried out via a market-based trading program. (The legislation, as finalized, suggests a cap-and-trade system as a possible mechanism for implementing the law, but doesn't require one.)

Schwarzenegger also proposed an amendment that would allow the governor to delay implementation of the law for a year under "extraordinary circumstances," including the threat of "significant economic harm" to the state. This was the only major concession that the bill's authors, Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez (D) and Assembly member Fran Pavley (D), made to Schwarzenegger, despite criticism from environmentalists who argued that its language is too vague and could allow the governor to stall implementation. As it is, the law is slated to go into effect this coming January, but would not actually begin reducing emissions until 2010.

Schwarzenegger's spokesperson, Darrel Ng, maintains that the governor "is fully committed to the implementation of this bill" and sees it not only as a sound economic strategy that will help protect California's vulnerable coastline from the impacts of climate change, but as a harbinger of worldwide change. "Gov. Schwarzenegger believes that it will establish a model for other states and nations to follow in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions," Ng told Muckraker.

A Bitter Phil

Bob Mulholland, a senior campaign adviser for the California Democratic Party, insists that Angelides won't weaken his emphasis on green issues in the wake of the governor's high-profile climate agreement. "Schwarzenegger knows very well that bullshit goes a long way, and that's what this is about," he said. "It's largely a political ploy, and my bet is that if he gets reelected he's going to promptly roll back his emphasis on strong environmental protections."

Mulholland also contends that the climate bill could prompt a backlash among Republican voters. It's one of several deals Schwarzenegger has been making with Democrats in order to appeal to moderate voters; others aim to increase the minimum wage, offer cheaper prescription drugs, and start up clean-needle programs. "Republicans aren't happy," said Mulholland. "We believe it could cost him up to 100,000 votes."

The moderate voters to whom Schwarzenegger is appealing are now more than ever inclined to vote Democrat, Mulholland argues. "This is going to be a Democratic year across America. If Republicans were doing well -- if Iraq wasn't such a mess, if interest rates and gas prices and the deficit weren't soaring -- it would be very hard for Dems to beat incumbents. But voters are angry. They're angry at George Bush and many aren't going to support Schwarzenegger on principle because he's a Republican."

The polls, however, indicate that Schwarzenegger may be bucking the national anti-GOP trend. In July, the two candidates were running neck-and-neck. But a recent survey of likely voters by the Public Policy Institute of California showed Schwarzenegger up by 13 points, with 45 percent support compared to 32 percent for Angelides.

Schwarzenegger's standing has probably been given a boost by friendly relations with leading Democrats in the state -- much to Angelides's chagrin. Assembly Speaker Núñez, cosponsor of the climate-change bill, recently waxed affectionate when he introduced the governor at a political reception: "California is once again, my friends, on the move, thanks largely to this man, the governor of our great state and a good friend of mine, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger."

California has long been a leading indicator for U.S. environmental politics. When a threatened Republican incumbent in the state turns to mandatory global-warming regulations to fend off a challenge, you know the times they are a-changin'.

[halva]

This was written by David Stewart:

SCHWARZENEGGER FOR PRESIDENT of THE REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA FOR 2008!

That is actually a bumper sticker and a local “joke”. However this holds a sentiment in it which
is talked seriously about in growing numbers, basically California seceding from the USA.

Some facts about California:

It is the 5th largest economy of the world.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2001/06/11/daily42.html

We hold 10% of the US population: at 33,871,648
http://www.southlandrealestate.com/CensusCaliforniaHistoricalfrm.htm

We produce 25% of the national harvest.

Oil and Natural Gas: We are the 4th largest producer of the Nation’s oil and natural gas – we
used to be 3rd, and that is based on those reserves that are tapped. Alaska and Texas are the big guys,the gulf Coast works into that too. While those areas have been tapped (harder and harder) California has quietly been capping wells, shutting down pumping stations and not “officially” prospecting (looking for) more reserves. I’m willing to bet that the official announcement of our capacity is well below what is actually there.

A friend of mine works for one of the big oil companies, he retired from the field to a cozy
office position, however in his youth he was one of those guys who worked the drills and then worked on pump maintenance. In his later years in the field he personally supervised the shut down and capping of oil wells that still had lots and lots of oil in them(1990’s). (In Kern Country mostly, but elsewhere too)

How much oil do we actually sit on? Probably more than Alaska, maybe as much as Iraq which we are presently fighting for. Recently (about 6 months ago) oil “broke through” the ground here in the Valley in an “unexpected” place, well north of Kern County. At first it was thought to be a pipe line, but then it was reported that it was a natural break from an up to then unknown reserve – then suddenly the news story disappeared. We personally went to the spot of ground. I have seen the La Brea Tar Pits of Los Angeles – it looked something like that, except there was chain link fencing, a lot of heavy equipment and a “clean up” effort underway along with a capping of the bubbling crude. How much do you want to bet that that source will be capped and not tapped for a long while to come?

Kern County California: “The valley, of course, is not all agriculture. The 'kicker', especially in the
far south end, has long been petroleum. Kern is the nation's number one oil-producing county, accounting for more than half of the state's production even when the off-shore component is included. Kern alone produces more crude oil than Oklahoma!”
http://geography.berkeley.edu/ProjectsResources/Publications/Parsons_SauerLect.html

Then why on earth is California paying through the nose for oil/gasoline when we hold 21 refineries (most of the west coast production), we receive a large shipment of oil from overseas and Alaska andrefine and pump that to the rest of the USA? Not because oil companies are making a profit, but because state taxes on oil products has steadily increased – while at the same times tax breaks on solar, wind and now hybrid cars has been on the increase. Mind the Californian Government is not actually paying that out to people, instead it is offering tax incentives to companies and local governments to actually offer the breaks. That is cheaper for the State than actually handing out a check to each owner. Bank of America was recently brought into that fold (here in California). Solar power: http://www.partsonsale.com/nutshell1.html there are others out there.

http://www.petitiononline.com/casec/petition.html lays out a lot of interesting points about
California and the rest of the USA – consider those a moment when you think of Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma. SOSDD (Same old shit, different day)

Ok, Schwarzenegger is Republican, supported by President Bush, er, I mean was supported by the President. Why was Schwarzenegger supported? Because Bush thought he had a nice puppet to “control” California and its wealth. Schwarzenegger is proving to be thinking, self motivated, self interested (and sincerely interested in the State of California’s well being. Something that Bush and company (and the rest of the USA) dislike.

What isn’t national and international news is that we here in California are well aware that the USA
does not have our best interests in mind. Bush made that clear in 2001 when we suffered from rolling black outs. Yeah, you all might hear that we are close to another energy crises, but we are now holding our “cards” close to our chests. The fact is that when the news tells us we are at Stage whatever of a power crunch business and home owners turn off lights to conserve. If you think the reason why we haven’t had a power black out since 2001 is due to “good management” by the power companies, you are wrong, Californians have taken it upon themselves to do something. Come to California during a Stage Three Alert, walk into any store and half of the
lights are out – This is not mandated by any laws. We are all doing our part to conserve when we can.

[halva]

New Don Pedro Dam is under reconstruction – you can go to TID web site (http://www.tid.org/Default.aspx) and won’t see aword printed – go out to the dam and you see that
things are being constructed, machines and construction are taking place – inside mostly,
although some outside work is being done too. While you’re on that site note the new power plant: Walnut Energy Center.

“Using natural gas for fuel, the Walnut Energy Center is among the cleanest power generating
facilities of comparable size in the nation.” Natural Gas wells abound in the central valley,
there is one about 1/3 to ½ mile down the road from us. In the 1960’s it supplied the local area, in the 1990’s it was capped – not because it is depleted, but because it was thought that we should bring in natural gas from else where. Another, unmentioned in the media, fact is that about another ½ mile further down the road is another smaller natural gas power station being built. The road (which actually is the same one servicing our property) was all dug up a few months ago from the capped gas well to the power plant – of course we could strike that up to the small fact that along that stretch of road new houses are being built – I suspect that gas pipe was laid from the capped well to the power plant.

TID and MID are local suppliers of power around here, both of their sites are “helpful” if you are
looking for old information, however both MID and TID are pretty quiet about the actual building of power stations around here. Things are changing – a lot more than what is being said.

Now the problems with the Federal Government have been going on since the Bush administration, the one BEFORE Clinton. Reagan, former Governor of California had a soft spot for us – However since 1990 onward California has been treated like a red-headed step child.

Gov Wilson (R) (1991 – 1999) is the cause of a lot of power problems for California, he devised and
implemented the deregulation that lead to the energy crises, then, in 2001 he had a lot of stuff to say which amounted to “I got’s my money, screw you California” He also allowed the Feds to do us wrong on a lot of deals, if anything he helped to bring about some of those issues.

The politics and at home feelings for Bush, his Administration, the Federal Government and recent historical facts have to be taken into consideration. Also note that California has always
been the leader when it comes to environment, technology and all of that “stuff”.

So maybe environmental concerns is not the real big push in Schwarzenegger’s Cleaner Emissions controls, maybe there are political motivations that go well beyond Global Warming and Climate Change. Those are not actually State issues, those are issues that are more or less left to the local city and county governments, the reality is that the State can not afford to take on more costs presently. Mind the Hybrid Rebates are incentives through companies, cities and counties – this is due to a lack of funds because of Pete Wilson (R) and the Federal Government – Both I stress have black-balled California when it comes to funding.

“California is already the international leader in smog control technologies,” said Balmes. “Now we
must become the leader in technologies that reduce global warming pollution, and slow the warming process of our planet.”
http://www.californialung.org/press/040614GlobalWarming.html(June 14 2004)
Most likely we already are, we have solar power on private homes tied into the grid, which is
growing more each year, we are buying hybrid cars, we have the wind farms, we have a lot more natural gas power stations and dam power than you can shake a stick at (Interestingly enough around here they are also tapping the canal system for hydroelectric). The energy crises of 2001 has produced a society which is more aware about conservation and is willing to do anything – ANYTHING to keep the energy flowing. It also produced a state that is well aware of how our National Government feels about us.

Think about that – we were doing that well before the rest of the world decided air quality was a real issue. We are being “forced” by the Federal Governments and out of state power companies to become self sufficient and to find local (clean I might add) methods of generating power. Most of us already switched toward conservation methods at home and at work.

If Schwarzenegger is aware of Geo-Engineering he ain’t saying anything – but I think his policies are telling on how he thinks the problem needs to be addressed. Mr. Senator Dumbass from Oklahoma doesn’t care about the environment, but he does have an axe to grind and hatred toward California.

Schwarzenegger also knows that California is broke – the state is in debt up to its eyebrows and will be for a long while to come. Thus instead of passing laws and trying to come up with more money to support those laws, Schwarzenegger is pushing the local city and counties toward greener, cleaner incentives. Something Mr. Dumbass from Okalahoma either doesn’t know or totally ignores.

The People of California are the ones pushing environmental standards higher and higher, we Vote
those things upon ourselves. We agree to them and most importantly we believe it is not the duty ofour government to make us do it, instead “greening” is something we do for ourselves.

I suspect that California is getting ready to stick it to the man by seceding from the union.
California has long been whipped for being California, and now, once again, although we have
set the highest emissions standards of ANY other state, we are being whipped again.

WE don’t need the USA – They need us.

[jayreynolds]

If Schwarzenegger is aware of Geo-Engineering he ain’t saying anything – but I think his policies are telling on how he thinks the problem needs to be addressed. I suspect that California is getting ready to stick it to the man by seceding from the union.
California has long been whipped for being California, and now, once again, although we have
set the highest emissions standards of ANY other state, we are being whipped again.
WE don’t need the USA – They need us.

Oh, so David is thinking about new things these days, eh, Wayne?
He wants people to buy into his new "prophecy" dujour?

Let's not forget what he was sayng a few years ago when he hoaxed your people into believing he was in contact with a "Deep Shield" whistleblower.

He was forced to admit he was a liar.

The truth of the matter is that the Earth is dieing.
Wednesday, Nov 27, 2002
posted by David G. Stewart
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemt.../messages/90272
Subject: I asked a freind, who asked a relative, who knew a person who....

Ok, this is a long one. I just became aware of the probelm in our skies, and to tell the truth I have read all sorts of theories, from anti terrorist things to the take over of some super government.
Since all of these options lay open, I contacted a freind who has a relative who... Well you get the picture. I do not know how truthful this is, but the email I received this evening includes the following:
Do you really want to know what is going on? It isn't pretty, and it is far worse than the imagined evils that have been attributed to so called `Chemtrails'.
The truth of the matter is that the Earth is dieing.
Earth is dieing. The program in place is only a stop gap measure. The more dire estimates tell us that the problem is too far advanced to stop ecological disaster. The oceans are dieing, the fresh water supply is depleted, and the very ground in which we grow our crops is yielding up poisons.

Global Warming and UV Summer are the issues that face us today, tomorrow we will be looking at famine, thirst and the spread of disease.

We have forestalled for a few decades the death of our civilization. It is not a cure; it is not the solution. Unless a miracle takes place during the next 20 years, mankind and planet earth will die.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://web.archive.org/web/20030608...L/000078-2.html
Posted By David G. Stewart
June 4, 2003
"Yes, there was three posts made which are said to be emails from A Friend.
I lied."

"My source did not send me emails, especially from work. I think we all are aware that every piece of electronic mail is monitored, and that if a person is closely tied into a project of this magnitude that they would have a close surveillance of their emails."
"I met with my source a few times. I took notes, I did not dictate - I do not write fast enough to do so. Thus if the writing style is familiar, well, you now know why."
"Yes, I did quote a few things out of the encyclopedia, my notes were far from perfect when it came to technical stuff. Again, they were notes, not dictation."
---------------------------------------------------------------------

To learn more about this evolution from hoax to hoax debunked, see the following postings, where both Wayne Hall and David G. Stewart get their asses handed to them all chewed to hell:
http://www.debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=35721&page=1&pp=40

[halva]

bump

[halva]

Here is some more news from Chemtrails 911. No faulting it from the viewpoint of content, but Chemtrails 911's protesting, petitioning approach is the surest way to lose fights in our Brave New World.

For a start, anyone who is protesting about anything looks ridiculous on television and is thus by definition in the wrong.

Rule number one is to make sure that you get THE OTHER SIDE complaining and protesting. It sometimes takes some thought to figure out how to do it, but with some ingenuity is more often possible than is evident at first sight.

HELLO FOLKS!

There has been some alarming information coming out on chemtrails.

The FDA wants your comments on Nanotechnology by October 2006. This link will give you an idea of how important it is to send your comments NOW: http://chemtrails911.com/nanotechnology.htm

There have been several news articles that have come out stating what we have been saying all along about an aspect of the aerial spraying operation. They claim they need to spray our sky for our own good to mitigate global warming, which is totally insane but already in operation.

As MSNBC reports, Noble Prize winner Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research advocates "injecting sulfates into the stratosphere." He says "the most sensible way to get sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere would be to send numerous planes — more than the world’s current commercial airline fleet — to take it there." He also adds that "another method to get these aerosols into the air is the possible addition of sulfur compounds to airplane fuel, which would then form sulfur dioxide." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14840178/

There are several new postings on our website… actually too many to list here. Please visit www.CHEMTRAILS911.com.

Thanks!

*www.chemtrails911.com

Look Up! Wake Up! Speak Out!

[halva]

Dialogue with Rosalind Peterson (http://www.enouranois.gr/english/reportazenglish/rosalin_peterson.htm) now online.

[jayreynolds]

Dialogue with Rosalind Peterson (http://www.enouranois.gr/english/reportazenglish/rosalin_peterson.htm) now online.

From your link:

Wayne Hall: As another person involved in “chemtrails” activism firstly let me say that I have been impressed by your achievement so far.

Rosalind Peterson: Thank you very much! Please note that the word “chemtrails” is not part of my vocabulary any longer and I seldom use the word. Our elected officials are all being told by the United States Air Force, NOAA and NASA (just to name a few entities-also include most universities), have declared that “chemtrails” are part of a conspiracy theory and the United States Air Force (document on my website – http://www.californiaskywatch.com - or you can go the United States Air Force website and read the document), has investigated this word and declared that it is a hoax. If you go to the NOAA or NASA websites they list this word in a document written at taxpayer expense under a whole section of 12+ pages on conspiracy theories. Senator Feinstein of California likes to have letters from the Air Force sent to constituents letting them know about this hoax.
Therefore, those that use this word with their elected representatives get these letters and since our elected officials can't be connected with conspiracy theories and Internet Hoax theories our voice has not been heard. The only way to be heard is to use the NASA vocabulary on this subject - see NASA October 2005 Newsletter. I think you will find this helpful.

"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
~Philip K. Dick


Wayne, while your people might hope to "unring the bell" by discontinuing the use of the word which began the hoax, the fact remains that it is far too late. The "chemtrails" hue and cry have become hopelessly imbedded in your people's lexicon and none of you can expect to distance yourselves from it.

The hoax originally began by use of the word contrails to describe line seen in the sky. Eventually, my buddy Chem11 coined the term "chemtrails" as a propaganda tool because he believed that he could change perceptioins only after the meaning of the word were changed.

You can't simply switch around meanings of words in this willy-nilly manner without demonstrating to perceptive people your deceptive intent. You reveal yourself far too easily, and once again fail.

Now I also see that you've decided to air the hoax's dirty laundry in public.
Burned bridges can't be used in any other way, except as a slippery foothold to prop up your own ego, can they?

"footslobber" took the route of becoming one of the anti-aviation activists and now you disrespect her on your website in no uncertain terms:

"Which of the two sides of the non-debate between geoengineering advocates and anti-air-travel campaigners is more guilty of distorting scientific fact.?

If anything the anti-aircraft campaigners seem more guilty, despite the fact that – or perhaps because of the fact that – their political objectives seem less unobjectionable, and even praiseworthy...

Shame on you, Wayne.

[halva]

Still have your head up your anus Raynolds?

It is your "reading" of reality, not mine, that the anti-aircraft campaigners are protecting.

[jayreynolds]

It is your "reading" of reality, not mine, that the anti-aircraft campaigners are protecting.
I DO understand that they do your hoax no good, Wayne. I told you that years ago, and now you finally see that they could have never been your allies.

[halva]

Deborah and Chem are embarking on examination of all this. What a shame you are such a liar. You make distinctions that they are not making.

[jayreynolds]

Deborah and Chem are embarking on examination of all this. What a shame you are such a liar. You make distinctions that they are not making.
Who is "Deborah", Wayne?

[halva]

bump

[jayreynolds]

Who is "Deborah", Wayne?
ba-da-rump

[halva]

.

[jayreynolds]

Deborah and Chem are embarking on examination of all this. What a shame you are such a liar. You make distinctions that they are not making.
Who is "Deborah", Wayne?
Like my buddy chem11 said to you, where is your substantiation that I am a liar?
Since you have none, readers will note the continued unsupportable claims you make.

[halva]

bump

[halva]

English translation of new short article by Aristarchos at "Enouranois":
http://www.enouranois.gr/sygrafeis/aristarxos/index1.htm

In the shadow of everyday routine, and elections

Since the beginning of September we have observed a new escalation, on a daily basis, in the aerial spraying over the towns and villages of Greece. As has been mentioned before at this site, the phenomenon of the aerial spraying is a global – and not merely Greek – reality.

Our skies crawl with these strange shapes – lines, crosses, parallels. The results of the recent phenomena we had for approximately two weeks in mid-Septmber. This is because the chemicals they are spraying us with absorb the moisture in the atmosphere, and create artificial clouds and moisture. These chemical compounds also contain toxic metals: aluminium, barium, titanium and others. These metals, which they spray in the form of microscopic particles necessarily end up in the water table, on cultivated farmland, in our lungs, among other places, and while this crime is being committed against the environment and our health, the relevant authorities are impressively “absent”, either because they don’t know exactly what is happening, or because they want to give that impression.

At the same time, in the runup to the coming municipal elections, the government and the opposition parties occupy themselves with irrelevant bickering… clearly giving their consent and acquiescence to the plans of the powerful international criminal regime of globalization. And Greek citizens, like the citizens of every country of the so-called Western sphere are for the most part absorbed in the affairs of everyday life, family and professional obligations, and also the pursuit of the utopian “capitalist success story”… in these times many of our fellow citizens seem to have as their chief, indeed exclusive, goal the acquisition of bigger and more sumptuous material goods, whatever the cost and the negative effects of this endeavour on their health, their quality of life, their economic independence and freedom, as well as on their personal and social relations. As a result banks are the most profitable enterprises, readily extending every kind of loan with money they do not own, having made usury the most powerful, and apparently the most ”acceptable” form of profiteering. Our community seems to be in a state of stupor, perhaps because of the never-ending advertisements, perhaps because of the narcotic effect of other chemical substances that unknown agencies are spraying over our heads.

In any case, relatively few of out fellow citizens appear to have the time, inclination or necessary level of alertness to be following the real news, the real “current events” of our times. All one has to do is look at the sky every now and then, or note the climatic changes of recent years to perceive that something both very strange and very significant is happening in our atmospheric environment. Something about which the official authorities and the mass media have so far maintained absolute silence.

In the final analysis the question to be posed is this: Will the human community continue to live in the shade of everyday routine, in the shadow of each new round of elections and petty political “alternations” in office, in the shadow of ignorance and cultural obscurantism? Or will the few be able to awaken the many, to dispel that shadow that the international criminal regime has cast over our skies, our consciousness and our lives.

The answer is to be provided soon, by you.

Aristarchos

[halva]

Correspondence from Australia:

Don't know if you access the Sydney Morning Herald online, but the paper version on 26 September had an article on geoengineering by a Philip Sherwell entitled 'Weird science to the rescue' (p. 16). No chemtrail stuff but other scary techno-fix stuff of Loony Technophiles For Coal-Oil-And-Nuke Capitalism (also known as scientists). Gist: "Ideas that might have been seen as totally wacky even a year ago are now being actively considered" (Dr Roger Angel, Brit astronomer at Uni of Arizona, proposing trillions of small lenses in space to deflect sunlight); German Nobel prize winner Paul Crutzen now supporting injecting sun-blocking sulfates into the stratosphere (already supported by the psychotic Edward 'Strangelove' Teller in 1997 of course) which could increase acid rain and have the slight side effect of turning the sky permanently grey across the whole globe; apparently "the geoengineering bandwagon can trace its roots to a conference on climate change at Cambridge University in 2004" ...

Add further adolescent wetdreams like 'covering swathes of the desert with giant plastic sheets to reflect sunlight' or 'fertilising the sea with iron to create blooms of plantlife that would suck up carbon dioxide' (and nukes and carbon sequestration and carbon trading and biotech/genetic engineering and nanotechnology...) and you have the final versions of 'business as usual'. Also known as capitalism's historical trajectory towards a Total System, i.e. of totally making over the planet, humans and all nature into an artificial Second Nature constructed by and for the needs of capital accumulation and the maintenance of class power...(Meanwhile minor little distractions like Peak Oil and climate catastrophe loom in the wings while, on the whole, 'the people', vaguely uneasy underneath, exhausted from overwork and urban/survival stress, continue to watch television, talk on talkback radio and believe in parties and leaders...Interesting times, n'est-ce pas?)

[halva]

Greek online chemtrails discussionists discover the site "Enouranois":
http://www.esoterica.gr/forums/topic.asp?whichpage=1&ARCHIVEVIEW=&TOPIC_ID=6236

[halva]

Rosalind Peterson and Bridget Conroy speaking in Portland, Oregon.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/10/347272.shtml

[halva]

http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/wayne+ros.html

[Yaak]

Wayne, I was looking through some old photos (late to mid 1970's) a couple of weeks ago and noticed what some people refer to as chemtrails. The photos were taken with a Kodak Instamatic, so I apologize for the low image quality. Since chemtrail proponents claim that there were no such things before the late 1990's, do you have any idea as to what the white configuations in the sky are?

Thank you in advance.



KOA Campground, Vail, Colorado, May, 1975







California Coast near San Fransisco, July, 1976








Puerto De La Libertad, Sonora, Mexico, October, 1980.







January of 1976, looking south over Phoenix, AZ from a KOA Kampground

[whitemajikman]

I was looking through some old photos (late to mid 1970's) a couple of weeks ago and noticed what some people refer to as chemtrails. The photos were taken with a Kodak Instamatic, so I apologize for the low image quality. Since chemtrail proponents claim that there were no such things before the late 1990's, do you have any idea as to what the white configuations in the sky are?

Thank you in advance.

They Are normal Contrails.........

Chemtrails only Exist in the Minds of Conspiracy Theorist's up to this point because of the lack of credible evidence to the contrary.

In Fact it was the Chemtrail Activists themselves who turned an unexplained phenomena(an Increase in Contrail Formation) into a JOKE with their never-ending conspiratorial speculation which included theories ranging from Aliens from outer Space to global de-population and lead to people actually threatening to shoot down jet airliners.

In Retrospect I think if The Activists Didn't spend most of their time coming up with alternate theories and promoting those theories as Reality as I was even guilty of doing and actually spent time focused on the facts and not on Fiction, they would have more credibility today as would their theory.

Ed Is That a pic of You Lumbering in the Surf of Puerto De La Libertad?


WMM

[Yaak]

Shawn, you're not a chemmie this week? You do keep us on our toes.:)



Ed Is That a pic of You Lumbering in the Surf of Puerto De La Libertad? Ed? Huh? I thought I was Jason. Anyway, yes that's me. The little girl in the Pacific coast photo is my 8 year old daughter who just turned 39 this month.

[whitemajikman]

Shawn, you're not a chemmie this week? You do keep us on our toes.:)
LMAO.....

No, I finally seen the Light Of truth Regarding Contrails.


Ed? Huh? I thought I was Jason. Anyway, yes that's me. The little girl in the Pacific coast photo is my 8 year old daughter who just turned 39 this month.

Cool Pictures Ed.......

And I Hope Your Doing Well.......

I Am .....

And I Still Want you to make it up north to see me sometime between now and when hell freezes over........LOL.

WMM

[halva]

.

[jayreynolds]

Looks like Wayne is dumbstruck by your photos!

Amazing to reflect that this all started ten years ago when Larry Wayne Harris:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/dossier/crime/bio/harris.html

and Richard Finke:
http://www.greenapple.com/~ricfinke/civil.htm

dreamed up a way to promote some book sales!
http://www.zianet.com/wblase/endtimes/biowar2.htm

[halva]

I've never taken Yaak off my ignore list. I didn't see his photos.

[jayreynolds]

I've never taken Yaak off my ignore list. I didn't see his photos.
Yeah, right.

[halva]

Since Socrates is in a mood for digging through archives I put him onto checking out the CICDD archives of September 2003, the days when you heroes were actually capable of influencing, involving and misleading innocent bystanders at internet forums rather than merely exchanging pathetic in-jokes between yourselves in the face of general indifference or contempt.

[jayreynolds]

Since Socrates is in a mood for digging through archives I put him onto checking out the CICDD archives of September 2003, the days when you heroes were actually capable of influencing, involving and misleading innocent bystanders at internet forums rather than merely exchanging pathetic in-jokes between yourselves in the face of general indifference or contempt.
You mean the forum where you failed to convince any member at all of your hoax, and then threw a hissy fit and tried to get those who disagreed with you banned? Rather strange that the regular members eventually came to hate you, Wayne, because they found you an intolerant hypocrite when it came to participatory Direct Democracy. You were shown to be the fascist you really are.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cicdd/messages/8049?viscount=-30&l=1

Of course, that has never happened since, has it?

Viz. Socrates and the rest have all labeled you a disinformationalist:
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=Fight&action=display&thread=1158294902&page=7

No, never happened before, either:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=179&threadID=44284&tstart=0

and of course, earlier this year when you failed to impress any scientists at realclimate whatsoever with the hoax. As I had predicted, even without any involvement by me, you rapidly got shot down:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/geo-engineering-in-vogue/

It's almost as if your mere presence breeds contempt, backstabbing, and infighting, even among those who believe in the hoax.

Some say that is exactly the purpose you serve, Wayne.

They could be right!

[halva]

Things are going quite well for us at the moment Raynolds.

[halva]

http://www.koukoulis-aegina.gr/index.html

[halva]

They found you an intolerant hypocrite when it came to participatory Direct Democracy. You were shown to be the fascist you really are.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cicdd/messages/8049?viscount=-30&l=1

http://www.debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=651251&postcount=1345

Some people are in the habit of calling people they are fighting “fascists”. This is done on both sides (all sides) of politics. The logic seems to be that the fascists (Mussolini, Hitler, etc) have been defeated and if you call someone a fascist, that person will be defeated too. It is the logic of "sympathetic magic" and is primitive.

[halva]

http://www.koukoulis-aegina.gr/index.html

Koukoulis narrowly won the election.

http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=Discussion&action=display&thread=1150562739&page=3#1161178534
(scroll down)

[halva]

Raynolds see if the trick that worked for you with CICDD and with Arianna Huffington will work for you again.

Ring the new mayor of Aigina Panagiotis Koukoulis and tell him that his defeated predecessor Dimitrios Mourtzis was misled by hoaxers.

[jayreynolds]

Raynolds see if the trick that worked for you with CICDD and with Arianna Huffington will work for you again.

Ring the new mayor of Aigina Panagiotis Koukoulis and tell him that his defeated predecessor Dimitrios Mourtzis was misled by hoaxers.

I act and think as if I am the centre of the world.


To be brutally honest Halva I don't give a rat's behind what is going on in your local Greek politics. This thread concerns CTs - so unless you can show some relevance of these recent posts to the subject matter of this thread, would you kindly take your subversive drivel elsewhere such as to Channel 11.
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=Discussion&action=display&thread=1150562739&page=3#1161595345


QED

[halva]

Raynolds I am pleased to see that under the influence of Big Bunny you may be starting to acquire some of his virtues, such as the virtue of minding one's own business.

[halva]

.

[halva]

devil

from Greek. diabolos "accuser, slanderer" (scriptural loan-translation of Heb. satan), from diaballein "to slander, attack," lit. "throw across," from dia- "across, through" + ballein "to throw."

In this connection see the discussion of the demonic in David Ray Griffin's "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11". http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Faith-Truth-Behind-Reflection/dp/0664231179

[halva]

.

[jayreynolds]

Re: Wayne Hall and the Marketing of Air Pollution
« Reply #110 on Yesterday at 7:56am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Big Bunny, it wasn't even Chem11 who provoked me to respond to Halva. It was Halva himself who triggered this, after I had tried to make a peace offering. But if Halva is correct, Chem11 is a fudger who avoids answering "problematics", and Lou, myself and Foot Soldier instigate the return of Reynolds after Halva has heroically tried to shut down the man's operation. Yeah right, maybe Halva should lay off of that potent Greek weed.

"In rebuttal of what" was the same answer he gave to chem11 when he said "substantiate what".

He is fascist in that he doesn't realise that dialogue is a two-way street. He doesn't realise that his avoiding of answering questions is leading to him losing credibility.

Here's Halva's latest take on Chem11 in regards to "Wayne Hall and the Marketing of Pollution":

"Chem admitted that he started that thread against his own better judgement, and he has since said that only he is to blame for what Big Bunny is now calling "this mess". You should be helping Chem to get out of the mess rather than simply saying that you are not to blame for it."

I missed where Chem11 said that only he himself is to blame for this "mess". I am about ready to stop posting at the chemtrail forums. Halva is so full of crap, as are many others posting on the internet. He seems to have no problem with the rampant disinfo yet still maintains some strange fascination with Jay Reynolds.

How are Chem11 and Deborah fudging things up you creep?
Why do you keep getting warnings about your dumbass posts?

Those are rhetorical questions too. So take the olive branch I offered, put it in your pipe and smoke it fool.
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=Fight&action=display&thread=1158294902&page=8#1161788216


Wayne, what you really need to let these people who hate you as much as I do that they too are just as guilty of disinformation as you are. My old buddy Lou Aubuchont is posting crap about 'Morgellon's" disease being sprayed and giving me free advertising at CTC, just as much as you. http://chemtrailcentral.com/forum/msg102858.html&sid=f94600fcc1af93aebb6193381dfaa506#102858


Chem 11 has totally given up on "Chemtrails" and "Megasprayer" and has changed his forum name to
Forum Name:
"Super Contrails"!!
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi

Get that, Wayne???

Those who now mock you by saying you are
-"full of crap"
-"fascist"
-"a creep"

All these have joined my side and are calling those lines in the sky by their real name:
-

Contrails!!

Pu THAT in your pipe and smoke it, old bean!!!!

[halva]

Raynolds you can play on the arguments between me and some American chemtrails activists as much as you like. It won't get you a step closer to regaining the credibility you lose when you show yourself unwilling to do in the case of the new mayor of Aigina in Greece what you have done inevitably in other cases that the opportunity to expose us "hoaxers" has arisen, i.e. notify the person concerned, wherever he is in the world, and make him feel the need to dissociate himself from us.

The new mayor's predecessor "fell for" what you describe as "the hoax". Why not give the new council the chance to set the record straight and make it clear that it is not going to continue the policies of the previous council on the subject of "chemtrails"?

Why? Because it is you who are the hoaxer and in this particular case an intervention of this kind by you would induce not fear but an increase in interest in the subject on the part of the new Aigina Council.

Not everyone in the world is in the grip of the neurotic fear - and confusion - that grips Americans, including many chemtrails activists, induced by, and exploited by, people like you.

[halva]

.

[jayreynolds]

The new mayor's predecessor "fell for" what you describe as "the hoax". Why not give the new council the chance to set the record straight and make it clear that it is not going to continue the policies of the previous council on the subject of "chemtrails"?

Why not?
In the first place, I don't jump to your bell, Wayne, it is your job to do your worst and fail at every opportunity. Next, you already fudged up the hoax in a village of 5000 in Greece, and got paid well enough for such a small job. If you can't pull the wool over a bunch of ignorant villagers, I am very happy to ignore them.


Re: When is a contrail more than a contrail?
« Reply #30 on Oct 25, 2006, 11:45pm »
Quote:
Reynolds is done. All he can do is copy and paste us calling him a fascist. The funny part is that he can't respond. I like this way of ignoring him. I find him to be quite harmless. It's the fake disinfo crowd you have to look out for. Funny with how all those sensationalistic websites don't mention the geoengineering. That could be a sign that we are on to their sky games.

There is an objective difficulty to his adopting your accusations against me, namely that I am secretly in collusion with him.

But the "Reynolds mindset" still calls the shots in society as a whole. Even here in Europe.

Triumphalism in relation to the straight-down-the-line old-fashioned debunkers is unjustified.

I wish it were not necessary to keep repeating this again and again.

The "debunkers are defeated. Let's find the hidden enemies now" line of thought is, pardon my saying this, Socrates, neurotic.
« Last Edit: Oct 25, 2006, 11:46pm by halva »
http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1160627260&page=3#1161834319



Not everyone in the world is in the grip of the neurotic fear - and confusion - that grips Americans, including many chemtrails activists, induced by, and exploited by, people like you.

Not very nice to call my buddies at Gastronomous Neurotics, Wayne.
Try to be more subtle and abstruse next time.

[halva]

Are you secretly colluding with me Raynolds?

Not only have you betrayed, torn to pieces and stamped underfoot your own militia-patriot milieu. You are now making even intelligent and serious Americans look panic-stricken and ridiculous.

[halva]

(addressed to Raynolds)

Not everyone in the world is in the grip of the neurotic fear - and confusion - that grips Americans, including many chemtrails activists, induced by, and exploited by, people like you.





http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1150562739&page=3#1161655159

I've seen at least a dozen other Fight Clubs open on other forums since the idea was introduced here. If nothing else, we can safely say that we introduced this meme into online communities and if for no other reason than that we should be reaping the benefits of the concept (since we are also apparently saddled with the baggage that comes with it).

My only other option is to throw up my hands up and allow everyone to flame on wherever they so desire.

Or I could take on the role of the 'Decider' and arbitrarily ban someone like Halva for being controversial, disliked or untrusted. Sure would save me a lot of 'Internet Typing', as Rosalind Peterson would say... but I think we've all had our fill of dictatorial halfwits at this point.


.

[halva]

Say something in defence of "your buddy", Raynolds.

I did tell those Americans that I wanted you silent, but they don't want you silent and you don't speak Greek. What could motivate me to insist?

Of course, if you wish to depart this scene, this would be the best time, from the viewpoint of your ego, for you to do so.

What would Arianna Stassinopoulou-Huffington have to say, I wonder?

She is an American.

[halva]

Gabriel Stetter's "White Skies" article now in Greek at Enouranois.

http://www.enouranois.gr/sygrafeis/Gabriel_Stetter/index.htm

[jayreynolds]

Say something in defence of "your buddy", Raynolds.
.
It was good for my buddy Chem11 to ban you for three weeks. You were getting a mite too big for your britches, old bean.

[halva]

Whaddya mean three weeks?

[halva]

Gabriel Stetter's article on Greenpeace has also been translated into Greek.
http://www.enouranois.gr/sygrafeis/Gabriel_Stetter/indexgap2.htm

[jayreynolds]

Whaddya mean three weeks?
Prove me wrong, old buddy.
halva
News Anchor
Warning Level - 100%
Temporary Ban
member is offline

[halva]

Permanent self-ban. (Meaning of original remark)

[halva]

What are you going to do with all these chemmies, anyway, when you get them on your side?

[halva]

http://www.debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=666441&postcount=7794

[jayreynolds]

Permanent self-ban. (Meaning of original remark)

Time will tell.
Sometimes your own medicine is a bitter pill to swallow, eh?

[halva]

Time will tell.
Sometimes your own medicine is a bitter pill to swallow, eh?

I think that perhaps Amber must have realized that it was destined to end like this, irrespective of any subjective desires that it should not.

[halva]

http://www.debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=669676&postcount=7810

.

[halva]

Your help needed to stop a bio-warfare agent research facility, that
could work with the deadliest agents known to human-kind, at the
Livermore nuclear weapons lab. There are two things you can do to stop
deadly bio-warfare agents from coming to the Bay Area:

1. Send an electronic letter to the Department of Homeland to tell them
that there should be NO bio-warfare agent research facility at
Livermore
nuclear weapons lab. It is quick and easy to do. Just click here to
take
action: http://capwiz.com/wagingpeace/issues/alert/?alertid=9144536
(Background information below).

2. Attend the Bay Area Convergence to Stop Bio-Weapons. This free
convergence will be at 1204 Preservation Park Way in Oakland, CA on
Monday, November 13 from 7-9 PM (details below).

With your help we can stop this dangerous expansion of bio-warfare
agent
research proposed at Livermore nuclear weapons lab. In just 24 hours,
the Dept. of Homeland Security has received 1,000 letters opposing this
plan. Please send your letter today! Thank you for taking action.

Peace,
Tara

Say No to Building a Biological Weapons Agent Lab in California's
Agricultural Heartland!

*Tell the Department of Homeland Security that you don't want a
biological warfare agent research facility at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory or its high explosive testing range!!

*The University of California Regents have applied to the Department of
Homeland Security to build a bio-warfare agent research facility at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's high explosive testing range
adjacent to the city of Tracy, California (population 78,773).

The designs for the lab state that it will be one of the world's
largest
biological warfare labs; approximately half a million square feet for
the facility, about the size of five Walmarts, on 30-100 acres of land.
It would house some of the most deadly diseases on the planet. This
facility may experiment with live Anthrax, "Mad Cow" Disease, plague
and
other deadly pathogens, including some, like the Ebola Virus, for which
there is no known cure. Scientists would use these pathogens to
experiment on livestock such as cattle, pigs, and sheep.

Placing a biological weapons facility in this densely populated area
that is also one of California's agricultural centers is wrong. The
consequences of any kind of release would be disastrous for the health
and economy of the surrounding community.

Additionally, because this work would take place in a nuclear weapons
research lab, other countries may assume that we are developing an
offensive weapons program. How would the US prove otherwise?!!

The Department of Homeland Security considers community acceptance a
major factor for determining the location of the bio-warfare agent
research facility! Signing this letter will show that the national
community does not accept this!
http://capwiz.com/wagingpeace/issues/alert/?alertid=9144536

"Bio-Convergence" summit
Monday, November 13
7 PM - 9 PM, Western States' offices
1204 Preservation Park Way, Oakland (BART accessible from 12th St.
station)
(925) 443-7148 for details

The goal: To engage Bay Area and other No. Calif. groups, community
leaders and elected officials in building a regional network to prevent
the proliferation of dangerous bio-warfare agent research facilities in
the Bay Area and Central Valley. Further, we aim to reorient the Bush
Administration’s present biodefense policy, moving it away from exotic
bio-weapon agent research and toward strengthening the international
Biological Weapons Convention and improving our public health
infrastructure.

The summit will open with a short educational panel and then move into
a
facilitated discussion of strategies and tactics. Come prepared to
consider how this issue best fits into your group’s mission and
activities.

If you know of any peace, environmental, faith-based, gmo, health,
animal rights, civic or other groups or elected officials that should
be
included in the summit, please call them — or send us their email
address and we will invite them.

This event is being organized by Tri-Valley CAREs and is co-sponsored
by
Western States Legal Foundation (which is providing the meeting space)
and the San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility.
And, if your organization would like to co-sponsor the
“bio-convergence,” call us for details at (925) 443-7148

For more information contact:
Tri-Valley CAREs *2582 Old First Street* Livermore, CA 94551*Phone
(925) 443-7148*Fax (925) 443-0177
--
Tara Dorabji
Outreach Director
Tri-Valley CAREs
www.trivalleycares.org
tara@trivalleycares.org
ph: (925) 443-7148
fax: (925) 443-0177

[halva]

Educational Forum: On U.S. Senate Bill 517 – Experimental Weather Modification
Adverse impacts on Agriculture and Micro-Climates
Current Weather Modification Programs
Date: November 4th, 2006
Location: Main Public Library, 801 SW 10th Avenue,
Portland, Oregon 12 Noon – 5:30 P.M.

Contact: David Morrison Portland, Oregon (503) 295-6882
E-Mail: morrison@morrisonbooks.com

Guest Speakers & Presentations by:
Bridget Conroy, Agriculture Defense Coalition, Arizona Representative
Post Office Box 54297
Phoenix, Arizona 85078-0847
(602) 404-0847
E-Mail: bcolemanconroy8@yahoo.com

Rosalind Peterson, Agriculture Defense Coalition, California Representative
Post Office Box 499
Redwood Valley, California 95470
(707) 485-7520
E-Mail: info@californiakskywatch.com
Website: californiaskywatch.com
Former U.S.D.A Agriculture Crop Loss Adjustor
California Farm Service Agency, State of California

Topics include:
U.S. Senate Bill 517 & U.S. House Bill 2005 ** (An experimental weather modification bill.)*

U.S. Senate Bill 517 and U.S. House Bill 2995, a bill that would allow experimental weather modification by artificial methods and implement a national weather modification policy, does not include agriculture or public oversight. It is expected to be brought to the floor for a vote in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House in 2006.

The appointed Board of Directors established by this bill does not include any agricultural, water, EPA, or public representatives, and has no provisions for Congressional, State, County, or public oversight of their actions or expenditures. The implications of passage of this bill will be discussed.

2) Experimental weather modification programs (Both current and proposed)

More than 50 experimental programs were used in 2005* listed by NOAA in the Western United States and more programs are ongoing in 2006.* The impacts of these programs will be examined in depth.

3) Adverse impacts of jet fuel emissions and persistent jet contrails on crop and their impact on crop production and human health.* Persistent jet contrails produce man-made clouds (NASA October 2005 Newsletter), changing our climate, exacerbating global warming, and negatively impacting natural resources.* Research in this area will be presented.

4) Atmospheric heating and testing programs that may impact our weather and may be polluting our water and air with toxic chemicals will be examined.* EPA required drinking water test results taken throughout two states by government agencies will be introduced.

5) Tree declines and lower crop production across the United States will be discussed along with issues of global dimming and reduced photosynthesis.

6) Geoengineering plans that would add sulfur and other toxic chemicals to our atmosphere and oceans - impacts on public health, crop production, and trees will be explored during this educational forum.

*We are requesting volunteers from* Oregon, Washington, and surrounding states, who are interested in attending or volunteering their time for this event to contact David Morrison.* **

Available at this educational symposium will be a Science Channel DVD on experimental current weather modification programs, photographs, posters, and educational materials.* Presentations will be made regarding the various subjects listed above.

We will also present information and discussion of action that can be taken by groups and individuals that are interested in learning more about these subjects, what your elected officials know about U.S. Senate Bill 517, and its ultimate impact on your water supplies, climate, and crop production.*

Learn more about these topics – contact us if you have additional questions.

http://www.chemtrails911.com/docs/-%202006_june-december/Portland%20Oregon%20Weather%20Modification%20Forum %20Nov.4,%202006.pdf

Spreading the word in support of www.californiakskywatch.com

[jayreynolds]

The chemtrails hoax is heading into negative territory
http://www.google.com/trends?q=chemtrails

[halva]

.

[halva]

The chemtrails hoax is heading into negative territory
http://www.google.com/trends?q=chemtrails


http://www.aegina.gr

Tell them, Raynolds. Don't be shy. Expose the hoaxers!

[halva]

WEATHER WARFARE?

United States Secretary of Defense William Cohen said, back in April of 1997, that there were terrorists who "... are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves..."

In my next book I show that the earth and sky have indeed been turned into weapons! I am Jerry E. Smith the author of "WEATHER WARFARE: The Military's Plan to Draft Mother Nature" and "HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy." In these books I lay bare the grim facts behind the pursuit of technologies that would allow terrorists, military strategists and "mad scientists" to intentionally wreck the environment -- and the national and transnational factions that use them.

WEATHER WARFARE is at the printer now and should be in Barnes & Noble, Borders, and other fine bookstores across the country by the middle of December 2006. It is a follow-up on my 1998 book about the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP).

WEATHER WARFARE covers the history of weather modification from the Rain Makers of the 1890s through the development of cloud seeding in the middle of the twentieth century to today's seeming ability to steer hurricanes. It also covers the 2004 Christmas Asian tsunami, the development of a "tsunami bomb" during World War II and the possibility of "earthquakes on demand" today.

Addressed at length is the dismal failure of the United Nations treaty prohibiting the hostile (military/terrorist) use of environmental modification. I believe that the refusal of the mainstream scientific community to believe that terrorists and/or the military are capable of, and currently engaged in intentional manipulation of the environment skews the data in the global warming debate. This is of the gravest importance, as the politics of the 21st century, and possibly our
survival as a species, will turn on how this debate plays out.

Also included is an update on recent developments at HAARP, including its possible connection to the crash of the Space Shuttle Columbia. Tackling the chemtrail controversy, this book examines claims that chemicals are being deliberately injected into our atmosphere. Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb, proposed putting up a "sunscreen" to save the earth from global warming -- is someone actually doing it?

Packed with hundreds of quotes from mainstream scientific, military and media sources, the environmental mayhem documented in this 381-page book is founded on a base of solid evidence -- no wild conspiracy theories here, just the terrifying facts!

If you would like Adventures Unlimited Press (AUP) to reserve for you a copy of "WEATHER WARFARE: The Military's Plan to Draft Mother Nature" [ISBN: 1-931882-60-6], call AUP at 1 (800) 718-4514 or (815) 253-6390.

As a special "thank you" all copies ordered now will be autographed by me! Again this book is at the printer now. Order now and your autographed copy will be shipped just as soon as they come in! At just $18.95 WEATHER WARFARE is a 6x9 paperback, it is illustrated, has three appendices, and contains an exhaustive 31-page bibliography with a list of important
websites.

Thanks! With your help we can make a difference!

Jerry E. Smith
Author & Lecturer
Vice President for Marketing, Public Relations & Product Development
Adventures Unlimited Press

PO Box 99, Kempton, IL 60946
jerryesmith@lycos.com

[jayreynolds]

Jerry E. Smith
Author & Lecturer
Vice President for Marketing, Public Relations & Product Development
Adventures Unlimited Press

PO Box 99, Kempton, IL 60946
jerryesmith@lycos.com

For a glimpse into the life of a drug-hazed Scientology cultist who lives a life of science fiction:
http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/jerry-e-smith.htm

[jayreynolds]

well, Wayne, I see your buddy, the Director of Tyndall Centre, has come out swinging against the climate catastrophists. Aren't these the people you were telling all your chemmie buddies to listen to?

Your disinformationalist tactics are going mainstream and nothing the Gastronomous people can do will stop it, eh?
=====================================
Chaotic world of climate truth

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm
By Mike Hulme
Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research


As activists organised by the group Stop Climate Chaos gather in London to demand action, one of Britain's top climate scientists says the language of chaos and catastrophe has got out of hand.


Do images of climate-related chaos distort the scientific truth?
Climate change is a reality, and science confirms that human activities are heavily implicated in this change.

But over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed in this country - the phenomenon of "catastrophic" climate change.

It seems that mere "climate change" was not going to be bad enough, and so now it must be "catastrophic" to be worthy of attention.

The increasing use of this pejorative term - and its bedfellow qualifiers "chaotic", "irreversible", "rapid" - has altered the public discourse around climate change.

This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as "climate change is worse than we thought", that we are approaching "irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate", and that we are "at the point of no return".

It seems that we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the (catastrophe) sceptics


I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric.

It seems that it is we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the (catastrophe) sceptics. How the wheel turns.

Boarding the bandwagon

Some recent examples of the catastrophists include Tony Blair, who a few weeks back warned in an open letter to EU head of states: "We have a window of only 10-15 years to take the steps we need to avoid crossing a catastrophic tipping point."

Today, a mass demonstration in Trafalgar Square will protest, aiming to "stop climate chaos" - the name for a coalition of environmental activists and faith-based organisations.

The BBC broadcast in May its Climate Chaos season of programmes. There is even a publicly-funded science research project called Rapid.


Scenarios of climate change are significant enough without invoking catastrophe and chaos as unguided weapons


Why is it not just campaigners, but politicians and scientists too, who are openly confusing the language of fear, terror and disaster with the observable physical reality of climate change, actively ignoring the careful hedging which surrounds science's predictions?

James Lovelock's book The Revenge of Gaia takes this discourse to its logical endpoint - the end of human civilisation itself.

What has pushed the debate between climate change scientists and climate sceptics to now being between climate change scientists and climate alarmists?

I believe there are three factors now at work.

First, the discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device being mobilised in the context of failing UK and Kyoto Protocol targets to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.

The signatories to this UN protocol will not deliver on their obligations. This bursting of the campaigning bubble requires a determined reaction to raise the stakes - the language of climate catastrophe nicely fits the bill.

Hence we now have the militancy of the Stop Climate Chaos activists and the megaphone journalism of the Independent newspaper, with supporting rhetoric from the prime minister and senior government scientists.

Others suggest that the sleeping giants of the Gaian Earth system are being roused from their millennia of slumber to wreck havoc on humanity.

Media 'peddles climate porn'
Second, the discourse of catastrophe is a political and rhetorical device to change the frame of reference for the emerging negotiations around what happens when the Kyoto Protocol runs out after 2012.

The Exeter conference of February 2005 on "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change" served the government's purposes of softening-up the G8 Gleneagles summit through a frenzied week of "climate change is worse than we thought" news reporting and group-think.

By stage-managing the new language of catastrophe, the conference itself became a tipping point in the way that climate change is discussed in public.

Third, the discourse of catastrophe allows some space for the retrenchment of science budgets.

It is a short step from claiming these catastrophic risks have physical reality, saliency and are imminent, to implying that one more "big push" of funding will allow science to quantify them objectively.

We need to take a deep breath and pause.

Fear and terror

The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. It will not be visible in next year's global assessment from the world authority of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

To state that climate change will be "catastrophic" hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science.

Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?

The language of fear and terror operates as an ever-weakening vehicle for effective communication or inducement for behavioural change.


The language of politicians can be as strong as that of campaigners
This has been seen in other areas of public health risk. Empirical work in relation to climate change communication and public perception shows that it operates here too.

Framing climate change as an issue which evokes fear and personal stress becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. By "sexing it up" we exacerbate, through psychological amplifiers, the very risks we are trying to ward off.

The careless (or conspiratorial?) translation of concern about Saddam Hussein's putative military threat into the case for WMD has had major geopolitical repercussions.

We need to make sure the agents and agencies in our society which would seek to amplify climate change risks do not lead us down a similar counter-productive pathway.

The IPCC scenarios of future climate change - warming somewhere between 1.4 and 5.8 Celsius by 2100 - are significant enough without invoking catastrophe and chaos as unguided weapons with which forlornly to threaten society into behavioural change.

I believe climate change is real, must be faced and action taken. But the discourse of catastrophe is in danger of tipping society onto a negative, depressive and reactionary trajectory.

[halva]

1. First of all, I believe the Horizons show on global dimming was definitely over-produced and over-dramatized. However, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Without such effects much of the younger audience would likely have lost interest half-way
through and the sort of discussions that are going on now would probably not be happening. I have heard from an amazing amount of young people (high school and college students) since that show aired. They aren't necessarily "scared" but instead just want to learn more about global dimming. In my opinion, these sorts of
shows have two primary responsibilities: (1) Educate the public about latest scientific research on important topics and (2) impact on them the importance of how these findings could potentially affect their lives (or their children's) some day. The latter is crucial in order to have any sort of potential impact on policy makers by getting their attention. I do believe, however, that a
fine line is balanced because if it goes too far in the
sensationalist direction the risk is to lose credibility. As a
scientist, I did find myself feeling uncomfortable in spots where the statements seemed a bit too bold without sufficient evidence to back them up (even one of my own!).

Regards,

David T.

************************************************
Dr. David Travis
Professor and Chair
Department of Geography and Geology
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
************************************************
________________________________


Extracts from a dialogue:


halva

The BBC "Global Dimming" documentary was undoubtedly a danger-mongering programme. I have seen it now, and I don't think that is an inaccurate characterization. But I also think it true that the scientists were saying what they said on the basis of a conviction that they were not exaggerating anything about the seriousness of the situation.

Danger-mongering and sensationalism, by the Pentagon, the BBC, the makers of "The Day After Tomorrow" has been pressed into service (i) as a substitute for giving the whole picture in relation to climate change, including the whole 'mitigation' dimension. Whatever the reasons for the suppression of this latter dimension (avoidance of
private litigation, 'national security' classification, fear of 'mass panic') the effect of omitting it is to take the edge off the genuine urgency of the climate change issue.

Dangermongering also serves as a false solution to the dilemma posed by the fact that there are public issues where peer-reviewed scientific consensus is not allowed to prevail over views that are kept in the public arena for political reasons by powerful interest groups and defended ideologically on grounds of 'freedom of speech'.

See:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/mckibben_introduction.html

Because 'climate change sceptics' cannot be silenced, climate change non-sceptics resort to sensationalism and hysteria.

THIS IN TURN GIVES ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REGAIN THE ‘MORAL HIGH GROUND’.


Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you in response to your recent broadcast on "global dimming", produced for BBC's Horizon Series.

I recently read some commentary by a person on your staff, Caroline Campbell. This comment in particular interests me:

"I do not wish to mislead you. Horizon does have a specific structure to its programme-making and we were advised to lean on the disaster-scenario BUT nothing presented in the programme was not the honest belief of the scientists we spoke to."

I am curious exactly who advised the filmmakers to "lean on the disaster-scenario"?

Is this a standard practice in BBC documentary film work?

I would appreciate any answers you could provide for my questions.

Sincerely,
etc.


DANGERMONGERING AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR FULL EXPOSURE OF ALL ASPECTS OF REALITY, WHATEVER LEGAL AND POLITICAL PROBLEMS THIS MAY LEAD TO, IS A RECIPE FOR CONTINUING POLITICAL DEFEAT OF ECOLOGISTS.

THE BBC HORIZON AND ABC FOUR CORNERS ON-LINE DEBATES FOLLOWING SCREENING OF DAVID SINGTON’S ‘GLOBAL DIMMING’ DOCUMENTARY IN BRITAIN AND AUSTRALIA WERE NAIVE AND UNINFORMED, EASILY MISLED BY INPUTS LIKE THE ABOVE CONTRIBUTION FROM A FULL-TIME ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE DEBUNKER. ANY AUDIENCE OF ‘CHEMTRAIL ACTIVISTS’ WOULD HAVE YIELDED AN INFINITELY HIGHER LEVEL OF DEBATE, PROTECTION FROM MISLEADERS AND COMMITMENT TO DEALING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE.

[jayreynolds]

THE BBC HORIZON AND ABC FOUR CORNERS ON-LINE DEBATES FOLLOWING SCREENING OF DAVID SINGTON’S ‘GLOBAL DIMMING’ DOCUMENTARY IN BRITAIN AND AUSTRALIA WERE NAIVE AND UNINFORMED, EASILY MISLED BY INPUTS LIKE THE ABOVE CONTRIBUTION FROM A FULL-TIME ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE DEBUNKER. ANY AUDIENCE OF ‘CHEMTRAIL ACTIVISTS’ WOULD HAVE YIELDED AN INFINITELY HIGHER LEVEL OF DEBATE, PROTECTION FROM MISLEADERS AND COMMITMENT TO DEALING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE.
Wayne, your all-caps promotion of the benefits of air pollution and the legalization of aerosol geoengineering days are over. I suggest you retire from the field, as you have become obsolete waste material. When you are down to debunking "chemtrail activists" as being the bad guys and actively cooperating with Tyndall Centre's message, what is next, piloting the chem-planes yourself? Your fake promotion of a hoax has gotten in the way of the rapid development within your former peer group of the realization that what they have been in fear of all these years are simply contrails. The days of the chemmie are over, the age of the debunker has begun. get out of the way before you get run down, old bean...........

[halva]

WEATHER WARFARE?

United States Secretary of Defense William Cohen said, back in April of 1997, that there were terrorists who "... are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves..."

In my next book I show that the earth and sky have indeed been turned into weapons! I am Jerry E. Smith the author of "WEATHER WARFARE: The Military's Plan to Draft Mother Nature" and "HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy." In these books I lay bare the grim facts behind the pursuit of technologies that would allow terrorists, military strategists and "mad scientists" to intentionally wreck the environment -- and the national and transnational factions that use them.

WEATHER WARFARE is at the printer now and should be in Barnes & Noble, Borders, and other fine bookstores across the country by the middle of December 2006. It is a follow-up on my 1998 book about the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP).

WEATHER WARFARE covers the history of weather modification from the Rain Makers of the 1890s through the development of cloud seeding in the middle of the twentieth century to today's seeming ability to steer hurricanes. It also covers the 2004 Christmas Asian tsunami, the development of a "tsunami bomb" during World War II and the possibility of "earthquakes on demand" today.

Addressed at length is the dismal failure of the United Nations treaty prohibiting the hostile (military/terrorist) use of environmental modification. I believe that the refusal of the mainstream scientific community to believe that terrorists and/or the military are capable of, and currently engaged in intentional manipulation of the environment skews the data in the global warming debate. This is of the gravest importance, as the politics of the 21st century, and possibly our
survival as a species, will turn on how this debate plays out.

Also included is an update on recent developments at HAARP, including its possible connection to the crash of the Space Shuttle Columbia. Tackling the chemtrail controversy, this book examines claims that chemicals are being deliberately injected into our atmosphere. Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb, proposed putting up a "sunscreen" to save the earth from global warming -- is someone actually doing it?

Packed with hundreds of quotes from mainstream scientific, military and media sources, the environmental mayhem documented in this 381-page book is founded on a base of solid evidence -- no wild conspiracy theories here, just the terrifying facts!

If you would like Adventures Unlimited Press (AUP) to reserve for you a copy of "WEATHER WARFARE: The Military's Plan to Draft Mother Nature" [ISBN: 1-931882-60-6], call AUP at 1 (800) 718-4514 or (815) 253-6390.

As a special "thank you" all copies ordered now will be autographed by me! Again this book is at the printer now. Order now and your autographed copy will be shipped just as soon as they come in! At just $18.95 WEATHER WARFARE is a 6x9 paperback, it is illustrated, has three appendices, and contains an exhaustive 31-page bibliography with a list of important
websites.

Thanks! With your help we can make a difference!

Jerry E. Smith
Author & Lecturer
Vice President for Marketing, Public Relations & Product Development
Adventures Unlimited Press

PO Box 99, Kempton, IL 60946
jerryesmith@lycos.com

[halva]

For a glimpse into the life of a drug-hazed Scientology cultist who lives a life of science fiction:
http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/jerry-e-smith.htm

All the people whose character Raynolds assassinates are Americans.

His mission in life is to dissolve the social fabric of his own country, to intimidate into silence any American still capable of standing on his/her feet.

It is the rest of the world that will benefit from this.

Raynolds is my instrument.

[halva]

Europeans are going to be the bad guys, Raynolds, and Americans the good guys. And there is going to be no role for you. Start getting used to it now.

[halva]

By the way, Raynolds, thanks for the biography of Jerry Smith. People like him have their possible uses against the effete phonies we have holding the show together on this side of the pond.

[jayreynolds]

By the way, Raynolds, thanks for the biography of Jerry Smith. People like him have their possible uses against the effete phonies we have holding the show together on this side of the pond.

Not very nice to talk about my buddies at Gastronomous that way, Wayne.

BTW, it's 'phoneys', not phonies.........

[halva]

I thought that Gastronamus was supposed to be on YOUR side of the pond, not mine.

i see that you really like it in this place. Nothing can bore you.

[halva]

Raynolds, does it complicate your game having "chemmies" churning out this kind of garbage at "Megasprayer"?

http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=Fight&action=display&thread=1158294902&page=10#1162959913

How do you exploit this kind of gutter-level infighting?

Whichever side you back, you lose!

[halva]

Raynolds, does it complicate your game having "chemmies" churning out this kind of garbage at "Megasprayer"?

http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=Fight&action=display&thread=1158294902&page=10#1162959913

How do you exploit this kind of gutter-level infighting?

Whichever side you back, you lose!

Who do you support, Raynolds? The "chemmie Democrats" or the "chemmie Republicans"?

Assert your right of choice. Ignore the cognitive dissonance.

[halva]

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread11407.html

First offers of financial support for the Haderer project coming in from Portland, Oregon.

[jayreynolds]

Raynolds, does it complicate your game having "chemmies" churning out this kind of garbage at "Megasprayer"?

http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=Fight&action=display&thread=1158294902&page=10#1162959913

How do you exploit this kind of gutter-level infighting?

Whichever side you back, you lose!

Wayne, stop calling my buddies at "Megasprayer" garbage-men.
They are far superior to effete impudent Greek 'girlie-men'.

[halva]

Raynolds/Reynolds, if it is beginning to dawn on you as it has dawned on me that your existence serves other purposes than those you appear originally to have intended, I would like to ask you a few questions.

You have always said that if "chemtrails" existed you would be opposed to them.

This claim, though interesting and thought-provoking, was never credible to me, If you were really "opposed", it seems to me that you would have spent all these years opposing rather than harassing those who oppose.

The conclusion, then, is that - to some extent at least - you are NOT opposed.

My first question to you then is this: if "chemtrails" existed and if one of their purposes was the geoengineering tasks that so many studies have proposed, to what extent would you be opposed to this activity?

Now of course by asking this question I am giving you an opportunity to keep playing the game you have been playing for so many years now, but perhaps you yourself are beginning to realise that this game is past its expiry date.

So as well as giving you that opportunity, I am also giving you the opportunity to "get serious".

You can of course claim that as global warming is fictitious or not anthropogenic there is no need for geoengineering.

Or you might say something else.

Let us see what you say.

You could, of course, also say nothing and go away. That would be another option and perhaps the best for you and for us..

[EdSnell]

if "chemtrails" existed and if one of their purposes was the geoengineering tasks that so many studies have proposedTell us, Wayne, what were THEY doing over Phoenix, Arizona, in January of 1976? Hmmm? Geoengineering?



Back in the '70's scientists believed that pollution was causing global cooling. Today, hoaxters and some politicians are claiming that pollution is causing global warming.

Please tell the readers, Wayne, why the same cure would be used for opposite problems.

What type of geoengineering is occurring in the photos shown in this post:? http://www.debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=660025&postcount=7776

[halva]

These are the kinds of questions that Footsoldier might attempt to answer if she were still participating in tough debate around all this.

However, I sense that you are not looking for answers but are trying to find ways to help Reynolds get back into this discussion.

That is normally what happens when Reynolds is checkmated.

Probably you too are someone who has been here before and are now reappearing under another name.

[halva]

For the first time there are more people logged into "Science in the News" than to "Current Events".

[halva]

The bottom line with "chemtrails" is that in order for them, or rather for the relevant subject, to be integrated into democratic processes, someone must take political responsibility for what is happening. It is a necessary first step.

[halva]

The political power (or the psychological kick of identifying with it) to be derived from lying is something that must exert a fascination for certain mentalities.

[halva]

It is good that the in many ways evil BBC is running articles of this kind.
WH

'Obscenity' of carbon trading
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6132826.stm

VIEWPOINT
Kevin Smith

If we want to curb climate change, carbon trading won't do, argues Kevin Smith in the Green Room this week. From the Stern Review to Europe's Emissions Trading Scheme, he argues, the aim of reducing emissions has been perverted by neo-liberal dogma and corporate self-interest.

Market mechanisms are a game of creative accountancy that distracts us from the fact that there is no viable 'business as usual' scenario

In 1992, an infamous leaked memo from Lawrence Summers, who was at the time Chief Economist of the World Bank, stated that "the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable, and we should face up to that".

The recently released Stern Review on climate change, written by a man who occupied the same position at the World Bank from 2000 to 2003, applies a similar sort of free market environmentalism to climate change.

Sir Nicholas Stern argues that the cost-effectiveness of making emissions reductions is the most important factor, advocating mechanisms such as carbon pricing and carbon trading.

While dumping toxic waste in the global South might look like a great idea from the perspective of the market, it ignores the glaringly obvious fact of it being hugely unfair on those getting dumped upon.

In a similar way, Stern's cost-benefit analysis reduces important debates about the complex issue of climate change down to a discussion about numbers and graphs that ignores unquantifiable variables such as human lives lost, species extinction and widespread social upheaval.

'Junk economics'

Cost-benefit analysis can be a useful tool for making choices in relatively simple situations when there are a limited number of straight-forward options to choose from.

In the current neo-liberal economic environment, trading rules succumb to the pressures of corporate lobbying and deregulation

Send us your comments

But as Tom Burke, visiting professor at Imperial College London, has observed: "The reality is that applying cost-benefit analysis to questions such as [climate change] is junk economics... It is a vanity of economists to believe that all choices can be boiled down to calculations of monetary value."

Some commentators have applauded the Stern Review for speaking in the economics language that politicians and the business community can understand.

But by framing the issue purely in terms of pricing, trade and economic growth, we are reducing the scope of the response to climate change to market-based solutions.

These "solutions" take two common forms:
under emissions trading, governments allocate permits to big industrial polluters so they can trade "rights to pollute" amongst themselves as the need arises
another approach involves the generation of surplus carbon credits from projects that claim to reduce or avoid emissions in other locations, usually in Southern countries; these credits may be purchased to top up any shortfall in emissions reduction


Such schemes allow us to sidestep the most fundamentally effective response to climate change that we can take, which is to leave fossil fuels in the ground. This is by no means an easy proposition for our heavily fossil fuel dependent society; however, we all know it is precisely what is needed.

What incentive is there to start making these costly, long-term changes when you can simply purchase cheaper, short-term carbon credits?

Forcing the market

In the current neo-liberal economic environment, trading rules inevitably succumb to the pressures of corporate lobbying and deregulation in order to ensure that governments do not "interfere" with the smooth running of the market.

Stern spells out climate costs

We have already seen this corrosive influence in the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), when under corporate pressure, governments massively over-allocated emissions permits to the heaviest polluting industries in the initial round.

This caused the price of carbon to drop by more than 60%, creating even more disincentive for industries to lower their emissions at source.

There are all manner of loopholes and incentives for industry to exaggerate their emissions in order to receive more permits and thereby take even less action.

Market analyst Franck Schuttellar estimated that in the scheme's first year, the UK's most polluting industries earned collectively £940m ($1,792m) in windfall profits from generous ETS allocations.

Given all we know about the link between pollution and climate change, such a massive public concession to dirty industries borders on the obscene.

We are being asked to believe that the flexibility and efficiency of the market will ensure that carbon is reduced as quickly and as effectively as possible, when experience has shown that lack of firm regulation tends to create environmental problems rather than solve them.

Community interest

There is a groundswell of opinion that the "invisible hand" of the market is not the most effective way of facing the climate challenge.

The Durban Declaration of Climate Justice, signed by civil society organisations from all over the world, asserts that making carbon a commodity represents a large-scale privatisation of the Earth's carbon cycling capacity, with the atmospheric pie having been carved-up and handed over to the biggest polluters.

There is an urgent need for stricter regulation, oversight, and penalties for polluters

Effective action on climate change involves demanding, adopting and supporting policies that reduce emissions at source as opposed to offsetting or trading.

Carbon trading isn't an effective response; emissions have to be reduced across the board without elaborate get-out clauses for the biggest polluters.

There is an urgent need for stricter regulation, oversight, and penalties for polluters on community, local, national and international levels, as well as support for communities adversely impacted by climate change. But currently such policies are nigh-on invisible, as they contradict the sacred cows of economic growth and the free market.

There is, unfortunately, no "win-win solution" when it comes to tackling climate change and maintaining an economic growth based on the ever increasing extraction and consumption of fossil fuels.

Market-based mechanisms such as carbon trading are an elaborate shell-game of global creative accountancy that distracts us from the fact that there is no viable "business as usual" scenario.

Climate policy needs to be made of sterner stuff.

Kevin Smith is a researcher with Carbon Trade Watch, a project of the Transnational Institute which studies the impacts of carbon trading on society and the environment

The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website

[jayreynolds]

The political power (or the psychological kick of identifying with it) to be derived from lying is something that must exert a fascination for certain mentalities.

You're correct, Wayne. Your chemmie cohorts can't seem to stop lying. You get a real kick out of it.

Take for instance, your buddy 'Socrates'(funny he should take a Greek name.)

"This Phd dude gives us all credibility. He shows that it is
really complex with disinfo and real info put forth. He is
saying it isn't our fault if things look fudgy, that without
scientists stepping forward and explaining the hideous skies,
it is no wonder that there is this chemtrail scare.

He offers various explanations and seems to be saying,
keep an eye on the skies and bring what you see to the
attention of the masses.

And yes, the best part of this is it is hard science. This isn't
crazy ufo or depopulation tinfoil. This is why I think Chem11,
Deborah, Big Bunny, Swampgas, yourself, and many others
deserve bravo well dones for your intelligent approaches to
understanding chemtrails. What could have been easily
fudged or swept under the rug by disinformationalists, insane
debunkers, and other assorted trolls and dingbats, has instead
evolved, survived, and has eventually reached the cusp of
disclosure.

All these years chemtrail people have been referred to as hoax
propagators. Well, WE WON'T CALL THEM CHEMTRAILS THEN!!

HOW'S THIS, SORRY FOR SCREAMING, NOT REALLY SCREAMING,
JUST TALKING A BIT LOUDER, ER---

WHAT'S UP WITH ALL THAT CIRRUS AVIATICUS???????
HEY METEOROLOGISTS AND SCIENTISTS, YOU'RE ONLY
NOW NOTICING ALL THAT CIRRUS AVIATICUS AND
GLOBAL DIMMING????

How 'bout that Reynolds creep and debunkers like that.
They all said we were seeing things or had some kind of
cloud phobia. They kept lying and saying we were just seeing normal contrails."
http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1160627260&page=4#1163210850

But Wayne, chemmie liars often lie through omission.

It turns out the 'PhD. dude' has had an epiphany which 'Socrates fails to bring forward(why?):

"THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS CHEMTRAILS!!

THIS IS A STATEMENT FROM A ONCE SCEPTIC AND MULTIDISCIPLANARY SCIENTIST WHO NEVERTHELESS REMAINS ENVIRONMENTALLY VERY CONCERNED OVER CONTRAILS AND AIRCRAFT NOX EMISSIONS: JUNE 2006 "
http://www.btinternet.com/~gmbarnes/SKYLINES.htm

[halva]

Are you asking me to defend Socrates, Raynolds?

[halva]

Would you like me to defend his view that I am your stooge and/or agent?

[Ralph-0]

The political power (or the psychological kick of identifying with it) to be derived from lying is something that must exert a fascination for certain mentalities.

Yep

[EdSnell]

.
.
Mr. Hall (Halva), It appears to me that you are now threatening physical harm or at least soliciting physical harm to Jay Reynolds because of your inability to win the chemtrail debate at this and other forums.


The following are quotes of yours from this link: http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1160627260&page=8


The "chemtrails" battle CANNOT be won until characters like Reynolds are afraid or ashamed to open their mouths.

If you, who share a country with him, cannot silence him, then others who do not, have to do it without your assistance.

The moderator of a forum (such as Chem or Swampgas here) who bans a certain type of discourse from his forum is liberating an area of cyberspace for us. The same has to be done outside cyberspace also. Just keep extending the liberated areas.


Mr. Hall, how does one proceed to ban someone outside of cyberspace? Hmmm? That sounds like a physical threat to me. I do hope you will be able to explain yourself.


You appear to be in the process of causing yourself to be banned from the very forums that help promote your chemtrail hoax. I suggest you try to regain your composure before you find yourself unwelcome anywhere on the Internet. For a self-proclaimed politician you seem to be lacking even the rudimentary social skills to function in public.


Get ahold of yourself before it is too late. Take a holiday from your computer. Give up the hoax before your sanity expires.




!

[halva]

Yep

Ralph-0,) given that Jay Reynolds is not responding to post 7834, would you like to elaborate on your remark?

[halva]

.
.
Mr. Hall (Halva), It appears to me that you are now threatening physical harm or at least soliciting physical harm to Jay Reynolds because of your inability to win the chemtrail debate at this and other forums.


The following are quotes of yours from this link: http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1160627260&page=8




Mr. Hall, how does one proceed to ban someone outside of cyberspace? Hmmm? That sounds like a physical threat to me. I do hope you will be able to explain yourself.


You appear to be in the process of causing yourself to be banned from the very forums that help promote your chemtrail hoax. I suggest you try to regain your composure before you find yourself unwelcome anywhere on the Internet. For a self-proclaimed politician you seem to be lacking even the rudimentary social skills to function in public.


Get ahold of yourself before it is too late. Take a holiday from your computer. Give up the hoax before your sanity expires.




!


If you've been frequenting Gastronamus, why didn't you quote this?

http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1160627260&page=5#1163311461


"Reynolds has been checkmated many times before. What normally happens when that occurs is that other debunkers fill in for him for a while until the discussion can be steered back to terrain on which he can make a comeback."

If he is afraid or ashamed to respond to the last substantial post I addressed to him, I have no objections at all to that. That is progress towards becoming a normal human being.

Now the point is to make you afraid or ashamed to be playing his patsy.

[EdSnell]

Please answer the question, Mr. Hall:

"How does one proceed to ban someone outside of cyberspace?"

[halva]

You like reading at the Gastronamus Cafe. Go there for your answers.

[EdSnell]

Obviously, Mr. Hall (Halva) is not going to answer the question.

He could have simply said “yes” or “no”.
He could have retracted his threat.
He could have apologized.

Given these opportunities, Mr. Hall chose to remain silent on the issue, allowing to stand his threat of physical harm or death to Jay Reynolds.

Fortunately, we all know that nothing will ever come of Mr. Hall’s hollow threat, so there is no need for alarm or reaction.

This was just one more revealing episode in the pathetic life of the increasingly unpopular little man Mr. Wayne Hall a.k.a. Halva.

Halva nice day, Wayne.

[halva]

http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1160627260&page=8#1

[halva]

Reply 116.

[EdSnell]

.
.
Since Mr. Hall was too ashamed, and rightly so, to quote himself I'll do it for him:


Re: When is a contrail more than a contrail?
« Reply #116 on Yesterday at 11:53pm »

Yesterday at 4:53pm, swedishoo wrote:

Quote:
The moderator of a forum (such as Chem or Swampgas here) who bans a certain type of discourse from his forum is liberating an area of cyberspace for us. The same has to be done outside cyberspace also.



How do you ban someone outside cyberspace?



Thank you, Swedishoo, for enabling us to move the discussion forward from the point at which it stopped at CTC some years ago. We can continue at another thread if this is more appropriate.

Reynolds could be got into prison if there were a law against questioning the anthropogenic element in climate change. A number of reputedly civilized Western European countries have banned questioning of the Jewish Holocaust. If it is possible for "liberal democracies" to do this it is possible for them to ban questioning of the human element in climate change. If David Irving can sit in prison for representing it as uncertain that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz, Reynolds and others like him can be got into prison for representing it as uncertain that the behaviour of human beings exercises a decisive influence on the state of the planet's environment.
« Last Edit: Today at 7:01am by halva »

So, to summarize (at least until you edit your Reply #116 again), you believe that Jay Reynolds should be convicted of a crime for which no one has yet written a law, “a law against questioning the anthropogenic element in climate change,” and sent to prison (you would insist on a trial in front of a jury of his peers, wouldn't you?). That would be your method of banishment?

If there are any readers of this thread that believe Halva is sane, please step forward and defend him, now.
.
.
.
.
.

[halva]

I am glad to have the two sides of this matter clarified, and also pleased that when our side makes perfectly clear what our expectations of Reynolds are, i.e. to "get serious" or withdraw, he loses taste for the silly game has been playing with himself and others for so many years, with fools like you tagging along behind him.

[EdSnell]

.
.
To assist us all in remaining rooted to reality here are some oldies but goodies.

*************************************

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml

Global Warming Detected on Triton

"There may not be much industrial pollution on Neptune's largest moon, but things are hotting up nonetheless...

The Earth is not alone in suffering global warming. According to observations made by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and several ground-based instruments, temperatures on Neptune's largest moon have increased dramatically since the Voyager space probe swung by in 1989. So much so, in fact, that Triton's surface of frozen nitrogen is turning into gas, making its thin atmosphere denser by the day."

*************************************

http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html

Global Warming on Mars?

"A study of the ice caps on Mars may show that the red planet is experiencing a warming trend."

*************************************

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists

"In what is largely a reversal of an August announcement, astronomers today said Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit."

*************************************

Here's the best one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame

"Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research."

*************************************

......and Mr. Hall wants Jay Reynolds imprisoned for pointing out it's the Sun causing global warming.



I see that, so far, no one has come forward to defend your sanity, Mr. Hall.
.
.

[halva]

Here is a site which endlessly bleats about how climate change debunkers are in the pay of big oil and petitions for "someone" (who?) to "do something" (what?)

http://www.desmogblog.com/

[foot_soldier]

Ed Snell aka "Yaak" wrote:

.........and Mr. Hall wants Jay Reynolds imprisoned for pointing out it's the Sun causing global warming.........

It's the sun.....

Yeah, OK, Yaak.

<yawn>

[halva]

For God's sake Footsoldier don't start arguing with these morons. Go to Gastronamus.

What on earth is going on in your mind? Not a peep out of you for months - above all not on the subject of aviation emissions where you have detailed knowledge that we do not have - and you suddenly come back to argue the toss with "Ed Snell".

Are you a conscious saboteur or just totally lacking in common sense?

[halva]

Perhaps you just wanted us to know that "Ed Snell: is Yaak. I thought I recognized his name.

[halva]

I picked this up more or less by accident today from "Yahoo":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061117/ap_on_sc/saved_by_haze

Scientists say pollution may be helpful

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent
Thu Nov 16, 10:14 PM ET

NAIROBI, Kenya - If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate. The reaction here at the U.N. conference on climate change is a mix of caution, curiosity and some resignation to such "massive and drastic" operations, as the chief U.N. climatologist describes them.

The Nobel Prize-winning scientist who first made the proposal is himself "not enthusiastic about it."

"It was meant to startle the policy makers," said Paul J. Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end we have to do experiments like this."

Serious people are taking Crutzen's idea seriously. This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off climate change.

In Nairobi, meanwhile, hundreds of delegates were wrapping up a two-week conference expected to only slowly advance efforts to rein in greenhouse gases blamed for much of the 1-degree rise in global temperatures in the past century.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol requires modest emission cutbacks by industrial countries — but not the United States, the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, because it rejected the deal. Talks on what to do after Kyoto expires in 2012 are all but bogged down.

When he published his proposal in the journal Climatic Change in August, Crutzen cited a "grossly disappointing international political response" to warming.

The Dutch climatologist, awarded a 1995 Nobel in chemistry for his work uncovering the threat to Earth's atmospheric ozone layer, suggested that balloons bearing heavy guns be used to carry sulfates high aloft and fire them into the stratosphere.

While carbon dioxide keeps heat from escaping Earth, substances such as sulfur dioxide, a common air pollutant, reflect solar radiation, helping cool the planet.

Tom Wigley, a senior U.S. government climatologist, followed Crutzen's article with a paper of his own on Oct. 20 in the leading U.S. journal Science. Like Crutzen, Wigley cited the precedent of the huge volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991.

Pinatubo shot so much sulfurous debris into the stratosphere that it is believed it cooled the Earth by .9 degrees for about a year.

Wigley ran scenarios of stratospheric sulfate injection — on the scale of Pinatubo's estimated 10 million tons of sulfur — through supercomputer models of the climate, and reported that Crutzen's idea would, indeed, seem to work. Even half that amount per year would help, he wrote.

A massive dissemination of pollutants would be needed every year or two, as the sulfates precipitate from the atmosphere in acid rain.

Wigley said a temporary shield would give political leaders more time to reduce human dependence on fossil fuels — the main source of greenhouse gases. He said experts must more closely study the feasibility of the idea and its possible effects on stratospheric chemistry.

Nairobi conference participants agreed.

"Yes, by all means, do all the research," Indian climatologist Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the 2,000-scientist U.N. network on climate change, told The Associated Press.

But "if human beings take it upon themselves to carry out something as massive and drastic as this, we need to be absolutely sure there are no side effects," Pachauri said.

Philip Clapp, a veteran campaigner for emissions controls to curb warming, also sounded a nervous note, saying, "We are already engaged in an uncontrolled experiment by injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

But Clapp, president of the U.S. group National Environmental Trust, said, "I certainly don't disagree with the urgency."

In past years scientists have scoffed at the idea of air pollution as a solution for global warming, saying that the kind of sulfate haze that would be needed is deadly to people. Last month, the World Heath Organization said air pollution kills about 2 million people worldwide each year and that reducing large soot-like particles from sulfates in cities could save 300,000 lives annually.

American geophysicist Jonathan Pershing, of Washington's World Resources Institute, is among those wary of unforeseen consequences, but said the idea might be worth considering "if down the road 25 years, it becomes more and more severe because we didn't deal with the problem."

By telephone from Germany, Crutzen said that's what he envisioned: global haze as a component for long-range planning. "The reception on the whole is more positive than I thought," he said.

Pershing added, however, that reaction may hinge on who pushes the idea. "If it's the U.S., it might be perceived as an effort to avoid the problem," he said.

NASA said this weekend's conference will examine "methods to ameliorate the likelihood of progressively rising temperatures over the next decades." Other such U.S. government-sponsored events are scheduled to follow.

___

[foot_soldier]

Perhaps you just wanted us to know that "Ed Snell" is Yaak.....
Yes, that would be about it.

Look, my time is extremely limited these days. If I can't participate fully in my usual online activities I'd rather not participate at all until I have enough time to do a decent job.

Meanwhile, I sure would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting me down in a public venue. There's no reason to do that. Thanks.

[halva]

I have become nervous of the repetition cycles on this thread. It has been going on for so many years now.

[halva]

I picked this up more or less by accident today from "Yahoo":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061117/ap_on_sc/saved_by_haze

Scientists say pollution may be helpful

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent
Thu Nov 16, 10:14 PM ET

NAIROBI, Kenya - If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate. The reaction here at the U.N. conference on climate change is a mix of caution, curiosity and some resignation to such "massive and drastic" operations, as the chief U.N. climatologist describes them.

The Nobel Prize-winning scientist who first made the proposal is himself "not enthusiastic about it."

"It was meant to startle the policy makers," said Paul J. Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end we have to do experiments like this."


I have now spoken to Professor Crutzen on the telephone also and am so far still left wondering what authority he is appealing to to "discipline" the negligent authorities once they have been impressed by his threat to go ahead with "experiments like this".

[EdSnell]

[b]Ed Snell aka "Yaak"

Yaak no longer posts here. Ed Snell is known only as Ed Snell. Is that simple enough for you?

[foot_soldier]

Yaak no longer posts here. Ed Snell is known only as Ed Snell. Is that simple enough for you?
Ed Snell = Yaak.

How's that for simple.

For the record.

[EdSnell]

Ed Snell = Yaak.

How's that for simple.

For the record.

Just about as simple as:

foot_soldier = Deborah

:)

[halva]

Hello everyone.

There have been several news releases in the past several months which report that leading scientists are proposing the concept of global dimming via geoengineering to create a sunscreen in the atmosphere to slow down global warming.

We believe that certain aspects of this concept are and have already been in practice for years now. As can be seen on our website, Chemtrails911.com, most of the supporting evidence behind "chemtrails" points to the global dimming concept, which is a very dangerous and misguided method.

Are these news stories now being released to test the public's reaction to these outrageous concepts?

Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research suggests inserting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to shade the planet (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14840178/). "The most sensible way to get sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere would be to send numerous planes - more than the world's current commercial airline fleet - to take it there."

Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul J. Crutzen also suggests dispersing sulfur particles into the stratosphere to create a sunscreen in order to slow down global warming (http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i32/8432cooling.html).

This past weekend, "NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., hosted a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global haze proposal and other 'geoengineering' ideas for fending off climate change." The latest news article starts out: "If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the planet" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061116/ap_on_sc/saved_by_haze). And the reaction to all of this? Well, Paul J. Crutzen states, "The reception on the whole is more positive than I thought". What?! This is ridiculous!

As we have stated on our website, this concept is not new and is not limited to a scientist or two. This concept is exactly what well-known scientist Edward Teller, the father of the H-Bomb, called for in 1997 while at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. In a government sponsored report called Global Warming and Ice Ages, he suggested the scattering of 1 million tons of materials into the atmosphere in order to reflect 1% of incoming sunlight. He states that it would be cheaper to slow global warming through "stratospheric deployment of oxide particulates" than to actually slow down greenhouse gases connected with fossil-fired energy production.

The sunscreen concept is also called for in a major congressional study titled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, which was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. This huge study was reported in 1992 and is the textbook on greenhouse gasses, global warming, policy decisions and mitigations. In this study, they talk about using aircraft to spray the atmosphere with stratospheric dust or soot to simulate clouds in order to mitigate global warming. The study also suggested dumping iron into the ocean to stimulate plankton that could potentially eat carbon dioxide. By looking at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories' recent dumping of iron in the ocean to do just that, you can see that these are not just theories. They are theories in actual use. But the iron theory backfired when a large amount of fish died.

Our children are now even being taught this aerial obscuration concept in our schools. In the level one science book, "Essential Interactions" by Centre Point Learning, Inc., a photo of a jet is titled "Particle Air" and has the caption "Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen". This is in the section titled "Solutions for Global Warming". In the same section they also show a picture of a helicopter dumping iron into the ocean as a way to mitigate global warming, as we mentioned earlier. Again, CNN actually reported the iron theory being carried out. These are not just theories.

There are even patents for devices to carry out this insane concept. One important patent is the 1994 Welsbach patent issued to the Hughes Aircraft Co. It is for atmospheric spraying with aluminum oxide to reduce global warming by seeding and reflecting 1% of incoming sunrays. Another patent worth mentioning is the 1975 US Navy patent which is for a contrail generation apparatus for producing powder contrails. In the summary section it clearly states the term 'contrail' was adopted for convenience in identifying the visible powder trail". It appears they are still using the word contrail for convenience. The people carrying out these types of operations will never use the word chemtrails. They use terms such as aerial obscuration, persistent contrails, sky soot, or sun shield/screen.

We ask that you please be aware of what is occurring in our skies and inform others of these dangerous operations. Share this information with your friends, family, and co-workers. People sometimes love to dismiss this topic as some wing-nut conspiracy theory, but it can be hard for some people to easily dismiss what is occurring when so many leading scientists and government sponsored studies provide evidence for what we have been saying all along.

Please remember, by the Air Force's own definition a decade or so ago, a normal contrail will last no longer than 30 minutes... and then only under the best supporting weather conditions. So, the sky is available for all to watch. Please do so. Look up, wake up, and speak out!

Please note that Paul Moyer made a follow-up to his first chemtrail report, "Toxic Sky", which aired on May 23, 2006. His second report, Toxic Sky (part 2),*aired on*November 16, 2006 (NBC4, Los Angeles). Please let him know that we appreciate his efforts to bring attention to this important issue (Paul.Moyer@nbcuni.com).

Thank you.

Chemtrails911.com

*

*


*

[jayreynolds]

Hello everyone.

There have been several news releases in the past several months which report that leading scientists are proposing the concept of global dimming via geoengineering to create a sunscreen in the atmosphere to slow down global warming.

We believe that certain aspects of this concept are and have already been in practice for years now. As can be seen on our website, Chemtrails911.com, most of the supporting evidence behind "chemtrails" points to the global dimming concept, which is a very dangerous and misguided method.
*


wayne Hall has been making the claim that when he sees contrails, they are a covert form of geoengineering. Anyone wishing to understand the facts of the matter which show the fallacies of his claim, needs to read this thread in it's entirety

If anyone wants to debate the matter, go right ahead. I await a response.
Jay

Well, Wayne, got guts?

Waiting for Wayne:http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?p=690966#post690966

[halva]

Raynolds/Reynolds, you have always said that if "chemtrails" existed you would be opposed to them.

This claim, though interesting and thought-provoking, was never credible to me, If you were really "opposed", it seems to me that you would have spent all these years opposing rather than harassing those who oppose.

The conclusion, then, is that - to some extent at least - you are NOT opposed.

My question to you then is this: if "chemtrails" existed and if one of their purposes was the geoengineering tasks that so many studies have proposed, to what extent would you be opposed to this activity.

You can of course claim that as global warming is fictitious or not anthropogenic there is no need for geoengineering.

I do not believe this and I also believe it should be illegal to make such assertions.

I do not intend to discuss either chemtrails/contrails or climate change with you. The only relevant debate is the currently socially marginal debate over whether geoengineering is an appropriate way to deal with climate change.

(There could be another debate about the military use of weather and climate, but I don't want to start it here.)

[halva]

Perhaps you could answer that question the people in Northern Greece are asking: if the spraying stopped would it be better or worse?

[halva]

You are a knowledgeable guy Raynolds. They should be asking YOU these questions, not me.

[halva]

A STEP TOWARD SAVING OUR ARCTIC

GREGORY BENFORD
Department of Physics & Astronomy
University of California, Irvine


Our biosphere and geosphere use a different clock than we do, one that measure time in decades and centuries, not in minutes and hours. Climate change makes this clear. Humanity has never confronted a problem of this kind or magnitude before. We do not know how long it will take us to respond to the two major threats we now see:

• increasing climate change, driven at a high rate by global warming;
• rising acid levels in our ocean, already well documented.

There certainly will be further threats, as the human population and our influence on the Earth grow. But at this early stage, in an era that will probably last centuries, we cannot know them all. We do not understand our world well enough. But we cannot simply delay.

We should accept the possibility that anthropogenic carbon emissions could trigger a climatic tipping point, such as interruption of the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic. To avoid this, current thinking urges an all-out effort to shrink the human atmospheric-carbon footprint. But many energy authorities believe this task will take a century or more. If that; our fossil fuel burning is accelerating, not declining.

Given our lack of options we need to consider relatively low-tech, low-expense experiments to accelerate our understanding of climate science. These could lead to restoring the climate we prefer – changing the climate on purpose instead of by mistake, as we are doing now. Smart changes could return us to our earlier, milder world.

The Arctic: Our First Focus

The two clear threats of global warming and ocean acidity develop over different time scales. Very roughly, ocean acidification is growing at a time rate of some 50 years, as presently observed. The oceans circulate well, so the effects spread around the globe quite evenly.

We think of global warming as an effect in our atmosphere, since carbon dioxide builds up there. But the atmospheric warming also heats the oceans. This warming is not uniform, though, for many complex reasons. Sunlight falls most weakly in the Arctic and Antarctic, yet these areas show the greatest rate of change due to air and ocean warming.

In the Arctic particularly, the warmer ocean melts ice, exposing more ocean, which is darker than the ice. So the ocean absorbs more sunlight than before. Very simply, this and other effects are warming the Arctic particularly more than other regions – several Centigrade in the last 30 years.

This means the Arctic is particularly vulnerable. The Antarctic’s think ice sits mostly on land, so melting does not expose as much of the darker ocean as in the Arctic. The whole subject is complicated, but the conclusion is not: the Arctic seems the best place to use advanced methods of restoring the climate to that we had only decades ago.

If we understand climate well enough to predict that global warming will be a problem, then plausibly we also understand it well enough to address the problem by direct means. But the central issue is that we do not have time to waste.

Many predict that we will see more severe warming effects in the Arctic and globally within a few decades. Ocean acidification takes longer, suggesting a simple priority:

• begin with regional, reversible experiments to define the science;
• learn from these how well we understand our climate;
• look for cooling effects;
• stop the warming to buy time;
• deal with ocean acidification separately; and
• focus on what we can do now, not what we can do eventually.

We do not have “eventually” – nature works at its own pace.



A Particulate Shield Experiment

But how to begin?

Perhaps the simplest idea uses the suspension of tiny (less than one micron), harmless particles at such altitudes that they will rain out within, say, six months. These will reflect mostly ultraviolet rays, which have a lesser role in plant growth than the lower frequencies, yet carry more energy, which heats when it is absorbed.

This describes a scientific experiment, designed to understand the complex climate system; it is not the beginning of an engineering project.

A first test could be over the Arctic, since the warming there is considerable. There the atmospheric circulation patterns tend to confine the deployed particles, sweeping them around the pole but not far southward. The general method seems clear:

• deploy the particles by airplane in the Spring;
• measure the cooling below, using local sensors and space monitoring of the sea ice;
• detect if the present retreat of sea ice toward the North Pole slows or even reverses. This will be a clear, visual signature that the region is cooling; and measure to see if ground temperatures will give more refined understanding. The particles can rain or snow out in fall, ending the experiment in predictable fashion.
• measure to see if ground temperatures will give more refined understanding. The particles can rain or snow out in fall ending the experiment in predictable fashion.

One could use just enough of the tiny particles to create a readily measurable shielding effect. An initial experiment could occur north of 70 degrees latitude, over the Arctic Sea and outside national boundaries. The particles would reflect most UV rays back into space. They would reduce warming and stop some of the harm of UV rays to plants and animals, as a side effect. Robust photosynthesis would still occur in the tundra, fueled by the visible spectrum.

This idea exploits our expanding understanding of the climate system. It also uses our historical knowledge of the marked cooling driven by sulfate aerosols sent into the high altitude air by volcanoes, in the last several centuries. But sulfates interact chemically with the high altitude air. We can avoid that by using less chemically reactive particles, such as diatomaceous earth. Our aim should be to edit the incoming sunlight, not to interfere with our atmosphere’s chemistry.

We can regard these ideas, and the scientific knowledge we gin from such experiments, as tools in a possible future technology. There could be many variables in such a climate technology, including particle size, particle nature, altitude deployed (and therefore duration in the atmosphere), and much else. We very probably do not even know all the major influences we will find.

If such an Arctic experiment works, it could tell us much about how to possibly arrest Arctic warming and reverse the loss of sea ice. Since few people live there, any side effects could be minimal. By placing the particles at a high altitude, we can arrange for the first experiments to end when they rain out into the sea, after the main heating during Arctic summer has passed.

Repeating this over several years, to advance our understanding of how our vastly complex climate works, would advance the science. Public discussion could run in parallel, giving a sense that this momentous issue is being freely aired.

This idea is only the first step in making climate science, which has always been passive, into an active science. Astronomy was like this, until the space program began to give us the power to explore the planets, a half century ago. We now do experiments on the soil of Mars, the atmosphere of Jupiter and Venus. With direct measurement comes a new era in any science. All of particle physics has a similar history.

This is not a new transition in scientific style. But it is unique. We will live inside the experiment. We have far more at stake.

Diagnosing global climate change is only the beginning. Restoring the stable climate we are losing is the long range goal. But the science comes first.

Saving the Arctic is the first, trial step. If we find that the pace of forced global climate change is unacceptably high, we could then put this idea to work globally, with all deliberate speed. There could be other side effects on the vastly larger global scale, and we would have to monitor the entire process very carefully. Some effects could be positive. Lessening UV would lower skin cancer deaths, now about a million per year. Crops under less UV grow better and yield more food, especially in the tropics.

The main thrust of all this is to carefully use our ability to attack warming at its roots – incoming sunlight now, carbon dioxide later.

One guest that spoke at Monday’s meeting was Gregory Benford, Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of California, Irvine. A copy of Gregory Benford’s meeting handout is provided above for your information.

[halva]

The climate system has great inertia and stirs slowly, but once altered, has a powerful momentum. It will be a good idea to have methods like these on the shelf to deploy quickly. Methods studied this way would be ready for use if the global environment worsens.

Given signals that the scarier scenarios of a warming climate might be soon upon us, we could act soon. Such preparations can also establish the political ground for widespread action. Humanity needs to get used to the idea of acting in this wholly new fashion, assuming our role as true stewards of the Earth. Given the magnitude of the possible threat to all societies, such preparations are merely prudent, not radical.

Costs seem readily attainable – perhaps a few hundred of millions of dollars for an Arctic experiment. High altitude trials over the open ocean are little constrained by law or treaty, so show-stopper politics may be avoided. The first stages will be scientific experiments, not vast engineering projects.

We hope that a favorable experiment could change the terms of the global warming debate for the better. As economist Robert Samuelson recently said, “The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it’s really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don’t solve the engineering problem, we’re helpless.”

END

NOTE: On Saturday, November 18th- Sunday, November 19th, 2006, a secret meeting was held in order to review the subject of geoengineering and to discuss this subject without the public or the press in attendance. NASA required that this meeting be held in secret.

On Monday, November 20, 2006, 9:00 A.M. – 12 Noon a public meeting was held at Stanford University, (Main Carnegie Seminar Room, in Palo Alto, California, by the Carnegie Institution-Department of Global Ecology), on Geoengineering, in order to review some of the subjects discussed in the previous secret meeting. Several guests that had presented information or spoken in the secret meeting came to this public meeting to present their personal opinions and offer some insight into their presentations at the closed meeting.

One guest that spoke at Monday’s meeting was Gregory Benford, Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of California, Irvine. A copy of Gregory Benford’s meeting handout is provided above for your information.

[halva]

The Greek parliamentarian Asimina Xirotiri has taken up the chemtrails issue.

[EdSnell]

The Greek parliamentarian Asimina Xirotiri has taken up the chemtrails issue.Issue?

Isn't hoax a more accurate descriptor?

Don't keep us in suspense. What does Asimina have to say about the chemtrail hoax?

[jayreynolds]

The Greek parliamentarian Asimina Xirotiri has taken up the chemtrails issue.

You should mention that this woman is a Marxist/Leninist Party member.

Why do you always try to hide the facts, Wayne?

They always come out...........

[halva]

There are no Marxist Leninists in the Greek parliament, unless you are going to say that the Greek Communist Party (KKE) is Marxist-Leninist. Xirotiri is not a member of the KKE.

[halva]

To return to a relevant subject: what are we going to say to those people in Northern Greece, Raynolds? Would it be better or worse if the spraying stopped? Remember we have to tell them something that they can believe.

[halva]

Otherwise we will just make enemies. You don't want to make enemies unnecessarily, do you?

[halva]

There are no Marxist Leninists in the Greek parliament, unless you are going to say that the Greek Communist Party (KKE) is Marxist-Leninist. Xirotiri is not a member of the KKE.

The term "Marxist-Leninist" nowadays essentially means "Maoist", which in advanced industrial countries means member of groupuscules that unlike theTrotskyists regard not Stalin but Khrushchev as the number one Communist baddie.

Without overlooking the millions of victims of Stalin it is worth pointing out that in the contemporary world the Marxist-Leninist "Maoist" viewpoint could be less irrelevant than the Trotskyist. For a start Mao lived in the age of nuclear weapons and was the coiner of the phrase that nuclear weapons are a "paper tiger". And it is true that in regard to nuclear weapons Khrushchev's sins make Stalin's pale by comparison. Stalin was never more than lukewarm about nuclear weapons. Khrushchev was a nuclear weapons maniac, and a blunderer, as Kennedy taught him in the Cuban missile crisis, an episode that is distorted, misrepresented and in general misunderstood in official international discourse, presumably unlike among Chinese Communists. China still only has a very small number of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of hitting the United States. They did not take the Khrushchev road and still have not done so, despite all the best efforts via a nuclear buildup of India to get them to do so.

[halva]

The Greek parliamentarian Asimina Xirotiri has taken up the chemtrails issue.

I will be putting up an English translation of the press coverage in a few days.

This is not so much a breakthrough as reinforcement from an unexpected source.

Up until now Greek "chemmies" have been either right-wingers or politically unlabelled people.

This is the first sign of penetration of the European "gatekeeper Left" and as far as I know it has nothing to do with me. It is a sign of the breakdown of political disciplines and top-down authority.

[halva]

Can Dr. Evil Save the World?
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/12343892/can_dr_evil_save_the_world/1

[EdSnell]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/too-much-hot-air-over-plane-travel/2006/11/23/1163871545258.html

Too much hot air over plane travel

November 24, 2006

Aviation's contribution to global warming is much less than touted, writes Giovanni Bisignani.


IT IS disappointing that the debate on aviation's role in climate change is guided more by emotion than facts, with calls for freezes on all new airport construction and introducing a national quota for landing slots being cases in point.

Critics lay much of the blame for climate change at aviation's door. This ignores some basic truths. UN scientists from the International Panel on Climate Change estimate aviation's contribution to global carbon emissions to be just 2 per cent.

To put things in perspective, road traffic contributes 18 per cent globally, while the fossil fuels used to generate heat and power contribute 35 per cent.

"But you are growing uncontrollably" is the usual retort. Our industry is growing at between 5 and 6 per cent a year because people want to travel. The biggest growth is in rapidly developing economies, such as China, India and eastern Europe.

There, people's hard-earned wealth is helping them to travel the world. This is balanced by slower growth in more mature markets. And the net impact - estimated by the climate change panel - is that aviation's contribution may grow to 3 per cent by 2050.

If we listen to the most radical suggestions and stopped all air transport, what would we get?

An immediate 2 per cent improvement in carbon emissions; but 98 per cent of the problem would remain. But what would we lose? To start with, 28 million jobs and $US3 trillion ($3.8 trillion) in economic activity (8 per cent of global GDP) would disappear - not to mention your holiday in the sun, business trips or study time abroad.

And the supermarket would look a lot different without fresh fruit or flowers.

But I am not arguing that aviation should be left alone to pollute as it sees fit. Consume less fuel and you emit less carbon. Aircraft manufacturers understand.

Over the past 40 years - starting long before the Kyoto Protocol - fuel efficiency has improved 70 per cent. And the next generation of aircraft will have a fuel efficiency of just three litres per 100 passenger kilometres. That is much better than any hybrid car on the market.

Airlines have also understood. In the past two years, fuel efficiency has improved 5 per cent. They are doing everything from making spoons lighter, to optimising the amount of water in toilets.

Efforts to straighten routes, cut congestion and eliminate delays slashed carbon emissions by more than 12 million tonnes last year.

But governments are moving too slowly. Look at Europe. Politicians had the will and vision to agree to a single major currency - but there are 34 air navigation providers in an air-traffic control mess. America has just one for a similar area.

Delays in Europe amounted to 15 million minutes last year, equivalent to 28 planes flying constantly for the entire year. It is time for Europe to make a single European sky a reality.

Around the world, if we could cut times by a minute per flight, that would save 4.8 million tonnes of CO 2, but we still battle with governments for each minute. In the meantime, we continue to invest in more efficient fleets, to make sure that flying continues to be the safest and most environmentally friendly way to travel.

[EdSnell]

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e2a595e6-5b22-4637-9c08-7e8481cfd02f

Against the DDT Ban

Excerpt:

"Insect-borne diseases are on the rise all over the world. Malaria alone infects more than a half-billion, mostly women and children, yearly with more and more deaths piled upon the deaths of the preceding years. Something was terribly wrong. This ban was touted by the Environmental Protection Agency and environmental groups everywhere as a "success" story and still is to this very hour. But they are going to have to come forward with more than words, more than feel-good, look-good soundbites. The result of the DDT ban has been an unspeakable death toll -- and a sad, deception-riddled tale.

It took us what has seemed like forever to wade through the junk science held up to be valid, to get to the hard peer-reviewed data. There have been literally thousands of studies of every possible aspect of DDT. What peer-reviewed, replicated scientific data supports the ban on DDT? None.

Instead we found that DDT, the most effective chemical for preventing malaria and a veritable host of other diseases (West Nile virus, Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Dengue fever, lice, yellow fever, river blindness, elephantiasis, St. Louis encephalitis virus, typhus, Chagas disease, bubonic plague, Japanese encephalitis, bed bugs, and many others -- not to mention many bird and animal diseases), had been made a chemical scapegoat, a glorified whipping boy. DDT had to go down to satisfy politics, resulting in massive deaths among mostly black, brown, and yellow human beings.

[halva]

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e2a595e6-5b22-4637-9c08-7e8481cfd02f

Against the DDT Ban

Excerpt:

"Insect-borne diseases are on the rise all over the world. Malaria alone infects more than a half-billion, mostly women and children, yearly with more and more deaths piled upon the deaths of the preceding years. Something was terribly wrong. This ban was touted by the Environmental Protection Agency and environmental groups everywhere as a "success" story and still is to this very hour. But they are going to have to come forward with more than words, more than feel-good, look-good soundbites. The result of the DDT ban has been an unspeakable death toll -- and a sad, deception-riddled tale.

It took us what has seemed like forever to wade through the junk science held up to be valid, to get to the hard peer-reviewed data. There have been literally thousands of studies of every possible aspect of DDT. What peer-reviewed, replicated scientific data supports the ban on DDT? None.

Instead we found that DDT, the most effective chemical for preventing malaria and a veritable host of other diseases (West Nile virus, Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Dengue fever, lice, yellow fever, river blindness, elephantiasis, St. Louis encephalitis virus, typhus, Chagas disease, bubonic plague, Japanese encephalitis, bed bugs, and many others -- not to mention many bird and animal diseases), had been made a chemical scapegoat, a glorified whipping boy. DDT had to go down to satisfy politics, resulting in massive deaths among mostly black, brown, and yellow human beings.

Changing the subject away from contrails/chemtrails was certainly a move in the right direction, but why not move in the direction of defending geoengineering or giving an answer to those people in Northern Greece?

Who are you expecting to start discussing DDT with you here?

[EdSnell]

Changing the subject away from contrails/chemtrails was certainly a move in the right direction, but why not move in the direction of defending geoengineering or giving an answer to those people in Northern Greece?

Who are you expecting to start discussing DDT with you here? It appears that you thought you were posting on one of the 4 threads in the "Science in the News" secton related to contrails/chemtrails and geoengineering. This thread is entitled, "It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature."

The use of DDT might be construed by some people as fooling with Mother Nature.

Regarding "defending geoengineering or giving an answer to those people in Northern Greece," what geoengineering? and tell the northern Greeks that chemtrails are a hoax.

[halva]

YAAK there are people hanging around unmoderated forums like this one with no orientation, no priorities, no agenda, no interest except in reacting to and if possible burying anyone who has come here to propose or discuss something socially and/or environmentally beneficial.

Or to provoke by introducing a subject themselves, as you do here with DDT and as the poster on the other thread does with nuclear energy.

The psychology behind this is one forever on the lookout for outrageous policies appearing to enjoy the backing of the powerful to which one can attach oneself for the purpose of provoking, eliciting a reaction from, and thus feeling superior to, the "liberal", the "greenie", the "leftist",

YAAK you have the PERFECT, outrageous, shocking, provocative proposal in the form of spraying operations with poisonous aerosols all over the planet for the purpose of reducing levels of incoming sunlight. Defend it! Advocate it! Don't let a Benford or a Crutzen outdo you!

What are you, a man or a yack-yack-yacking mouse!!

Embrace planetary spraying of toxic aerosols in the atmosphere!! Wholeheartedly. Show you have some balls!! If you don't I will, and I will get the kudos for being a badder and meaner bastard than you.

Don't think you can compete with this namby-pamby DDT stuff!! It is a minor, trivial topic, fit only for losers and wimps.

[halva]

Just imagine if these debunkers during the Cold War had denied the Soviet threat and represented as unnecessary the measures needed for dealing with it.

Face it: no career as a rabble-rousing demagogic pig can be built on the basis of DENIAL!!! Not even your boss Reynolds can pull it off, Yaak. Much less an even lower form of life such as yourself.

[halva]

"WEATHER WARFARE" Now Being Shipped To Book Stores


Jerry E. Smith's third exposé from Adventures Unlimited Press,
"WEATHER
WARFARE: The Military's Plan to Draft Mother Nature," is now on its way
to bookstores nationwide.

United States Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen said, back in April
of 1997, that there were terrorists who "... are engaging even in an
eco-
type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off
earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic
waves...
" "WEATHER WARFARE: The Military's Plan to Draft Mother Nature"
documents
that indeed the earth and the sky have been turned into weapons, and
that
this unrecognized fact is the vital missing element in the global
warming/climate change debate. The failure to address intentional
hostile
manipulation of the environment is of the gravest importance, for the
politics of the 21st century, and possibly our survival as a species,
will turn on how this debate plays out.

WEATHER WARFARE, published on November 28, 2006, covers the history of
weather modification from the Rain Makers of the 1890s through the
development of cloud seeding in the middle of the twentieth century to
today's suspected ability to manipulate hurricanes. It also covers the
2004 Christmas Asian tsunami, the development of a "tsunami bomb"
during
World War II and the possibility of "earthquakes on demand" today.

Addressed at length is the dismal failure of the United Nations treaty
prohibiting the hostile (military/terrorist) use of environmental
modification. A particular focus of this book is proof that the
military-
industrial-academic complex has the ability to modify and control
environmental processes, like the weather, and that we have neither the
political nor legal infrastructure in place to deal with this
technology.

Also included is an update on recent developments at the High-frequency
Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), including its possible
connection to the crash of the Space Shuttle Columbia. Tackling the
chemtrail controversy, this book examines claims that chemicals are
being
deliberately injected into our atmosphere. Edward Teller, father of the
hydrogen bomb, proposed putting up a "sunscreen" to save the earth from
global warming--is someone actually doing it?

Packed with hundreds of quotes, the environmental mayhem documented in
this 381-page book is founded on a solid base of mainstream scientific,
military and media sources--no wild conspiracy theories here, just the
terrifying facts!

Distributed by SCB Distributors Inc. of Gardena, California "WEATHER
WARFARE: The Military's Plan to Draft Mother Nature" will soon be in
most
Borders, Barnes & Noble, and other fine bookstores across the country--
just in time for Christmas! It is also available from most online
retailers, such as Amazon.com and directly from Adventures Unlimited
Press--from both of their physical bookstores in Kempton, Illinois and
Cottonwood, Arizona and their online bookstore at http://
www.adventuresunlimitedpress.com/ or by calling 1 (800) 718-4514.

Jerry E. Smith is the author of "WEATHER WARFARE: The Military's Plan
To
Draft Mother Nature," and "HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the
Conspiracy"
and co-author of the "SECRETS OF THE HOLY LANCE: The Spear of Destiny
in
History & Legend," all from Adventures Unlimited Press (AUP). Since
HAARP's North American release in 1998 it has been translated into
Portuguese, in 2005, by Editora Aleph of São Paulo, Brazil as "ARMAS
ELETROMAGNÉTICAS: seria o projeto Haarp a próxima ameaça mundial?"
and in
2001 into Polish by Amber Supermedia as "HAARP BRON OSTATECZNA."
"SECRETS OF THE HOLY LANCE" is co-authored with George Piccard, author
of
"LIQUID CONSPIRACY: JFK, LSD, the CIA, Area 51, and UFOs" (AUP, 1999).


Adventures Unlimited Press
PO Box 74, Kempton, IL 60946
(815) 253-6390
(800) 718-4514
[FAX] (815) 253-6300
auphq@frontiernet.net
http://www.adventuresunlimitedpress.com/

[halva]

A corrected and updated version of he halva-Rosalind Peterson dialogue is now online at Holmestead:

http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/wayne+ros.html

[EdSnell]

Just imagine if these debunkers during the Cold War had denied the Soviet threat and represented as unnecessary the measures needed for dealing with it.

Face it: no career as a rabble-rousing demagogic pig can be built on the basis of [B]DENIAL!!! Not even your boss Reynolds can pull it off, Yaak. Much less an even lower form of life such as yourself.

I grew up during the "Cold War" and denied "the Soviet threat." I never feared for a second that there would be a nuclear confrontation or that "the Russians are Coming," nor did I believe that the Soviet Union would continue to stand. Their form of government destroyed them economically. It was not difficult to see, that given the opportunity, the people of the Soviet Union would have turned on their government. In my mind there never was a "the Soviet threat," just a lot of political BS such as you attempt and fail to feed people.

"DENIAL" is the chemmie state of mind. They deny that contrails are just clouds caused by normal aviation. They deny that the airplanes they see in the sky leaving contrails are regular passenger jets. They deny the impossibility of altering jet fuel without public knowledge. There is nothing for the people on the side Jay and I are on to "Pull off." All we do is place the truth in your faces, then you DENY it. In retaliation for exposing the truth and your lies we are accused of not caring about our environment.

[halva]

I grew up during the "Cold War" and denied "the Soviet threat." I never feared for a second that there would be a nuclear confrontation or that "the Russians are Coming," nor did I believe that the Soviet Union would continue to stand. Their form of government destroyed them economically. It was not difficult to see, that given the opportunity, the people of the Soviet Union would have turned on their government. In my mind there never was a "the Soviet threat," just a lot of political BS such as you attempt and fail to feed people.

"DENIAL" is the chemmie state of mind. They deny that contrails are just clouds caused by normal aviation. They deny that the airplanes they see in the sky leaving contrails are regular passenger jets. They deny the impossibility of altering jet fuel without public knowledge. There is nothing for the people on the side Jay and I are on to "Pull off." All we do is place the truth in your faces, then you DENY it. In retaliation for exposing the truth and your lies we are accused of not caring about our environment.

These views, if they existed, must have been your private views, which in no way prevented you from giving your public consent to Cold War fear-mongering. And in any case there was a "Soviet threat", irrespective of who had the main political responsibility for it. It took the form of their huge and monstrous nuclear arsenal, which "the West's" man Yeltsin wanted to get rid of in exchange for economic assistance so as to get onto its feet the economy of his country, which had been wrecked first and foremost through their having built the aforesaid monstrous nuclear arsenal. At that time, in 1991, I was doing everything in my power to get the anti-nuclear movements to help Yeltsin, calling fpr TOTAL abolition of all Soviet nuclear weapons. Margaret Thatcher made some moves towards trying to do something similar, and look what happened to her.

What proposals did you have at that time, Yaak, to show the distinctiveness of your brave political views??

Margaret Thatcher was trying to draw attention in 1991 to the possibility of ex-Soviet nuclear weapons "falling into the hands of terrorists". That was a reason for action, for abolishing all of them, completely. Yeltsin spoke to the Russian Duma at that time saying that all Russian nuclear weapons should be got rid of. Your government, which, whatever your private cynicism, had been selling "the Soviet threat" for over forty years, when it had its best chance ever to abolish that threat, and prevent it from becoming "the terrorist threat", quite clearly chose not to do so, and was in no way criticized by you for that.

Face it you miserable zero clinging to the balls of your nowhere man Mr. Reynolds, people who may have some purpose in the scheme of things in the coming period are those like Benford and Wigley who DEFEND the atmospheric spraying of aerosols, who say it is necessary because no better solution to the climate change problem is politically possible, and those who say that a better solution to the climate change problem HAS TO be possible, IS POSSIBLE, and propose to MAKE IT possible!!

YAAK defend the aerosol spraying programmes that have been proposed by Benford, Wigley, Crutzen and company!!! If you can do that you may have political relevance to some section of the world of real players and be something more than an insect hanging around unmoderated shitholes like this forum.

[halva]

when it had its best ever to abolish that threat, and prevent it from becoming "the terrorist threat", quite clearly chose not to do so, and was in no way criticized by you for that.


Not only not to do so, but to prevent it from happening.

[halva]

YAAK defend the aerosol spraying programmes that have been proposed by Benford, Wigley, Crutzen and company!!! If you can do that you may have political relevance to some section of the world of real players and be something more than an annoying insect hanging around unmoderated shitholes like this forum.

Of course it is quite ridiculous directing appeals like this to YAAK. How is it that one always ends up in the reactive mode?

YAAK, help Reynolds ridicule and drive away this normal American citizen who has just joined us here. Show your patriotism.

He can do nothing about you, because you have "freedom of speech". Exercise your freedom the only way you know how to.

[jayreynolds]

Embrace planetary spraying of toxic aerosols in the atmosphere!! Wholeheartedly. Show you have some balls!! If you don't, I will, and I will get the kudos for being a badder and meaner bastard than you.

Don't think you can compete with this namby-pamby DDT stuff!! It is a minor, trivial topic, fit only for losers and wimps.

Wow, Wayne.

It has become undeniable that you really do advocate "planetary spraying of toxic aerosols in the atmosphere", and are trying to evangelize the whole world into doing so as well.

Rather self-destructive, but if you want to burn yourself out in a blaze of glory, who are we to stop you in self immolation???????

[halva]

Raynolds you have been barking at me for years.

Get your head out of your arsehole and start talking to J-Vitum on the "Normal Contrails" thread.

[halva]

Wow, Wayne.

It has become undeniable that you really do advocate "planetary spraying of toxic aerosols in the atmosphere", and are trying to evangelize the whole world into doing so as well.

Rather self-destructive, but if you want to burn yourself out in a blaze of glory, who are we to stop you in self immolation???????

I retract what I said above about your needing to talk to J-Vitus. He is one of your stooges anyway and he can just keep conducting his pseudo-conversation with with Ed Smell if he wants to.

Tell me more about how terrible I am to be advocating the planetary spraying of toxic aerosols and what you are going to do to expose me, and to whom.

[halva]

.

[EdSnell]

I retract what I said above about your needing to talk to J-Vitus. He is one of your stooges anyway and he can just keep conducting his pseudo-conversation with with Ed Smell if he wants to.So, Wayne, anyone that disagrees with you is a Jay Reynolds stooge?:D

Jay, it looks like you have approximately 6.5 billion stooges. Do you have any difficulty keeping track of them?

[jayreynolds]

Tell me more about how terrible I am to be advocating the planetary spraying of toxic aerosols and what you are going to do to expose me, and to whom.

I don't have to tell you about how terrible you are, Wayne. My buddies at gastronomus and megasprayer have already done so. In the links below you got 'roasted' and disrespected for over a dozen pages and were in the end banned. You are quickly running out of friends, Wayne.
Word.

http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1163909360&page=6

http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=Fight&action=display&thread=1158294902&page=1

[halva]

I don't have to tell you about how terrible you are, Wayne. My buddies at gastronomus and megasprayer have already done so. In the links below you got 'roasted' and disrespected for over a dozen pages and were in the end banned. You are quickly running out of friends, Wayne.
Word.

http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1163909360&page=6

http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=Fight&action=display&thread=1158294902&page=1

This is precisely a reason why you should give it up now, Rayholds. I have taken over your job of being the enemy of American "chemmeis: and I can do it in a more principled and effective manner than you can. There is no role for you any more. Bugger off.

[EdSnell]

be something more than an insect hanging around unmoderated shitholes like this forum.Now, look her, Wayne, I don't mind you referring to me as an insect. Nothing you can say about me will bother me, but you have no cause to attack the moderators of this forum. This forum is what you make it to be. If you feel that it is a "shithole," blame yourself.

[halva]

What difference is there between the position of Raynolds and the position of a George Monbiot: one would be against chemtrails if they existed, but they don't!!

Look at Monbiot's response to Crutzen's stratospheric sulphur spraying proposals of last July.

Monbiot plays on all the themes that feed the fanaticism of "right-wingers": liberal guilt, the way that "we", the privileged, (only :the privileged read George Monbiot) have responsibilities towards "the Third World", etc. etc. Monbiot's writing does not thwart or outsmart "the right". It empowers them.

More importantly, Monbiot employs scientific arguments that have been plausibly disputed among non-"sceptic" scientists.

Such as that of air pollution in the northern hemisphere having been responsible for the terrible Sahel drought of a couple of decades ago.

Gavin Schwarz disputed this viewpoint early last year:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105

Monbiot erects his liberal guilt trip scenario on the same shaky foundations as the BBC's "Global Dimming" documentary.

It is the way to be politically INEFFECTIVE, not effecttive, to PERPETUATE existing divide-and-rule strategies of the opponent, not put an end to them.

Nevertheless, Monbiot has a fan club and a constituency among ecologists and the movement against neo-liberal globalization. Head-on confrontation with him from within this milieu is not the way to counter the weakness that is generated by his politics.

There are plenty of European right-wingers ready and able to take on the task of fighting the Monbiots, many of them or even most of them, particularly in non English-speaking countries, not vulnerable to subversion by American climate change "sceptics". Gabriel Stetter's articles are powerful ammunition for them.

[halva]

I left out the link to Monbiot in the above posting
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1860295,00.html

[halva]

from Louis Aubuchont
http://chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread11497.html

DEBUNKER ADMITS CHEMTRAIL'S ARE REAL
_______________________________________


Chemtrail Debunker Jay Reynolds says, post #1413 at Debate Both Sides, that Persistent Contrail's and Chemtrail's are one in the same thing and Chemtrail's are real _WHAT?

Mr. Debunker himself using information and Chemtrail photos from 'Scott Stevens 'weatherwars.info' site and 'rense.com' in validating that Chemtrail's are real !

Yes indeed, right from the mouth of "the Debunker" himself he now claims that Chemtrail's exist and form Persistent Contrail's and he quotes sources that he has vehemently debunked in the past as being unreliable, chemmie kook sites, Reynolds now relies on these as "EXPERT" sources to validate what he say's, that being that Chemtrail's are very real_ well, thank you Mr. Debunker and full time Hypocrite for finally verifying what we have known since we started seeing this Chemtrail Spraying back in the mid 1990's.

Everyone, look at Jay Reynolds admit that Chemtrail's are real at,...............

http://www.debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=19113&page=142

Quote: Jay Reynolds / John Boyd Reynolds, Jr.

"Vitem, you must be blind as a bat.
Or just a liar.
Persistent contrails form frequently over Montana, North and South Dakota.
They are visible and are reported, they can be seen in photos, even from space.
They are reported in scientific journals, and researched by scientists in those states.

Contrail coverage over the USA derived from MODIS and
AVHRR data
Figures 1–4 show the monthly distribution of contrail cover over the domain. During April, for the
morning overpass (N15, Fig 1a), maximum contrail coverage occurs over the southeastern states, off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana, and in northern Ohio. In the afternoon (N16, Fig 1b), maxiimum overage occurs over North Dakota, Nevada, Washington, northern Mexico, and adjacent Pacific cean, areas not available from N15.
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub...abi.AAC.03.pdf

May 25th 2006 3:38pm 2138Z Rapid City South Dakota. Low humidity at the upper levels of the atmosphere yet this trail, not composed of condensed moisture, persists. These trails are used as meteorological markers in the sky.
http://www.weatherwars.info/index.ph...ear=&arcmonth=

Chemtrails Over South Dakota
http://www.rense.com/general25/dc.htm

Fargo, ND posted 03-09-2001 06:34 AM
Yes, last summer I saw some that were actually quite beautiful in the moonlight...very high, however. My brother saw a chemtrail one night about a year ago that he estimates was no higher than 1000 feet. I saw a pearl colored chemtrail early last summer about an hour before sunrise that snaked from east to west high above town. It didn't dissipate and didn't seem to fade for the half hour or so I observed...just hung there, looking for all the world like a some giants had been pulling taffy in the sky. Its color was in stark contrast to the dark sky above it. http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/...ML/000276.html

Montana:
http://images.google.com/images?q=Mo...-8&sa=N&tab=wi

North Dakota:
http://images.google.com/images?q=Mo...-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Though I enjoy seeing you put the little piss-ant Wayne Hall in his place, why can't you people just be honest and not pretend to be someone and somewhere else than you really are? Lies don't get you very far, liars get caught and exposed. You can't maintain a lie forever because it corrupts your soul.
__________________
Contrails, or 'Trails-CON?
A website reviewing the facts and the claims about the Contrails/Chemtrails controversy
by Jay Reynolds
http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/ "
__________________________________________________ _____________

Don't you think that we should all send Jay an e-mail thanking him for finally recognizing the truth that persistent contrail formation due to Chemtrail Spraying worldwide is very real. I think it's the least that we can do in thanking him for his long coming admission of this reality.

You can e-mail Jay Reynolds at reality2u30@hotmail.com

[Jeff Reynolds]

While still waiting for Broom Stick to answer Reynolds' charge that she is deluded, I stumbled across some Chem11/Halva dialogue about the pig. Here one can see that Chem11 doesn't spend too much time worrying about Lord Debunker, who on the other hand spends way too much time thinking about chemmies, especially Chem11. I recommend people also take a look at the CTC thread linked to below called "Chem 11 debunks Barium, Aluminum Chemtrails"

Oinky had started this thread before he was yet again banned by Thermit. Chem11 shows up by the end and cleans it up.

http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=Fight&action=display&thread=1140604563&page=4




Chem11: Hazel has replied to all this, albeit at CTC where Reynolds republished my relevant posts (for reasons I'm not sure I entirely understand).

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread10535.html

I figured the least I owed her was a reply, though I'm not sure what kind of constructive dialogue can occur with someone who flatly claims to be 'misinformed' and a 'rank amateur' on the chemtrail issue.

So much for that. Now what I'd like to know is why Rense/Jones Inc. is pimping obvious absurdities by self-proclaimed 'misinformed rank-amateurs'. Will Alex issue a retraction? Continue to publish red herrings and misinformation? Will Jeff try and make up for past misdeeds by publishing something quasi-intelligent on the subject? Will he complete his sexual re-assignment surgery and run of to Germany to marry Ernest Zundel?

Halva: Reynolds republishes your writing because he thinks of you as "his buddy". I don't care about the rest of them. I'm not in dialogue with them and, unlike Reynolds, they have not come looking for me.

Chem11: Then you are basing your decisons upon the emotional manipulations of others, rather than identifying what needs to be done and doing it. Reynolds' audience is a bit more limited in scope than Rense and Jones, wouldn't you say? But by making it personal, he has elevated his importance in your mind to the exclusion of people that are influencing hundreds of thousands of readers a day.

And, no, Uncle Jay doesn't think of me as his 'buddy' anymore than I think of him as my 'uncle'.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong about all this, but I strongly suspect we will see similar 'discredit-by-association' tactics being used against other hot-button issues and activists. Illegal immigration is the thing right now. Pretty much anyone besides the politicians (and who isn't harboring illegals in their garage) here in LA is all for putting a stop to turning Los Angeles into a third world nation, and the Minutemen are becoming a credible political force. Look for Rense to start dragging the least credible fringe elements to put a stop to it. Neo-nazis, people claiming that it's all a plot by the Elders of Zion, people that make our president look like a cunning linguist... all that.

I'll wager a gallon of gas... any takers?


Halva: I believe in analysing and countering the emotional manipulations of others, not in ignoring them.

Reynolds wants to play chess. I play.

Any comments on
http://www.debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=40107&page=2&pp=10

and on
http://www.debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=40107&page=3&pp=10

???
We cannot compete with the big players in terms of quantity, only in terms of quality.



Chem11: Well, that seems a bit at odds with...

Quote(Halva):
Not arguing with Reynolds is precisely what I advocate, and practise.


Now here's a statement based on a history a little less ambivalent (and on-topic):

Quote(Halva):
We should not underestimate the extent to which the oil lobby funded climate change sceptics can intimidate climate scientists and activists by brandishing the “conspiracy theorist” label.



Since the University of California's activities are coming into question, the following shoud prove to be quite enlightening... especially with regards to the long-term health effects of aerosol seeding. For instance, did you know that said aerosols are capable of interacting with their human hosts on a cellular level? Neither did I...

http://dalton.hosted.ats.ucla.edu/nanoaerosol_workshop/report.pdf
__________________________________________________ ________________________
Looks like you got it wrong again, Jimbo! Sulfur content 'has been increasing'! - J. Reynolds

Obviously there is now an opening for us rank and file both to defend the environmental benefits of air pollution.. what about some comment on whether the "air pollution is good" line is utilisable, perhaps in rallies - Wayne Hall

[halva]

I had missed those Chem 11 postings at CTC, which are mindblowing.

We (all of us who are fighting the debunkers) have got enough knowledge and intellectual capacity between us to utterly wipe the floor with these pathetic fools and liars Raynolds and Ed Smell, and this only as starters. All that has been lacking is an effective political strategy.

If everyone comes here now Raynolds and Smell are toast.

Raynolds got Swamp Gas here (openly) by being too over-confident in "buddying" him. Do we have to wait for him to make more mistakes like this?

[EdSnell]

All that has been lacking is an effective political strategy.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, Wayne.

All that has been lacking, still is lacking, and always will be lacking is proof. There are no such things as chemtrails unless you want to call contrails chemtrails. Nobody is doing anything intentionally to make contrails behave as they do except God and Mother Nature.

You can call us all of the names you want, do everything in your powers to defame our characters, but the truth remains: not one of you chemmies has ever provided a single fact that proves any of your outlandish claims regarding chemtrails or ongoing geo-engineering.

Grow up, silly boy.

[halva]

It may well be that this silly fool is sincere.

His master speaks in a code, which has a logic to it, a political logic. But Ed Smell, innocent of politics, takes what he says at face value.

[jayreynolds]

But he has come out and admitted that the pictures and videos that to us represent chemtrails are real. Now the impetus is on him to explain what happened in 1997 that transformed rare persistent contrails into quite common ones. He needs to explain why there is this new phenomenon since 1997ish where rare persistent contrails have evolved into all too common mega-supercontrails that not only persist, but fan out into total fake milky-white cloud cover. He has admitted to any newbie that yes, certain aircraft emissions are mucking up the skies.
http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1163909360&page=10#1165435299


Don't argue with me, 'Socrates'. Your own people have debunked you on your own message board:
From the 'Gastronomus' message Board:
Chemtrails in 1977 and earlier...

http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1146417594


I was dumbfounded! I noticed many things here, one of them being that the spraying was greatly intensified from 1986-1989... which was EXACTLY the years that we got four abnormally HOT, dry summers in a row... the summer of 1988 breaking all heat and many drought records!!! By the time I got to the mid-1980's, I went over to my book collection, thinking that the spraying surely didn't go back THAT far. But SURE ENOUGH... there it was... chemtrails, chemclouds, chemmed over skies... absolutely no doubt about it! And then I went further back, into the 1970's, the 1960's, and they were still up there in many of the photos... spraying away. And there is little doubt that these are CHEMTRAILS, and NOT normal contrails. I've seen all the rest of the stuff of there as well... weird clouds, chemmed over skies infested with trails... I even ran across a photo taken in Massachusetts in the mid-1950's, of a "hole punch cloud"!!! No doubt about this either!!! They've been up there doing this shit MUCH LONGER than most people realize!

So then I went back into the 1950's... and the CT's were still there. And then into the 1940's as well... and guess what?!!!

The earliest COLOR PHOTO of a chemtrail, along with a cluster of chemclouds that I have found, was in a "Morning Sun" book at a model railroad flea market. The location was in Illinois, I believe, and the date was 1941!!!

[jayreynolds]

What's the matter, boys?
Can't deal with photographic proof that persistent contrails have been around for over sixty years?
he-he-he-he!
GOTCHA!
BUSTED!

[EdSnell]

Originally Posted by Big Joe
I was dumbfounded! I noticed many things here, one of them being that the spraying was greatly intensified from 1986-1989... which was EXACTLY the years that we got four abnormally HOT, dry summers in a row... the summer of 1988 breaking all heat and many drought records!!! By the time I got to the mid-1980's, I went over to my book collection, thinking that the spraying surely didn't go back THAT far. But SURE ENOUGH... there it was... chemtrails, chemclouds, chemmed over skies... absolutely no doubt about it! And then I went further back, into the 1970's, the 1960's, and they were still up there in many of the photos... spraying away. And there is little doubt that these are CHEMTRAILS, and NOT normal contrails. I've seen all the rest of the stuff of there as well... weird clouds, chemmed over skies infested with trails... I even ran across a photo taken in Massachusetts in the mid-1950's, of a "hole punch cloud"!!! No doubt about this either!!! They've been up there doing this shit MUCH LONGER than most people realize!

So then I went back into the 1950's... and the CT's were still there. And then into the 1940's as well... and guess what?!!!

The earliest COLOR PHOTO of a chemtrail, along with a cluster of chemclouds that I have found, was in a "Morning Sun" book at a model railroad flea market. The location was in Illinois, I believe, and the date was 1941!!!



What's the matter, boys?
Can't deal with photographic proof that persistent contrails have been around for over sixty years?
he-he-he-he!
GOTCHA!
BUSTED!



Well, I guess that's that! The chemtrail theory has finally and irrevocably been proven to be false. We'll have to find new hobbies.:)

[EdSnell]

Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece

" Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs."

[jayreynolds]

Remember Lou Aubuchont over at CTC? He was a fake meteorologist who did the great "chemtrail/contail" experiment. Fortunately, it was
a short psy-op. But, if we could get real meteorologists, scientists
involved here, then they could probably help us cut to the chase.
It's a shame that we non-scientists have to run around like this to
get awareness fixated on the skies, to this crap we keep witnessing.

yes, be sure to get a real meteorologist to vet your analysis. Using material provided by Scott Stevens might not be such a good idea!

[Jeff Reynolds]

yes, be sure to get a real meteorologist to vet your analysis. Using material provided by Scott Stevens might not be such a good idea!

Here is more proof that JohnnySpray is disingenuous. Smell and himself are trolls. They change quotes around. They are simply out to create noise, obfuscate, and attack free thinkers.

He failed to link to the Gastronamus Cafe thread in which he quoted Socrates.
Aerosol Reports (http://www.gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1074738154&page=33)

Here is what Socrates wrote:
"Remember Kevin Martin over at CTC? He was a fake meteorologist who did the great "chemtrail/contail" experiment. Fortunately, it was a short psy-op. But, if we could get real meteorologists, scientists involved here, then they could probably help us cut to the chase.
It's a shame that we non-scientists have to run around like this to get awareness fixated on the skies, to this crap we keep witnessing."

Lou Aubuchont has been putting together good information lately on "contrails". Smell and Spray aren't content seeing Carnicom's, CTC, and even here at DBS hit the toilet except for rare good posts. Why do they insist in distorting and attacking Megasprayer and Gastro? It is because such places have exposed these slimeballs for what they are.

Kevin Martin was one in a long list of fake characters perhaps all created by one or two people. AA767, Smoke, spikey, Mach10, etc.. Wherever there has been a forum discussing the aerosol mitigation going on, these fakes have shown up.There goal has been to disrupt chemtrail forums.Now that CTC, Carnicom's, and DBS are unmoderated, it comes as no surprise that they have set their targets on Gastro and Megasprayer.

Posts by the Banned Troll Kevin Martin (http://chemtrailcentral.com/forum/search.php?search_author=Kevin_Martin)


Amazing Chemtrail Experiment (http://chemtrailcentral.com/forum/msg98620.html#98620)

JohnnySpray might want to get his life in order. Cancer in the stomach is a tough place to get it.
Sure, none of us live forever, but one might want to get their negativity in order before going to the next world. Now why would anyone want to debate this guy when he consistently makes things up, takes things out of context, calls someone a "bitch" whenever he wants to?

I was willing to debate you Lord Shithead, but you couldn't apologize for calling Foot Soldier a "bitch". You were unwilling to admit you lied about Chem11 being Val Valerian and your "buddy". You refused to discuss your relationship to William Cooper.

Now you just throw up a quote by Socrates with no link and you changed the name of Kevin Martin to Lou Aubuchont. Now why would anyone want to debate with someone like yourself who only uses slimeball tactics?

Dude, you continue to chip away at any credibility you ever had. Think about that Dogbreath!

One other thing, tnot everyone at Gastro are big fans of Scott Stevens. You are simply part of some insidious internet disinfo scheme. But with the cancer, you might want to atleast try to be honest in your last years. I think deep down that we are all good. You need to try to connec t with your inner child, the one you were before you were perverted. Seek counseling, meditate, repent for your utter evil ways.

Scott Stevens "Weather Wars" site hacked BIG TIME (http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1162519054&page=1)

Yet again, JohnnySpray has shown why he is the most pitiful fake on the internet.
You're a no good troll.

[EdSnell]

Jeff Reynolds: Here is more proof that JohnnySpray is disingenuous. Smell and himself are trolls. They change quotes around. They are simply out to create noise, obfuscate, and attack free thinkers.

Wrong!

We are out to expose liars, hoaxers, charlatans, snake oil dealers and various other low forms of life that prey on the ignorant masses.

"Why?" you might ask. Speaking for myself, because it's enjoyable helping others; a fun public service. If you saw someone about to step in animal excrement, wouldn't you warn them? I'll bet your little pal Kola wishes someone had warned him about chembusters before he threw away more than $200 on one.

You are supporting a hoax and helping to market worthless books and videos, ridiculous T-shirts, snake oil for curing the effects of chemtrails from the likes of Herbal Healer Academy, chembusters, and the list goes on.

[jayreynolds]

I was willing to debate you
I'm still waiting, but all you post is trivial drivel.
Well, bring it on!

If you have the capacity..............

[halva]

The basic point was effectively made by J-Vitum. What else is there to say?

[EdSnell]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061211124018.htm

Sustainable Nuclear Energy Moves A Step Closer

"In future a new generation of nuclear reactors will create energy, while producing virtually no long-lasting nuclear waste, according to research conducted by Wilfred van Rooijen, who will receive his Delft University of Technology PhD degree based on this research subject on Tuesday, 12 December.

"Wilfred van Rooijen's research, conducted at the Reactor Institute Delft, focused on the nuclear fuel cycle and safety features of a Gas-cooled Fast Reactor (GFR), one of the so-called 'fourth generation' nuclear reactor designs. These designs have a sustainable character: they are economical in their use of nuclear fuel and are capable of rendering a great deal of their own nuclear waste harmless. The ability to actually build such reactors is however still in the very distant future.

"The fourth generation GFR uses helium as a coolant at high temperatures. GFR's ultimate objective is to create a closed nuclear fuel cycle, in which only natural uranium is used as a raw material and in which the resulting waste consists of only nuclear fission products. Uranium and heavier isotopes, such as plutonium and americum, are recycled in the reactor and ultimately burned up (fissioned). In the reactors in use today, these heavy isotopes determine the long-term radioactivity of the nuclear waste. A closed nuclear fuel cycle therefore allows for maximum use of the raw materials, while at the same time substantially reducing the life-span of the waste.

"This PhD research showed that it is possible to obtain a closed nuclear fuel cycle with a GFR. It also revealed that the GFR could use the waste materials of other light water reactors (LWR). The Gas-cooled Fast Reactor can therefore serve as an 'incinerator' of nuclear waste. To increase the GFR's safety, special elements have been designed to automatically shut down the reactor during incidents. Van Rooijen's research has shown that with these elements the reactor is capable of withstanding incidents without damage to the nuclear fuel."

[halva]

Nuclear slip by Olmert sparks domestic fallout

The Associated Press

Tuesday, December 12, 2000

JERUSALEM
*
A slip of the tongue by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert about Israel's nuclear policy ballooned into a domestic crisis Tuesday for the already embattled Israeli leader.

In an interview with a German television station broadcast Monday, Olmert appeared to list Israel among the world's nuclear powers, violating the country's long-standing policy of not officially acknowledging that it has atomic weapons.

Asked by the interviewer about Iran's calls for the destruction of Israel, Olmert replied that Israel has never threatened to annihilate anyone.

"Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map," Olmert said. "Can you say that this is the same level, when you are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?"

Israel, which foreign experts say has the sixth-largest nuclear arsenal in the world, has stuck to a policy of ambiguity on nuclear weapons for decades, refusing to confirm or deny whether it has them.

The comments came days after incoming U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in testimony to a Senate committee, identified Israel as a nuclear power. Gates' comments irked Israeli officials.

With Olmert's quote featured on the front pages of all of Israel's major papers Tuesday and with political rivals calling for his resignation, aides to Olmert — who was in Berlin Tuesday on a state visit — hurriedly said the remark had been misinterpreted.

Olmert spokeswoman Miri Eisin said the prime minister had been listing not nuclear states but "responsible nations."

"The prime minister stated clearly that Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East," Eisin said, adding that the quote had been "taken out of context."

*But the damage control did little to stem the uproar, adding to the already considerable political difficulties of a prime minister whose popularity has plunged since last summer's costly and inconclusive war in Lebanon.

In a front-page editorial, the daily Haaretz slammed Olmert, who it said "preferred to forget that he was prime minister, not another commentator" or minor politician.

Opposition lawmaker Yossi Beilin, head of the dovish Meretz party, criticized what he termed Olmert's "carelessness. " Together with Olmert's perceived failures of leadership during the Lebanon war, Beilin said, "it might be an indication that he isn't fit to serve as prime minister."

Former Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, of the hardline Likud, another opposition party, said the comment could hurt Israel's attempt to get the international community to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Shalom said Olmert "gave tools" to Israel's enemies, allowing them to say, "Why are you dealing only with Iran while Israel is confirming that it has the same kind of weapons?"

One of Olmert's few defenders was Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, a member of Olmert's coalition government and a former defense minister. "There was no damage here," Ben-Eliezer told Army Radio.

Mordechai Vanunu, the whistleblower who gave Israeli nuclear secrets to the British paper The Sunday Times and served an 18-year sentence for his disclosures, said he hoped Olmert's comment wasn't a mistake, but rather "the beginning of a policy change" that would see Israel openly acknowledge its nuclear weapons.

Vanunu, who is still under tight security restrictions that bar him from leaving the country, said the authorities should now "end my case, which is making a mockery of the world."

Shlomo Brom, an expert on strategic affairs at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Strategic Studies, said Olmert had simply been misunderstood. "This is much ado about nothing," Brom said.

[foot_soldier]

Re: Nuclear slip by Olmert sparks domestic fallout


.....aides to Olmert — who was in Berlin Tuesday on a state visit — hurriedly said (Olmert's) remark had been misinterpreted.....
..."misinterpreted..."

Sounds familiar. And as pathetically lame as ever.


.....Former Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, of the hardline Likud, another opposition party, said the comment could hurt Israel's attempt to get the international community to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.....
As if everyone doesn't know that Israel possesses nuclear weapons capability.

Are we all supposed to just keep pretending that's not in fact the case so a self-appointed few can continue to perpetuate their ideas of Hell on Earth?

And what about the U.S. and its formidable capacity in the nuclear weapons department?


.....Since 1945, the United States has refused to submit its nuclear program to authentic international controls, while insisting, since 1968, the year of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, that other nations must submit in just that way.....
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1211-24.htm

The word "bizarre" comes to mind. As in "bizarre state of affairs."

[halva]

I posted the article on Olmert and the Israeli nuclear arsenal mainly because it just happened to be sent to me. But it did get me wondering. What are the origins of the "denial" reflex? The logic of the Cold War in the period up to the assassination of Kennedy was aggressive and inhuman, but not based on "denial". It was based on a will to power, and asserting power in an open and macho manner. Of course getting the Soviets into the nuclear arms race involved skills of sliminess and denial, but they all came to a head with the Cuban Missile Crisis, with Khruschev's blundering attempt to try to find a use for Soviet nuclear weapons: i.e. to trigger an American invasion of Cuba. Kennedy didn't fall for it, humiliated Khruschev and then embarked on what looked like the most serious attempt ever to implant U.S. imperial power in a way that could attract even something approaching loyalty.

After that everything started going wrong.

I was never a fan of Kennedy in my youth, but looking back now the enormity of the historical turn that was marked by his assassination has become ever clearer. And it seems that it was his opposition to the Israeli nuclear arsenal that was the key reason he "had to go".

It is utopian to think that aboliltion of Israeli nuclear weapons can be a first step towards global nuclear disarmament. The first step has to be taken in Europe: perhaps a trilateral agreement between France, Britain and Russia to abolish their nuclear arsenals. Then Israel can be offered membership of a denuclearised European Union if they similarly get rid of their nuclear weapons.

[halva]

Olmert’s nuclear slip-up sparks outrage in Israel... But comes perhaps at convenient time
Tuesday 12 December 2006
http://acdn.france.free.fr/spip/breve.php3?id_breve=257&lang=en

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, faced calls for his resignation today after admitting - in an apparent slip of the tongue - that Israel has got nuclear weapons.

But Israeli officials tried to push the cat back into the bag, denying that Mr Olmert had made any such admission and falling back on the Jewish state’s policy of "nuclear ambiguity".

Widely considered the Middle East’s sole nuclear power, Israel has for decades refused to confirm or deny whether it possesses the atomic bomb. Mr Olmert appeared to break that taboo in an interview with a German television station as he began a visit to Berlin.

"We never threatened any nation with annihilation," Mr Olmert, speaking in English, told the N24 Sat1 station.

"Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as France, America, Russia and Israel?"

Mr Olmert’s spokeswoman, Miri Eisin, was quick to deny that the Prime Minister had admitted to Israel having nuclear weapons, saying that "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the region."

Israel’s Negev nuclear research centre has been capable of creating nuclear-grade weapons material since the early 1960s, but has never been subject to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The IAEA has said, however, that it considers Israel "to be a state possessing nuclear weapons" and proliferation experts reckon that it could have more than 100 devices.

Israel’s policy of silence also allows it to skirt a US ban on funding countries that proliferate weapons of mass destruction and collect about $2 billion a year in military and other aid.

Mr Olmert’s blunder came less than a week after Israeli officials rounded on Robert Gates, the incoming US Defence Secretary, for making the same slip-up during his Senate confirmation hearings.

"The staggering comments of Ehud Olmert only serve to reinforce the doubts on his capacity to remain Prime Minister," said Yossi Beilin, a leftist MP.

Yuval Steinitz, from the opposition Likud bloc, Yuval Steinitz called on Mr Olmert to step down after having made "an irresponsible slip which puts into question a policy that dates back almost half a century".

Meanwhile, observers warned that Mr Olmert’s statement threatened to undercut efforts by Israel and the West to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear programme, which Tehran says is for civilian purposes and the West fears is a cover for acquiring atomic weapons.

Mordechai Vanunu, who served 18 years in jail after blowing the whistle on Israel’s nuclear program in 1986, welcomed the comment.

Philippe Naughton and agencies

Comment: Olmert’s slip comes at a convenient time

By Richard Beeston

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, faced calls for his resignation today after admitting - in an apparent slip of the tongue - that Israel has got nuclear weapons. The Times Diplomatic Editor explains why it will matter only within the walls of the Knesset.

Olmert’s slip came at a time when concerns are focused more on Iran’s nuclear plans

From the uproar in Israel and the defensiveness of Mr Olmert’s supporters it looks very much like this was a mistake, or a "nuclear slip of the tongue" as some Israeli papers have described it.

But it probably serves Israel’s interests to revise its long-held policy of "strategic ambiguity". For many years Israel was the only country outside the five declared nuclear powers to have built an atomic weapon. As such it deliberately wanted to maintain ambiguity about its status.

First, it wanted its enemies in the region to know that it had nuclear capability if threatened.

But it also wanted to keep the existence secret so that it did not fall foul of international action designed to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons, particularly strict US laws which could have jeopardised billions of dollars in annual aid.


These circumstances have now changed. India, Pakistan and North Korea have also acquired nuclear weapons. Iran is moving close to building an atomic bomb. Arab states throughout the region are hastily launching civilian nuclear programmes which would at least give them the option of developing a nuclear weapons capability down the road.

Pakistan has not suffered much damage because of its nuclear weapons programme, mainly because the West needs its support in the War on Terror. India has just completed an important nuclear agreement with America. It is very unlikely that Israel would suffer any significant fallout if it made a public declaration. Most countries are now far more fearful of Iran and its potential threat to the region.

As a result, there is probably more sympathy than ever in the West for Israel to maintain a nuclear deterrent.

In Israel, where Mr Olmert’s opponents have been calling for his resignation, it seems to matter politically.

Outside the world of Knesset politics, however, Mr Olmert was simply stating what everyone has known ever since 1986 when The Sunday Times published details of Israel’s secret atomic weapons programme thanks to Mordechai Vanunu, a technician at the secret Dimona nuclear site in the Negev desert.

[halva]

http://acdn.france.free.fr/spip/article.php3?id_article=207&lang=en

WORLD PEACE FORUM in Vancouver
The four-handed game of French nuclear policy
by Jean-Marie Matagne, president of ACDN


Publication date : 27 June 2006



The World Peace Forum opened on Friday, 23 June, in Vancouver, with a general session followed by a March for Peace through the city. More than 4,000 people are gathering there from all around the world. They are continuing their works and exchanges until 28 June.


A workshop sponsored by ACDN took place on Monday, June26. It was moderated by Alfred Webre (Institute for Cooperation in Space). After having heard Mike Wallace, professor of Political Science at the University of British Columbia, on the origins of the French nuclear forces, the audience heard Jean-Marie Matagne, PhD, president of ACDN, who pronounced the following exposé.



Ladies and Gentlemen,


Dear friends,


I thank you for coming and showing that you are still interested in the proud little nation called France. In the 17th century one in four Europeans were French; today France represents only one human being in a hundred. Fifty years ago she had a vast empire on which the sun never set; now all she retains is scattered fragments called Overseas Territories or Départements. Nevertheless she still claims to play the role of a "great power".


How can France claim to do so? In various ways. But above all by remaining one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, with veto rights, because, through the actions of General de Gaulle and the French Resistance, she counted among the victors of the Second World War. But also by raising as a sort of scarecrow her nuclear weapons, those that General de Gaulle in a less inspired moment secured for her in the early 1960s by pushing through the work of France’s Atomic Energy Commissariat (CEA).


So, consciously or not, French nuclear policy - both military and civilian - serves the ambitions of France’s leaders. On the other hand, without any doubt, it is the worst gift that French governments have given to humankind or to the French population - which has never had a chance of giving its opinion either on the military or the civilian uses of atomic energy. This poisoned gift, along with that of the other nuclear states, helps to rot the lives of the species homo sapiens sapiens and particularly of its French variety, homo gallicus.


One may well ask what is « sapiens » about the French. In my opinion, not much, as long as we continue to swallow the twaddle dished up by our leaders. I call it twaddle because it consists of lies intended to justify - by means of glorious or reassuring myths - some realities which are directly contrary to their pseudo-justifications.


"France" (taken to mean her principal political and economic leaders, her decision-makers) ... France is playing a double game on two adjacent fields: civilian nuclear technology and nuclear weapons. That is the "four-handed game" mentioned in the title of this exposé. One could equally talk of double and quadruple language: on the one hand beautiful words, on the other trivial deeds and sordid interests.


So, let us confront the words with the realities, starting at the beginning, that is, with the founding lie: the lie which, ever since the origins of French atomic research, has enabled this research to pass as a servant of disinterested science, or as science only interested in showering its benefits on society.


A civilian and military double game


In October 1945, when France’s Atomic Energy Commissariat (CEA) was created by de Gaulle’s provisional government, this institution was officially intended to conduct basic research and civilian applications. In reality, General de Gaulle already had military uses in mind. He had been convinced of the strategic and political value of atomic weapons since July 1944, when three French scientists exiled in Canada, Bertrand Goldschmidt, Jules Guéron and Pierre Auger, came to see him in Ottawa and revealed the existence of the « Manhattan Project » which they were associated with. This military orientation of the CEA became secretly even stronger under successive French governments up until May 1958 when General de Gaulle, who had stood aside in January 1946, returned to power at the time of the Algerian Crisis, and gave the final impetus to the nuclear programme.


Thus the first lie, « Atoms for Peace », was never the truth in France, except in public speeches and the deluded hopes of a few naïve scientists. Proof of this is that the first application of the "French atom" was a bomb. It exploded in the Sahara on 13 February 1960. In fact, this “first test” named operation « Gerboise Bleue » was apparently preceded in late 1959 by one or two tests that still remain secret. By contrast, the building of France’s series of nuclear power plants did not begin until the mid-70s and the "second oil shock".

(continued in next post)

[halva]

An industrial double game: the lies of civilian nuclearism


Today France has 58 powerful reactors spread around 19 sites. Her small area is dotted with them, which makes her the most nuclearised country per capita (roughly one reactor per million people). What can one say of the other lies that justify this situation, in the non-military sphere?


Nuclear power is claimed to be "the guarantee of our energy independence". This is false, of course, since all of the uranium used in our plants comes from abroad.


Nuclear power is claimed to be "sustainable energy". This is false, since at the current rate of uranium consumption, the known resources will be gone in 50 years or less. Everyone here knows this, but hardly any French people do.


Nuclear power is claimed to be "healthy energy", protecting us from the greenhouse effect. This is false - I won’t labour the point, but they try to make the French believe it.


Nuclear power is claimed to be "the cheapest energy". This is false, if you take account of


**the cost of research paid for by the state, that is by the taxpayers.


**the cost of decommissioning plants when they cease to be usable, and this is virtually ignored by the price per kilowatt/hour; yet it proves to be exorbitant, judging by the current dismantling of the Brennilis plant in Brittany.


**the cost of the perpetual management of the nuclear waste;


**the predictable increase in the price of uranium as the resources decrease;


**the human, environmental and financial cost of a Chernobyl-type accident - a cost so high that the lawmakers have made placed a ridiculously low limit on the liability of those responsible in such an occurrence.


But fortunately, a Chernobyl cannot occur in France! The nuclear technology of our corporations EDF and AREVA is the safest in the world. Alas, that pretty sales pitch is also a "beautiful lie", as Plato used to say. It ignores the fact that the Nuclear Safety Authority (the ASN) records every year over a hundred "functioning incidents", one every three days on average, some harmless some serious.


The worst of all those accidents was on 27 December 1999 at the plant at Blaye near Bordeaux. That day a major storm caused the Gironde river to rise higher than ever predicted. More than 100 000 cubic metres of water burst the stopbanks, entered without authorization one of the production units, flooded the basements, caused short-circuits and knocked out several of the reactor’s emergency cooling pumps. According to the director’s account, it came close to being a "major accident". After water comes fire: last year a fire ravaged part of the same plant, although it is recent and modern (it uses MOX). Anti-nuclear campaigners call it « Chernoblaye ». But most French people know nothing of that, because EDF and AREVA have excellent PR people, and the press and other media love the publicity they pay for.


One could go on listing the lies or the silences of this official propaganda which is used to "sell" nuclear energy to the French public as to other countries. That would be nitpicking and we have too little time.


I turn therefore to France’s double game in the military sphere, to speak first of the so-called nuclear deterrence strategy, and then of France’s claims to be making efforts for disarmament.


A military double game: the rhetoric and realities of nuclear deterrence.


Until 19 January this year (a date I will return to), the nuclear weapons were officially intended to never be used. Their role was purely deterrence. They would deter a potential enemy from attacking and invading France as occurred in 1870, 1914 and 1940. « If you attack our vital interests, we will make you pay by destroying your cities": this "anti-cities strategy" seemed simple. In reality it was not.


For one thing, the "vital interests" were never defined, nobody knew where they started - at which river, the Oder-Neisse line, the Neckar, the Rhine, the Marne, the Seine? Perhaps the Gironde? For another thing, the designated enemy during the Cold War possessed much more numerous and more powerful nuclear weapons; if we wiped out one or more of his cities, he would not fail to retaliate, only more brutally. This "deterrence by the weak against the strong", founded on the principle of a massive first strike, thus condemned France to physical destruction in the name of political survival. What a strange conception of our "vital interests"!


To circumvent this absurdity, they invented the concept of the « final warning », and the arms that go with it: before attacking the enemy’s cities, we would politely warn him by firing one or more missiles on his troops. Here too it was a first use nuclear strike.


But in early 1975 when the French army obtained Pluto missiles, the then Prime Minister, a certain Jacques Chirac, indicated that to make them really "deterrent", the army should prepare to actually use them on the battlefield, and that the Head of State should not hesitate to order this in such an occurrence. It’s only a small step from there to view them as usable weapons intended to counterbalance an enemy advance - a small step quickly taken by the strategists. Why deprive ourselves of the benefits of these weapons when we have them? They began to talk of "tactical missiles".


But this "final warning" concept and these tactical weapons, could they work? To gain clarity, President Giscard d’Estaing organised military manoeuvres in May 1980 in the zone of Germany still occupied by France. The high command then saw what was plain and obvious: if the Blue army (of France) used its tactical weapons to stop the enemy tanks, the Red army (the war-game Soviets) would hit back with theirs, only more brutally. Therefore it was best not to use them and to retreat into French territory in the hope of continuing the fight there with conventional arms.


President Giscard draw an even more radical conclusion, which he hid in his conscience before revealing it in his Memoirs: so as not to provoke the destruction of France, he resolved to never make first use of any nuclear weapons, strategic or tactical. Since their deterrence function rested on this first use, he was actually prepared to surrender if France were defeated by conventional arms - he pointed out rightly that France had recovered from more than one occupation in her history, but would never recover from being annihilated.


Thus the deterrence role which France’s nuclear arms were supposed to have was always nothing but a myth. It is false to claim they are "weapons of peace" intended never to be used, since on the contrary the strategy was for them to be used first. It is equally false that they protected France from invasion by Soviet aggression, since they would not have been usable without provoking the catastrophe they were meant to prevent. In short, not only has French deterrence never had a historic opportunity to work, but if it had, it would not have been able to succeed.


For this reason we can say that France’s strike force is the "Maginot Line" of the nuclear era, a line of defense which would not only fail to stop a very hypothetical aggressor from invading France, but would even incite him to destroy her.


This "Maginot Line" is hugely expensive, not at all comparable with the original "Maginot Line" of concrete and bunkers. Between 1945 and 2010 this one will have cost us more than 1500 billion francs (at their 1997 value) or over 225 billion Euros or 280 billion dollars at the current rate. It has cost us "an arm and a leg" and more besides. Bruno Barrillot in his “Atomic Audit” succeeded in publishing this precise cost, though it remains lower than the reality because the modernisation budget adopted since then exceeds the forecasts he used. He recalls in this matter some words of Pierre Messmer, a former Defense Minister of General de Gaulle: "There are military secrets which are expressed in budgetary silences. Nowhere in the military budget will you find the means to calculate the exact cost of our atomic weaponry. This is deliberate." To illustrate the real cost of these arms, Bruno Barrillot suggests the following image: "If you placed 100-franc notes end to end, the grand total spent on France’s nuclear weapons would make a ribbon 2 500 000 kilometres long, which is over 6 times the distance from the Earth to the Moon or 60 times the Earth’s circumference!"


To simplify that, convert those French notes in 20 dollar bills and you will get an idea of the literally astronomical costs of France’s "nuclear Maginot Line".


The nuclear weapons then only had one military function, the only one that President Giscard could see for them, when he looked inside himself: to avenge France in the case of a nuclear attack. They were thus not weapons of deterrence but arms of vengeance. However, the risk was that they might provoke that first strike attack from a nuclear-armed enemy who would logically wish to neutralise in advance the ground-based and airborne components of France’s strike-force. Besides, a retaliation launched from a submarine in such a case would merely result in making the nuclear destruction of France more complete. It is therefore not certain even that these weapons can work as arms of vengeance.


So what use have they been? What use are they now? Certainly not to ensure France’s defense, as the official speeches claim, but for playing and holding the role of "Great Power", no more no less. If you want to be at the Top Table, you need the Bomb. Therefore, if you have it, there’s no way you’ll part with it. This leads us to France’s final double game: her alleged commitment to disarmament.

[halva]

A diplomatic double game: disarmament and proliferation


France’s Ministers of Defense and Foreign Affaires circulated during the 7th NPT Revision Conference a brochure entitled: « The Struggle against Proliferation, the Mastery of Armaments and Disarmament: the Action of France ». If you read this superb bilingual brochure, you will be gobsmacked: it makes France out to be a champion of all categories of disarmament.


Admittedly, the facts reported are not all false. It is true that France played a positive role in the banning of chemical weapons and of landmines. But in the matter of nuclear disarmament, the art lies in presenting some facts and omitting others. Never, ever, has France intended to renounce her nuclear weapons, not even after finally signed the NPT in 1992, and thus accepting this obligation which is placed on all the nuclear powers.


Most of the measures presented as disarmament gestures were motivated by quite different considerations. Thus, the reduction in the number of warhead (from 500 to 348) is justified by the honourable concept of “strict sufficiency”: France disarming and only keeping the weapons she absolutely needs. In reality, this reduction resulted from a concern for economy and the delayed realization that some of those weapons had no conceivable usefulness, neither the strategic weapons on the Albion plateau nor the Pluto and Hades tactical weapons. With the decision came the command: “no reduction vigilance”.


Similarly in June 1995, when “France”, that is the new president Jacques Chirac « announced the decision to carry out a final series of nuclear tests, before the concluding of the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty), the reason was her intention to retain her weapons without doing any testing after signing the treaty. Another reason - which was carefully not given - was the plan to replace the Pacific Testing Centre with that at Le Barp, near Bordeaux, where the MegaJoule Laser would be preparing the weapons of the future, the famous pure-fusion « mininukes » suitable for use as battlefield weapons. This is something the French do not know and which the government denies. In short, the purpose was to maintain, modernise and enlarge her arsenal, not to abandon it!


To permit discussion, I will say no more on that matter, or on the exceedingly proliferating role that France has played and continues to play, both by her doctrine called “deterrence of the weak to the strong” (e.g. of North Korea to the USA) and by her exports of so-called “civilian” nuclear technologies. The fact is that France’s civilian nuclear programme, after providing an alibi for military research, has also been a Trojan Horse for the weapons of others. This is very much a four-handed game, where the majority hand pretends not to know what the minority hand is doing. But the game is so well polished that nobody notices the grating noises in it.


Before concluding, I would like to return briefly to the date 19 January 2006 and the speech given that day by Jacques Chirac at the Ile Longue nuclear submarine base in Brittany. It is extremely important.


Chirac’s drifting from 1975 to 2006


This speech, quite in keeping with Chirac’s mentality as displaying in his remarks on the use of Pluto missiles and in his previous strategic speech of 8 June 2001, brings to France’s defense doctrine some striking innovations. For the first time a President of France, the sole captain of the ship save God, specifies what he means by “vital interests”. For M. Chirac, our nuclear weapons can be used, as the Gaullist doctrine said, against a state attacking French territory, but also, if the president so judges it, against a state presumed to be an accomplice of terrorist attacks, a state suspected to be on the point of using weapons of mass destruction, a state committing aggression against “our allies” or one of them, and a state threatening our “strategic provisioning” (presumably uranium and oil). They can be used in retaliation but also “pre-emptively”. In short, they can be used at any time on any pretext, and against any enemy - only provided he could not retaliate with the same weapons... This is not "comprehensive defense" any more, it is comprehensive attack. It is whatever you feel like. The traditional strategy was already incoherent. What can one say of this? That it pushes incoherence to its logical conclusion: nuclear weapons have no defensive uses, they are nothing but a means of imposing one’s will on someone else who is weaker.


Nevertheless, in order for the threat to remain credible and vaguely moral, M. Chirac states that our nuclear weapons are fitted to the nature of the target: to aim at the enemy’s “decision centres” - and nothing else, apparently. The hinted message is that we don’t want to hurt the population. That is another lie. Indeed, this implies a limited explosive power, which none of France’s 348 declared warheads can offer, since the weakest of them yield 100 kilotonnes, which is 7 or 8 times the Hiroshima bomb (and the most powerful, three times more). Collateral damage, here we come!


That lie implies others. They can’t have it both ways. Either France lacks the means for her new strategy and M. Chirac is bluffing while he waits to acquire it. In that case, he is lying and his Ministry of Defense also is lying when it claims that the Mega Joule Laser and its simulation programmes serve only to maintain existing weapons. Or else France already has these smaller weapons, in violation of her declarations and the laws passed by Parliament. In either case, there’s enough there to bring M. Chirac before the High Court of Justice.


Yet this humanist says he is a convinced supporter of abolishing the death penalty! Let him begin by abolishing his nuclear weapons and his threats of mass murder.


Conclusion


Only one thing is certain: this strategic delirium has nothing to do with defending France. Nuclear weapons are above all an instrument of political power. There is a need to make France a formidable power, and to make her Head of State a Monsieur to whom the world listens. « The Redoubtable », « The Terrible », « The Thunderer », « The Lightningflash », « The Triumphant » those are the names of our nuclear submarines. That is the mentality of that France, a France of criminals, murderers, liars, fools or imbeciles. The France that wants to be terrifying, and exploits this to sell arms and atoms, is not our France. We cannot believe that it is the France of the French people, who are as individuals no more intelligent, stupid or nasty than the human average.


That is why ACDN is demanding that candidates for the 2007 parliamentary and presidential elections should commit themselves to consulting the French people by referendum on this vital question of nuclear disarmament which affects everyone, well beyond France’s own frontiers.


I thank you for your attention, and for your support, I hope, for the action we are taking. *


Jean-Marie Matagne

[halva]

* Please see below and print the letter intended for candidates to the next French elections. Thank you for signing on it and returning it to:


ACDN, 31 Rue du Cormier - 17100 - SAINTES (FRANCE)


Fax: ++ 33 5 46 74 08 60



To Whom It May Concern


Dear Madam/Sir


We the Undersigned,


Participating with several thousand people in the World Peace Forum held in Vancouver, Canada, from 23 to 28 June 2006,


Deeply concerned by the current French nuclear policies,


Informed of the opportunity that these policies be changed by the future government of France after the next presidential and legislative elections in 2007,


Having considered the following question:


“Do you wish France to ask all nuclear states, whether or not signatories to the Non Proliferation Treaty, to negotiate and adopt by 2010 at the latest a calendar for implementing the elimination of all nuclear arsenals under strict and effective international control, to suspend her programme for new nuclear arms up to and including 2010, and to divert these budgets to satisfying other needs - social, health, cultural, educational, environmental or humanitarian?”


**ANSWER “YES” to this question and ENDORSE it,


**ASK YOU for giving a positive answer to it,


**URGE YOU to commit yourself to demanding, organizing or supporting a consultation of the French people by a referendum on this question as soon as possible following the next French presidential election.


**THANK YOU for all your personal efforts aimed to the controlled elimination of all nuclear weapons, including the French ones.

[jayreynolds]

I think so, it presents compelling evidence which points directly to Chemtrail Spraying as fact that can be replicated by anyone through ground observation and checking the upper air sounding data for their area, you don't have to have a Ph.D.. in atmospheric science to read the data and figure out whether or not persistent contrail's can or can not form, the numbers don't lie and what remains is the truth.

You know how the big mouth debunkers are always hollering, "Where is the proof, the empirical scientific evidence, show us the proof" in their snide, sarcastic manner, well, why don't any of them address the material found at http://watchthesky.org/chems/chemdata.htm , why do they demand proof yet ignore it when it is presented to them?

The term "Hypocrite" and it's definition comes to mind, doesn't it ?
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread11519.html

Actually, Lou, the term dupe comes to mind.
Did you ever wonder why Scott Stevens' hands are all over this?
Doesn't it all seem an eeency bit too easy?
Think about it...........

[halva]

I've told Lou not to reply to your idiotic attempts to perpetuate beyond the grave your feud with him, unless he can make a smart intervention like J Vitum explosing you for the fraud you are. Do you think he will finally listen to me?

[halva]

Greenpeace support for Crutzen

ENN FULL STORY
Scientist Says New Data Backs Sulphur Climate Plan

December 15, 2006 — By Ari Rabinovitch, Reuters


TEL AVIV -- Nobel Prize laureate Paul Crutzen says he has new data supporting his controversial theory that injecting the common pollutant sulphur into the atmosphere would cancel out the greenhouse effect.

Though such a project could not be implemented for at least 10 years, the data is aimed at appeasing critics of the idea he first championed in the scientific journal Climatic Change in August.

The Dutch meteorologist showed what he calls the positive cooling effect of adding a layer of sulphates to the atmosphere at a global warming conference at the Porter School for Environmental Studies in Tel Aviv.

He said new, detailed calculations carried out since August showed the project would indeed lower global temperatures.

"Our calculations using the best models available have shown that injecting 1 million tonnes of sulphur a year would cool down the climate so the greenhouse effect is wiped out," Crutzen told Reuters.

An added layer of sulphates in the stratosphere, some 10 miles (16 km) above the earth, would reflect sunlight into space and reduce solar radiation reaching the earth's surface, Crutzen said.

He said he envisioned giant cannons or balloons dispersing the sulphur to offset the build-up of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, largely released by burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and vehicles.

The world has struggled for decades to reduce sulphur pollution, a component of acid rain that kills forests and fish, mainly through tighter controls on burning coal.

"We are now entering a very intensive period of model calculations and following that we will conduct small experiments to test the sulphur oxidation mechanisms that we calculated," Crutzen said.

NO LONGER TABOO

Crutzen said he planned to publish the new findings in a few months' time in one of the major scientific journals.

The idea of using sulphur to combat global warming -- which most scientists say will bring more floods, desertification, heatwaves and rising sea levels -- is not new.

Scientists noticed that large volcanic eruptions had similar effects and the 1991 eruption on Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines lowered temperatures around the world for two years.

For decades the theory was dismissed as dangerous until Crutzen, who won the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for research on ozone, published his paper.

"Until August this was a taboo issue. But the paper I published really set off some movement in this area. It never hit the level of seriousness which it has taken in the past months. It may have had to do with the Nobel Prize, but I hope that's not all," Crutzen said.

Some critics say the project is too risky and will have negative effects on the earth's water supply and increase acid rain.

Crutzen said it was necessary to study the negative consequences, but he did not expect a rise in acid rain because the amount of sulphur injected would be a small percentage of the sulphates polluting the lower atmosphere today.

Some environmental groups, wary of geo-engineering projects, say the idea should at least be looked at.

"The fact that the top experts in the field are saying it's necessary shows it's a sad state of affairs," said Steve Sawyer, a policy adviser for Greenpeace International.

"This idea should be examined and as a last resort it can buy us a few decades," Sawyer said.

Source: Reuters

[jayreynolds]

I've told Lou not to reply to your idiotic attempts to perpetuate beyond the grave your feud with him, unless he can make a smart intervention like J Vitum explosing you for the fraud you are. Do you think he will finally listen to me?

Sure, Wayne, he's such a wimp you can bully him into doing whatever you want.

Or maybe you can try and wear him out with one of your mind-bending interminably abstruse essays.

That's the ticket!

[halva]

I thought you said that you were going to keep ME in reactive mode.

[jayreynolds]

I thought you said that you were going to keep ME in reactive mode.
Well, Wayne, why are you here?

ROTFLMAO!
http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1160143633&page=3

http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1160143633&page=4

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/msg103146.html#103146

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread7978-300.html

[halva]

Here is the situation in a nutshell. This is the story of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and the network of related institutions of which it will serve as an example as good as any:

The same people and institutions that created and magnified the "nuclear war" threat, in whose name they ruined the planet, in particular the ozone layer, with their atmospheric nuclear testing, their Star Wars and related largely military-related vandalism, at a certain point in the process - very largely after the collapse in radioactive ruins of the bogyman "enemy" they had created, decided that the only way they could even begin to try to reverse at least some of the damage they had done was by denying its existence.

They thus moved from being hysterical danger mongers to being "deniers" and debunkers, particularly of the environmental consequences of their own previous actions. Their "loyal opposition", often without even noticing the change, dutifully moved the centre of their focus away from "nuclear disarmament" to "climate change", from which viewpoint they then proceeded, instead of berating the fanaticism, extremism and danger-mongering of their "opponents", proceeded to berate their contempt for "scientific objecivity", "reflex of denial".
etc. etc.

If there indeed IS any solution to all this, it can only be achieved by clearing out of the way all those with guilty consciences, and the "denial" lobby that are their stooges. This is difficult, because it is people with guilty consciences, from Oppenheimer through Einstein to Joseph Rotblat and Olaf Palme, that from the beginning have played the leadership role in whistleblowing on the activities of these circles.

[jayreynolds]

Wayne, enough of the rambling conspiracy theories and your tenous grip on reality.

Where's the proof of any of this?

If 1/2 of what you say were true, Iran and North Korea as well as any of bzush's enemies would be propagandizing the hell out of it, atmospheric scientists and pilots would be spiraling in loops over the White House, and the world would be quite a different place than what it really is.

Get a grip. man, you're looking more and more to your own people like a disinfo artist every day anyways, to the rest of the world you're just another a nutcase wanker speaking nonsense on a street corner wearing a tin-foil hat..

[jayreynolds]

Well, Wayne, why are you here?

ROTFLMAO!
http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1160143633&page=3

http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=aerosol&action=display&thread=1160143633&page=4


Wow, It's as if I'm running the show over at gastronomus forum.

This morning i laughed so hard at the above links, they went and fell off the board!

ROTFLMAO!
ROTFLMAO!
ROTFLMAO!
ROTFLMAO!

[halva]

I am not following the links you post but they must be old because nobody is talking about you at Gastronamus any more. They have decided there are more important things to talk about, as I have been also telling them, and are largely talking about Rosalind Peterson at the moment, not about you. Why are you such a
fantasist?

[jayreynolds]

I am not following the links you post but they must be old because nobody is talking about you at Gastronamus any more. They have decided there are more important things to talk about, as I have been also telling them, and are largely talking about Rosalind Peterson at the moment, not about you. Why are you such a fantasist?
Wayne, the folks at gastronomus can't stop even if they try. They were forced to use automation to prevent my real name from appearing on the forum. Now, whenever they react to me, the word 'spray' appears! This is probably as close to a compliment as I can expect, besides the fact that Swampgas and his wife published a whole CD of music about me. It demonstrates how one person really can make a difference!(if truth is on his side)

It's wonderful to see suck-rates and the rest get the long knives out after Peterson. Even your own people can see through her particular brand of deception.

[jayreynolds]

They have decided there are more important things to talk about, as I have been also telling them, and are largely talking about Rosalind Peterson at the moment, not about you.

Ok, speaking of 'Loopy' Lou Aubuchont, I see the master of misinformation has come up with yet another rabbit hole that deserves to be filled in.


Something that "Patrick Minnis" mentioned in one of his contrail study papers ( Can't recall which right now ) was the use of "Cryogenic" fuels in commercial airliners, cryogel / cryogenic fuels can contain large amounts of Aluminum and or Magnesium and they are mostly associated with use in rockets not civilian jetliners.

This strange statement out of Minnis's mouth has me wondering what's really going on with airline aviation fuel.
http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=weathercontrolhaarp&action=display&thread=1165993090&page=1#1166400364


Lou's memory lapses are an ongoing liability for your people , nevertheless, cryogenic fuels refer to liquid hydrogen fueled aircraft which unfortunately emit 2.5 lbs of water per lb. of fuel used versus about 1 lb for kereosene fuel.

As the amount of water produced in combustion has a direct relationship to the amount of contrails produced, you can imagine what contrails from hydrogen fueled aircraft, with 2 & 1/2 times more water emissions, would look like!

His claims about aircraft fuels, even cryogenic liquid hydrogen fuels, as containing "large amounts of aluminum and or magnesium have no basis in fact whatsoever.

[jayreynolds]

Hey, Wayne, thanks a million. Your check is in the mail............
http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=ozoneglobalwarming&action=display&thread=1165642479&page=2#1166452251

Just what I thought. He won't answer the question. He'll go on and on about how Chem11 and Deborah fudge things, but then he admits he has no scientific knowledge himself. He never answers any questions in a straight forward manner. He just comes back with his delusions.

I am out of this website.
On the chemtrail subliminals thread, Increase1776 dropped a pile of shit on me and Swamp asked me to apologize, not him. Screw this. Carry on with the confusion while sibncere people like me, Arcadia, and Big Bunny just don't post too much or leave.

HEY ARCADIA, BIG BUNNY, YOU ARE 100% CORRECT ABOUT WAYNE HALL AND HIS DISINFORMATION.

HALVA, THE ONLY BAD MISTAKE I HAVE MADE WAS TO EVER TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY.

BUT ATLEAST IT IS ALL OUT THERE THAT YOU ARE A FRAUD, AN APPENDAGE TO JohnnySpray.

I AM OUT OF THIS WEBSITE. F YOU HALVA AND INCREASE. f all you frauds.
I hope those energy company checks are serving you well.

[EdSnell]

This is rich and worth repeating :) :



HALVA, THE ONLY BAD MISTAKE I HAVE MADE WAS TO EVER TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY.

BUT ATLEAST IT IS ALL OUT THERE THAT YOU ARE A FRAUD, AN APPENDAGE TO JohnnySpray.

[halva]

Dummy spitting is what they called it in Australia last time I was there. (I think you call dummies pacifiers in the States, don't you.)

[halva]

Ed Smell, coming from you that remark could easily be mistaken for an overture of friendship.
Careful you don't compromise yourself.

[jayreynolds]

Wayne, some might find your success at driving away posters like 'Socrates' alarming. Better keep things on a little lower pitch for awhile. Mum's the word!

[halva]

Last week you were ridiculing me for having been driven away from two forums by him, Raynolds. Why do you have such contempt for the intelligence of your readers?

[jayreynolds]

Last week you were ridiculing me for having been driven away from two forums by him, Raynolds. Why do you have such contempt for the intelligence of your readers?
I am only being fair to both of you, and giving credit where credit is due!

[halva]

I can give you advice too: how about starting to be fair to your family and to your own medical condition, which makes if very likely indeed that I will be dancing on your grave as I have said for years that I will do.

Or would if it weren't for the fact that I have given up travelling by air.

[jayreynolds]

I can give you advice too: how about starting to be fair to your family and to your own medical condition, which makes if very likely indeed that I will be dancing on your grave as I have said for years that I will do.

Or would if it weren't for the fact that I have given up travelling by air.
Wayne, my family is fine. I have no current medical conditions of any consequence whatsoever.

It's good that you are scared to fly. The reason you don't, however, is that you are frightened about the reality that all ordinary commercial jet pilots both make and see this sort of thing all the time and understand that they are simply ordinary contrails.
"2 aircraft ahead of us with some spectacular contrails. The aircraft above is a Northwest B747-400 turning right to join our Airway. The aircraft below is a Singapore Airlines B777 on the same route as ourselves."
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/287638/M/

[halva]

BBC Radio 4

21:00http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4 (GMT)

It can be listened to anytime from tomorrow for at least six days (sometimes longer for science docs) by going to:*

Frontiershttp://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/frontiers.shtml

20 December 2006

Peter Evans looks at some of the biggest engineering projects ever imagined. A growing number of scientists think that it is too late to avoid global warming through cutting carbon emissions, and that we urgently need alternative strategies for cooling the Earth.

From a plan to put a trillion mirrors into space, to global fleets of solar-powered ships spraying seawater into clouds, he explores some stop-gap solutions to this global malfunction. Hair-brained schemes or Earth-saving solutions?

*

[jayreynolds]

Delicious irony?
or
Hypocrisy on display?

I note this anti-aviation article includesabout 1/4 page of adverts for vacation flights, etc.
The Emirates airline ad contains one of the much loathed 'subliminals':
http://travel.guardian.co.uk/article/2006/dec/10/ethicalholidays.escape1

[halva]

Delicious irony?
or
Hypocrisy on display?

I note this anti-aviation article includesabout 1/4 page of adverts for vacation flights, etc.
The Emirates airline ad contains one of the much loathed 'subliminals':
http://travel.guardian.co.uk/article/2006/dec/10/ethicalholidays.escape1


Cigarette advertisements have government warnings underneath them saying that smoking causes cancer.

Or perhaps government warnings saying that smoking causes cancer have cigarette advertisements above them.

[jayreynolds]

I'll agree, wayne. The 'Guardian' is no better than the marketers of cigarettes, or the "Marketers of Air Pollution" like yourself.

[EdSnell]

Schwarzenegger Remakes Himself as Environmentalist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122201476_pf.html)

Governor Challenges GOP on Global Warming

By John Pomfret
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 23, 2006; A01

SACRAMENTO -- Arnold Schwarzenegger is not the type of guy you would necessarily associate with tree hugging. When he bought a Hummer in the early 1990s, it kicked off a nationwide craze for the gas-guzzling behemoths. His lighter-fluid-dowsed action flicks and protein-packed chest bespoke more of American excess than environmentalism, more violence than vegan.

But as governor of California, Schwarzenegger has engaged in a savvy makeover, befitting a Hollywood star. He retooled one of his four Hummers to run on alternative fuels and is quickly fashioning himself into one of the most aggressively pro-environment governors in a state known for leading the nation on that issue.

This year he signed the nation's first environmental law of its kind, committing the state to lowering its greenhouse gas production to 1990 levels by 2020 and setting up an international program that provides manufacturers with incentives to lower carbon emissions, which is supposed to begin by 2012. He has vowed to fight any attempt to drill for oil off California's coast.

And now Schwarzenegger, a Republican, wants to use his star power to turn global warming into an issue in the 2008 presidential election. "There is a whole new movement because of the change of people sent to Washington," Schwarzenegger said in an interview this week, referring to the Democratic Party's impending takeover of Congress. "We want to put the spotlight on this issue in America. It has to become a debate in the presidential election. It has to become an issue."

Schwarzenegger's relationship with the Bush administration and the conservative wing of the Republican Party has been rocky. He has clashed with Bush over stem cell research (Schwarzenegger favors, Bush opposes), dispatching the National Guard to do border enforcement (Bush ordered, Schwarzenegger opposed) and legalizing the purchase of prescription drugs from Canada (Bush opposes, Schwarzenegger favors).

But no other issue divides the governor and the president as much as global warming. Schwarzenegger's embrace of the issue is clearly a gambit on the part of a politician with big ambitions. Analysts say he could run for the Senate in 2010. He cannot run for president because he was not born in the United States.

Schwarzenegger made no bones about his exasperation with the Bush administration's refusal to allow California to become the first state in the nation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. A request in 2005 for that authority has received no response from the Environmental Protection Agency. The question of whether the EPA -- or other agencies -- should regulate greenhouse gases is being considered by the Supreme Court.

"We are going to find a way to do it, no matter what anyone says," Schwarzenegger said. ". . . We have to make moves that protect the health of the people. That's our number one priority.

"We don't want Washington to tell us when we are allowed to be healthy or when we should get cancer," he continued. "We don't want people to die because pollution causes certain illnesses and cancers and so on."

Schwarzenegger argued that in a "Nixon goes to China" way he is uniquely poised to lead on the environmental front. Calling himself a "sane Republican," he said his pro-business philosophy and fiscal conservatism shield him from accusations of being "the tree hugger, the crazy guy out there who wants to live on the moon and talk about the spirits and all this holistic stuff."

"With me they can't do it, because my whole history is different," he said, puffing thoughtfully on a fat cigar in his smoking tent in a courtyard of the state Capitol. "It's unexpected, so therefore you have a better chance to have an impact. . . . All those businesses would never have a better guy than me."

Schwarzenegger asserted that his embrace of the issue has helped prompt other Republicans to change their tune on the environment. Republican presidential hopefuls have reached out to Schwarzenegger's team to talk about global warming, an aide noted.

While other states are also far out ahead of the federal government on global warming, California is the place to lead the country on green issues, he contended. This state "is really in a unique position because we have such an impact on the world," he said.

"You go back to bodybuilding," he added, musing about his roots. "We promoted bodybuilding here, but it went all over the world, and now in every town, no matter where you go in the Middle East or Africa or China, everybody is working out, lifting weights, in the garage, at home or in the bedroom, pulling out equipment from under the bed."

California's two senators, Democrats Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, have told officials in Sacramento that they intend to model federal legislation on California's greenhouse gas legislation. Schwarzenegger said he is ready to go to Washington to testify on the issue.

Schwarzenegger also contended that bold American action on global warming -- a makeover that parallels his own -- could do much to improve the nation's international image.

"The war has dragged us down. There's no reason to get political, that's just the way it is," he said. "But you can balance it by being a great leader in the environment."

"The more America shows leadership in that area," he said, "the more we will be loved for that as much as they love us for our hamburgers and for our jeans and for our movies and for our music."

Environmental groups, rarely inclined to support a Republican, have grudgingly given Schwarzenegger decent marks. "Schwarzenegger has really taken the lead on greenhouse gases, more so than almost any American politician," said Frank O'Donnell, president of D.C.-based Clean Air Watch. "His state is the leading edge of many of our problems, but it's also the leading edge of many of their solutions."

In California, Schwarzenegger's pro-environmental position is part of a bipartisan tradition; even Ronald Reagan was known as pro-environment during his years in the statehouse. Since the 1960s, the state, bedeviled by the worst air quality in the United States, has led the nation in tackling pollutants. In 1961, it required the first automotive emissions control technology in the nation, and its regulations continue to be the toughest in the country.

California's standards have helped give birth in the United States to hybrid cars, efficient refrigerators and air conditioners, and the catalytic converter, which, because of California's leadership, will soon be installed on lawn mowers and other equipment using two-stroke engines.

The federal Air Quality Act of 1967 granted California a waiver to set and enforce its own emissions standards for new vehicles. Based on that waiver, California asked the federal government to allow it to begin limiting greenhouse gases from cars. California's status on this front gives it further claim to an environmental leadership role, Schwarzenegger said.

To be sure, there were -- and still are -- huge fights over emissions and, more broadly, coastal preservation. California is home to Richard W. Pombo (R), a congressman who almost succeeded in weakening the Endangered Species Act before he was defeated in November.

Nonetheless, the state's tough regulations have resulted in improvements. Schwarzenegger recalled that, when he first moved to California, his workouts on Muscle Beach in Venice left him with teary eyes.

"They were just burning all the time, and now I've never felt that again. It's just gone. That is unbelievable progress," he said. "It's all because of the Clean Air Act and the catalytic converter. All those kind of things that were done in the '70s which everyone fought about and said that business would go down and everyone was going to move from California and the world was going to be flat again and all this drama. And look what happened? The whole world is doing it."

Because California has embraced conservation like no other big state, its per capita consumption of energy has remained flat over 30 years, while the rest of the country's has increased by 50 percent. And total vehicle emissions of nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons have fallen more than 20 percent in 15 years, even though miles driven by state motorists are up by more than 20 percent.

Noting that Silicon Valley investors are devoting billions of dollars to green technology, Schwarzenegger predicted that a new era is dawning for business. He enthused about a recent trip to the Los Angeles Auto Show, where he test-drove an electric race car that went from 0 to 60 mph in 4.1 seconds. "A battery? I mean that's extraordinary. That's faster than a turbo Porsche," he said.

"All of this is going to be a whole new phenomenon," he said, "where people who are smart and entrepreneurial will not fight it but will get into it."

[halva]

The most interesting point in the following story, as I saw it, was the information about the view of "policy advisor of Greenpeace" Steve Sawer. Does this foreshadow a change of position by Greenpeace on the geoengineering proposals and programmes they have done their best to ignore?

If so, it would make what I wrote on this subject a few years ago obsolete:

"The big environmental NGOs such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth or WWF do not try to glamorise or otherwise promote geoengineering. They simply act as if it is not occurring. Their silence, to look at its positive aspect, possibly reflects a refusal to be associated with the task of making geoengineering look respectable."

http://www.enouranois.gr/english/sygrafeisenglish/wayne/wayneenglish.htm





ENN FULL STORY
Scientist Says New Data Backs Sulphur Climate Plan
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11856&ref=rss

December 15, 2006 — By Ari Rabinovitch, Reuters
TEL AVIV -- Nobel Prize laureate Paul Crutzen says he has new data supporting his controversial theory that injecting the common pollutant sulphur into the atmosphere would cancel out the greenhouse effect.

Though such a project could not be implemented for at least 10 years, the data is aimed at appeasing critics of the idea he first championed in the scientific journal Climatic Change in August.

The Dutch meteorologist showed what he calls the positive cooling effect of adding a layer of sulphates to the atmosphere at a global warming conference at the Porter School for Environmental Studies in Tel Aviv.

He said new, detailed calculations carried out since August showed the project would indeed lower global temperatures.

"Our calculations using the best models available have shown that injecting 1 million tonnes of sulphur a year would cool down the climate so the greenhouse effect is wiped out," Crutzen told Reuters.

An added layer of sulphates in the stratosphere, some 10 miles (16 km) above the earth, would reflect sunlight into space and reduce solar radiation reaching the earth's surface, Crutzen said.

He said he envisioned giant cannons or balloons dispersing the sulphur to offset the build-up of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, largely released by burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and vehicles.

The world has struggled for decades to reduce sulphur pollution, a component of acid rain that kills forests and fish, mainly through tighter controls on burning coal.

"We are now entering a very intensive period of model calculations and following that we will conduct small experiments to test the sulphur oxidation mechanisms that we calculated," Crutzen said.

NO LONGER TABOO

Crutzen said he planned to publish the new findings in a few months' time in one of the major scientific journals.

The idea of using sulphur to combat global warming -- which most scientists say will bring more floods, desertification, heatwaves and rising sea levels -- is not new.

Scientists noticed that large volcanic eruptions had similar effects and the 1991 eruption on Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines lowered temperatures around the world for two years.

For decades the theory was dismissed as dangerous until Crutzen, who won the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for research on ozone, published his paper.

"Until August this was a taboo issue. But the paper I published really set off some movement in this area. It never hit the level of seriousness which it has taken in the past months. It may have had to do with the Nobel Prize, but I hope that's not all," Crutzen said.

Some critics say the project is too risky and will have negative effects on the earth's water supply and increase acid rain.

Crutzen said it was necessary to study the negative consequences, but he did not expect a rise in acid rain because the amount of sulphur injected would be a small percentage of the sulphates polluting the lower atmosphere today.

Some environmental groups, wary of geo-engineering projects, say the idea should at least be looked at.

"The fact that the top experts in the field are saying it's necessary shows it's a sad state of affairs," said Steve Sawyer, a policy adviser for Greenpeace International.

"This idea should be examined and as a last resort it can buy us a few decades," Sawyer said.

Source: Reuters

[foot_soldier]

December 23, 2006
Trading Places
By Robert Kuttner
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/12/23/trading_places/

GLOBAL WARMING has reached a point where some ski resorts in the Alps find themselves with no snow as the Christmas ski season approaches. Against this background, some European leaders are proposing a new hard line against major polluting countries that do not take global climate change seriously.

That would be the United States.

French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has proposed a "green tax" on the exports of major nations that have not ratified the Kyoto Accords for reducing greenhouse gases. Villepin reasons that Europe, which imposes costs on its industries to cut pollution, incurs a competitive (dis)advantage while dirtier American producers take a free ride on Mother Nature.

You remember Villepin? As foreign minister during the run-up to the Iraq war, he was widely ridiculed for questioning whether the Bush administration was telling the truth about Saddam' s alleged weapons of mass destruction. American patriots railed against Villepin, boycotting French wines and renaming one of America' s favorite fast food(s) "freedom fries."

Now the man wants to tax American exports (if he can find any!) for adding to the planet's pollution.

But maybe the French are right on this one, too. It is scandalous that the United States has failed to participate in the Kyoto system for reducing the carbon emissions that cause catastrophic global climate change.

Increasingly, we are told, the world is one big marketplace. Some market enthusiasts insist the market now moots the role of governments. But if the world is not to drown literally on a rising tide of melted water created by the waste products of its collective industrial output, then some authority, whether national or transnational, had better get serious about limiting carbon emissions.

That authority is certainly not going to be President Bush.

But what right, you might ask, does the global trading system have to impose its norms on the United States? As it happens, the United States has long done exactly that with other nations.

Washington is accustomed to using the global trading system as its leverage for imposing its preferred rules of free-market economic behavior on the rest of the world. In the 1990s, countries that got in hock to American banks got hauled before the International Monetary Fund, and were made to reduce their social outlays, balance their budgets, cut social regulations on business, and open their banking systems to foreign speculation. This was known as IMF "conditionality." It was an open secret that the IMF was doing the bidding of the United States and specifically of American bankers.

The recipe proved to be such a disaster that several nations vowed never to do business with the IMF again. The developing countries that turned in the best performance -- China, Japan, Korea, India -- were those that rejected the whole approach.

More recently, the U S government has tried to use the trading system to compel other countries to respect American norms of "intellectual property." That means long periods of patent, trademark, and copyright protections, and no special treatment even for lifesaving drugs needed by the third world.

But nations such as India and Brazil fought back, offering to supply cheap generics to poor countries. Despite the immense power of the drug industry, the U S had to backpedal and allow some cheaper drugs.

Now the French have decided that any number can play this game. If other goals can be imposed on the trading system rules about intellectual property, rules about financial markets--what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Despite America's vaunted claim of being the last superpower left, Washington no longer has the leverage it once enjoyed to make others bend to its preferred rules while claiming special privileges for itself.

With America bogged down in Iraq, a trade deficit that hits new records with each succeeding year, and the dollar at new lows against the Euro, the United States can no longer assume it is exempt from the sort of rules it likes to impose on lesser nations. Even the Italians and the Spanish, among the lesser powers of Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" are now on the verge of bringing changes against CIA agents for resorting to extra-legal kidnapping on their sovereign soil.

How to use the trading system for social goals is not a simple matter. But if we are to be one big economy, we definitely need one set of rules -- and not all of them will be made exclusively in America. Rules for the environment are a good place to start.

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. His column appears regularly in the Globe

[jayreynolds]

According to the facts, for twenty years the US has had a trade deficit with France.
For those of you who don't understand what that means, they sell us more than we sell them.
if they want to get into a trade war with the US, guess who loses?
F the frogs, we can get cheese wine and perfume elsewhere.

And as far as France's largest export, airplanes, F them too.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=airbus+orders+cancelled&btnG=Search

[foot_soldier]

December 27, 2006
US Court Strikes Down 2004 EPA Smog Rules
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39624/story.htm

WASHINGTON - Smog-reduction regulations proposed by the Bush administration in 2004 are too weak, a US court ruled Friday, sending the rules back to the Environmental Protection Agency for reworking.

EPA's proposal to set an eight-hour standard for ozone emissions violates the Clean Air Act, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia court said in a 40-page ruling.

The ruling came in response to a suit filed by environmental groups, a local California air regulator and several states who wanted more stringent limits on smog.

At issue was the EPA's April 2004 ruling that 474 of the nation's 2,700 counties in 31 states have unacceptable levels of ground-level ozone, a major ingredient in unhealthy smog.

About 159 million Americans live in counties that violate the new standards, the agency said when it issued the rule.

"We vacate the 2004 Rule and remand the matter to EPA," the court said. "EPA has failed to heed the restrictions on its discretion set forth" in the Clean Air Act.

The EPA will review the decision and decide whether to seek a rehearing, EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said.

"EPA is committed to ensuring our nation's ozone air quality standards are implemented to protect public health and the environment," Wood said.

The EPA in 2004 ordered counties that failed its standards to submit plans to reduce emissions from refineries, power plants and other industrial sources, and advanced a new test that measures ozone levels over an eight-hour period.

Ozone occurs when fumes from automobiles, factories and other fossil fuels react with sunlight. It is linked to human respiratory problems including emphysema and bronchitis.

"This decision is a victory for clean air," said Earthjustice attorney David Baron. "Health experts say we need stronger, not weaker limits on smog."

The new standards actually weaken limits for new and expanded plants, and raise the threshold for triggering emission-reduction rules by a factor of four, Baron said.

The eight-hour ozone test stems from 1997 EPA rules, which had been delayed by numerous court challenges. The US Supreme Court upheld the rules in early 2001.

The proposal allows less ozone - 85 parts per billion down from 120 parts per billion - and requires more frequent tests.

Story by Chris Baltimore

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

[halva]

Which viewpoint do you prefer being required to confront, Raynolds, Footsoldier's or mine?

Do you imagine you can play us against each other?

You cannot.

[halva]

Face up to the fact, punk Reynolds, that when the question was whether or not chemtrails/engineering is a REALITY you were keen to ring up anyone and everyone on the face of the earth in order to expose the chemmie hoaxers. To use the reality of official secrecy as a means of keeping the mouths shut on both sides.

Since redefinition of the problem: the question is whether chemtrails/geoengineering SHOULD be a reality, the opening up of this issue and abandonment of the schizophenia that has prevailed so far and which you want to prolong as long as possible. (Who could be easier to rule than schizophrenics? Just keep them locked up and sedated!) you are no longer so keen to get on the phone or the e-mail to ANYBODY, whether their name is Crutzen or whether they are local government officials.

You are aware that at the first contact with extra-internet reality YOUR particular hoax is going to collapse like a house of cards,

[jayreynolds]

You are aware that at the first contact with extra-internet reality YOUR particular hoax is going to collapse like a house of cards,

Sorry to burst your bubble, Wayne, but life goes on in the extra-internet reality despite what you say, and it's not looking good for your hoax:

Lab Denies Role In Alleged Plane Plot


By MATT HAMPTON
New York City Queens Tribune

As the amount of air travel in the skies above New York City increases concordant with the holiday season, the air is full of more than just people moving from one part of the country to another.

Activists nationwide, and even some concerned citizens on the letters page of this very paper, have questioned the nature of the clouds above our heads. Ultimately, a great deal of hemming and hawing is propagated while the facts are left behind. Given the opportunity to talk to the very laboratory accused of nefarious practices in our own atmosphere, this paper found only the noble enterprise of gathering information, in the interest of learning more about our own environment.

Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, Long Island, is an important player in the fight to better understand global climate change. Their task is accomplished through the use of aircraft, both locally and across the North American continent.

“We fly airplanes, we make aircraft measurements,” said Stephen E. Schwartz, Chief Scientist at the Atmospheric Sciences Program. “We have instruments that will collect these individual particles.”

The individual particles in question are known as aerosols, chemicals in the air produced by fossil fuel combustion. The aerosols themselves can absorb light and chemicals, which, in the short run, has the positive outcome of offsetting some of the trapped carbon dioxide that increases global temperature. Any positive side-effects of the aerosols are short-lived however, as they last only a fraction of the time in the atmosphere that carbon dioxide does.

“What we’re trying to do is quantify this aerosol affect,” Schwartz said. “You can’t play that game forever.”

While the purpose of the Brookhaven National Laboratory is strictly academic, some community activists, including Alan Gross of Flushing, have voiced concern that part of their experimentation includes releasing aerosols over New York City as they study them, an assertion Schwartz flatly denies.

“We’re not putting stuff into the atmosphere,” he said. “The people driving cars and power plants do that.”

Theories similar to the aerosol effect have taken hold in other parts of the scientific community, as a Nobel Prize winning scientist recently announced a theory saying the earth could conceivably be cooled by a thin layer of pollution purposefully sprayed into the atmosphere.

The scientist, Paul Crutzen, later added a caveat, saying in a statement that he was attempting “to startle the policy makers.”

“There’s no question that this increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to create a hotter climate,” Schwartz said. He cautioned however, that the nature of global warming is the point of a common misconception. The Greenhouse Effect itself, Schwartz said, is actually a positive thing, allowing the planet to sustain life.

“It’s really good,” Schwartz said, “but too much of a good thing.” As more carbon dioxide is created by burning fossil fuels, then the Greenhouse Effect is accelerated to dangerous levels, presenting the dangers we see today.

“If you melt [glaciers of] Greenland, sea level is going to increase by 23 feet,” Schwartz said. “A 23-foot increase in the global oceans would get people’s attention.”

[halva]

You justify your presence here by digging up this information, which merely confirms all the parameters of a by-now familiar situation.

[halva]

Which viewpoint do you prefer being required to confront, Raynolds, Footsoldier's or mine?
.

[jayreynolds]

Face up to the fact, punk Reynolds, that when the question was whether or not chemtrails/engineering is a REALITY you were keen to ring up anyone and everyone on the face of the earth in order to expose the chemmie hoaxers. To use the reality of official secrecy as a means of keeping the mouths shut on both sides.

Since redefinition of the problem: the question is whether chemtrails/geoengineering SHOULD be a reality, the opening up of this issue and abandonment of the schizophenia that has prevailed so far and which you want to prolong as long as possible. (Who could be easier to rule than schizophrenics? Just keep them locked up and sedated!) you are no longer so keen to get on the phone or the e-mail to ANYBODY, whether their name is Crutzen or whether they are local government officials.

You are aware that at the first contact with extra-internet reality YOUR particular hoax is going to collapse like a house of cards,

Wayne, it's not nice to call your fellow chemmies "schizophrenics".

I don't think you can say making a single phone to one reporter, my buddy Ross Gelbspan, amounts to "ringing up anyone and everyone on the face of the earth". The fact of the matter is that I am able to leave this hoax for months at a time and it gets no further, to your great dismay.

Still, here is your chance to crow about you greatest success.

Give us an example of your finest hour so far, your greatest achievement in this enterprise, the singular moment of which you are most proud. Let us all judge what you consider your shining hour. Methinks that you won't be able to cite any instance in which you have ever made significant progress for your hoax.

But go ahead, Wayne, bring it on and let's see what you can really take pride in.

[jayreynolds]

You justify your presence here by digging up this information, which merely confirms all the parameters of a by-now familiar situation.

Which viewpoint do you prefer being required to confront, Raynolds, Footsoldier's or mine?


Wayne, The article I presented debunks your "chemtrails" hoax. I agree that it confirms all the parameters of a by-now familiar situation, which is that chemmies without proof get scoffed at through absolutely no intervention by me.

As far as confronting you or 'footsoldier', the question is moot, as I have demonstrated that I can confront both of you and any other number of allies simultaneously. If you've got something of value to add, bring it on, but don't try to pretend and hide behind your little finger when I confront you. Remember, you are on center stage, all your chemmie friends who really have nothing else to do are watching, as evidenced by hundreds of hits on these threads every day. Your performance is dismal, but they all seem to love to watch you get a good ass-whupping.

[halva]

"Activists nationwide, and even some concerned citizens on the letters page of this very paper, have questioned the nature of the clouds above our heads. Ultimately, a great deal of hemming and hawing is propagated while the facts are left behind. Given the opportunity to talk to the very laboratory accused of nefarious practices in our own atmosphere, this paper found only the noble enterprise of gathering information, in the interest of learning more about our own environment."


Translated into normal English, a growing number of citizens are voicing their suspicions that institutions like this Brookhaven National Laboratory might have something to do with unexplained aerosol spraying being seen everywhere. (It may or may not have. I don't know and I'm not going to try to find out. The role of one particular laboratory is not particularly relevant.)

How long are coy euphemisms like "nefarious practices" going to be able to keep the lid on non-internet and non-media reactions? Either the geoengineering activity is justified, in which case there is no need for this bullshit coyness, or it is not, in which case journalistic ironies, which might have a reassuring effect for the people who write them and publish them, are not going to have much clout beyond that if reaction against the activity in question starts in earnest.

It is only in mediated reality that mass schizophrenia can last for very long. Once crowds are mobilized they go one way or the other, not two ways simultaneously.

The most apt comment on this piece of reportage was made by Mr. Schwarz himself: “You can’t play this game forever.”

Only Raynolds thinks he is going to be able to continue playing his game forever.

[jayreynolds]

How long are coy euphemisms like "nefarious practices" going to be able to keep the lid on non-internet and non-media reactions? Either the geoengineering activity is justified, in which case there is no need for this bullshit coyness, or it is not, in which case journalistic ironies, which might have a reassuring effect for the people who write them and publish them, are not going to have much clout beyond that if reaction against the activity in question starts in earnest.

You forgot quite a few other ways this can go, Wayne.

I'll tell you which way it will go, regardless of what you wish.

You will continue for quite a while promoting the "chemtrails" hoax.

You will run through bhoddisatva after bhoddistava seeking a 'breakthrough' which never comes.

Your efforts will be totally disregarded by 99% of the public at large, and your failure will be regarded with contempt b your people because nobody likes a loser, and especially a 'loser-magnet' like yourself.

Others will come and go within the hoax, a scant few will be hold-outs and stick with it

Nothing you ever do will make any difference whatsoever, and persistent contrails will persist long after this entire hoax is forgotten.

Either you will give up in digrace, or you will maintain your belief in the hoax until your death.

In the meantime, billions of others will go on with their lives unaware of your torment.

Your choice, Wayne. Better print out what I say above and look at it annually, and reassess your life.

[halva]

I can tell you now, arrogant imbecile, that you are going to eat your words.

[halva]

You forgot quite a few other ways this can go, Wayne.

I'll tell you which way it will go, regardless of what you wish.

You will continue for quite a while promoting the "chemtrails" hoax.

You will run through bhoddisatva after bhoddistava seeking a 'breakthrough' which never comes.

Your efforts will be totally disregarded by 99% of the public at large, and your failure will be regarded with contempt b your people because nobody likes a loser, and especially a 'loser-magnet' like yourself.

Others will come and go within the hoax, a scant few will be hold-outs and stick with it

Nothing you ever do will make any difference whatsoever, and persistent contrails will persist long after this entire hoax is forgotten.

Either you will give up in digrace, or you will maintain your belief in the hoax until your death.

In the meantime, billions of others will go on with their lives unaware of your torment.

Your choice, Wayne. Better print out what I say above and look at it annually, and reassess your life.


Some people argue that the Nazis were never defeated, that the same corrupt and untouchable cabal presided over all the different phases of 20th century history. The winners were always the same people. The losers were always the same people.

Raynolds, it is a mistake for people like you to feed their illusions with ideas like this, because at a certain level they are untrue. The Nazis WERE defeated.

You are not a member of that untouchable elite and you are going to be defeated.

[halva]

Latest news from Skopje: the government of the FYROM, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has announced that the Skopje airport is to be renamed "Alexander the Great" airport and the Ochrid airport the "Apostle Paul" airport.

Even if our Skopjean - as we call them - neighbours, and their globalist backers appropriate Alexander the Great, along with the entire Christian tradition, leaving the Hellenic Republic only with the Athenian democracy to establish international brand recognition......we can do it.

Perhaps you think I am being provincial?

[jayreynolds]

Perhaps you think I am being provincial?
No, you are being ridiculous and hypocritical.

Your people had no hesitation about naming Alexandria in Egypt, as well as naming 17 other cities the same thing!

Much ado about nothing.

[jayreynolds]

I can tell you now, arrogant imbecile, that you are going to eat your words.
Print that out, too Wayne. Look at it every year, and on the New Years Day following your abandonment of the hoax, eat it yourself.

[jayreynolds]

Looks like your people get shot down every time they head out without any facts, Wayne.
Empty headed chemmies spouting stuff they know nothing about are like primitives facing machine guns with spears:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0612280194dec28,1,1541738.column?coll=chi-newslocalchicago-hed

Tom Skilling, WGN-TV chief meteorologist

ASK TOM WHY
Published December 28, 2006
Dear Tom,

Chicagoans are seeing chemtrails again--a thin yellow haze (not condensation) making a fake cirrus-looking cloud to block out the sun on purpose. When we hear weathermen say it will be "partly cloudy," we know what that really means. When will weathermen wake up?

Tom Sulek

Dear Tom,

"Chemtrails" have joined the ranks of other urban legends. According to the rumors, chemtrails are visible evidence of chemicals introduced into the atmosphere via jet exhaust in order to expose citizens to biowarfare agents for some undisclosed purpose. In reality, they are condensation trails, ice-crystal clouds resulting condensed water vapor (and ash) produced by the combustion of jet fuel. Chicago air quality is monitored from a variety of locations by many public, private and university groups, and they report no pollutants that support those claims.

----------

Tom Skilling is chief meteorologist at WGN-TV. His forecasts can be seen Monday through Friday on WGN-TV News at noon and 9 p.m.

[halva]

No, you are being ridiculous and hypocritical.

Your people had no hesitation about naming Alexandria in Egypt, as well as naming 17 other cities the same thing!

Much ado about nothing.

I am not making an ado. I am explaining why no ado needs to be made. And neither side to the dispute in question thinks it is about nothing.

Turkey should be in the European Union, also. The terms of the discussion have been reversed now, with the European mainstream against and the Greeks for.

Israel should also be in the EU, though doubtless Turkey will have to come first.

[halva]

Deborah is spot-on in this exchange with Big Bunny at Megasprayer:
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1150562739&page=7

Deborah:

Re: aerosols and stratospheric ozone, here is an interesting comment:

Engineering the Planet
David W. Keith
Forthcoming in “Climate Change Science and Policy” Steven Schneider and Mike
Mastrandrea editors, to be published by Island Press.
University of Calgary, ISEEE: Energy & Environmental Systems Group.
keith@ucalgary.ca, 412-268-2678
www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/papers/89.Keith.EngineeringThePlanet.p.pdf

Excerpt:

The use of aerosols poses serious risks, including the alteration of atmospheric chemistry which might further deplete stratospheric ozone. The role of natural aerosols in forming the Antarctic ozone hole serves as a warning about the sensitivity of ozone concentrations to aerosols.

However, Paul Crutzen (who received a Nobel Prize for work on stratospheric ozone) has argued that ozone depletion due to aerosol geoengineering might be acceptably small and could be made smaller still. While increasing CO2 warms the lower atmosphere, it paradoxically cools the stratosphere which can lead to increased ozone depletion (Kirk-Davidoff et al 1999).

Crutzen (2006) points out that if (heat-) absorbing aerosols were used (black carbon in addition to sulfate), it would be possible to increase stratospheric temperatures, offsetting the current stratospheric cooling and partially or entirely offsetting the ozone depletion due to aerosol geoengineering..... END Excerpt.

For what it's worth, I (still) think we're eventually going to find out that the stratospheric ozone depletion problem is what is at the bottom of all this.


BB: Of course you are correct, Deborah. It is simply that the methods of remediation are far more harmful than the problem being solved.

Deborah: BB, I can't imagine that you think I don't already realize the trouble we're in vis a vis remediation.

What has been incredibly frustrating all these years is continually encountering the obfuscation if not outright denial of a problem that is apparently serious enough to warrant such large-scale (and, let's face it, experimental) intervention.

It's one thing to be relentlessly whomped in the face with flat-out denial of the directly observable as regards the appearance of our skies.

It's really getting down to Hell when the whompers further deny that there is a problem to begin with.

As in the problem of persistent stratospheric ozone layer deterioration.

By the way, and for what it's worth, business-as-usual air traffic isn’t exactly helping with that problem either. As we know.

[Jeff Reynolds]

Deborah is spot-on in this exchange with Big Bunny at Megasprayer:
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1150562739&page=7

Deborah:

Re: aerosols and stratospheric ozone, here is an interesting comment:

Engineering the Planet
David W. Keith
Forthcoming in “Climate Change Science and Policy” Steven Schneider and Mike
Mastrandrea editors, to be published by Island Press.
University of Calgary, ISEEE: Energy & Environmental Systems Group.
keith@ucalgary.ca, 412-268-2678
www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/papers/89.Keith.EngineeringThePlanet.p.pdf

Excerpt:

The use of aerosols poses serious risks, including the alteration of atmospheric chemistry which might further deplete stratospheric ozone. The role of natural aerosols in forming the Antarctic ozone hole serves as a warning about the sensitivity of ozone concentrations to aerosols.

However, Paul Crutzen (who received a Nobel Prize for work on stratospheric ozone) has argued that ozone depletion due to aerosol geoengineering might be acceptably small and could be made smaller still. While increasing CO2 warms the lower atmosphere, it paradoxically cools the stratosphere which can lead to increased ozone depletion (Kirk-Davidoff et al 1999).

Crutzen (2006) points out that if (heat-) absorbing aerosols were used (black carbon in addition to sulfate), it would be possible to increase stratospheric temperatures, offsetting the current stratospheric cooling and partially or entirely offsetting the ozone depletion due to aerosol geoengineering..... END Excerpt.

For what it's worth, I (still) think we're eventually going to find out that the stratospheric ozone depletion problem is what is at the bottom of all this.


BB: Of course you are correct, Deborah. It is simply that the methods of remediation are far more harmful than the problem being solved.

Deborah: BB, I can't imagine that you think I don't already realize the trouble we're in vis a vis remediation.

What has been incredibly frustrating all these years is continually encountering the obfuscation if not outright denial of a problem that is apparently serious enough to warrant such large-scale (and, let's face it, experimental) intervention.

It's one thing to be relentlessly whomped in the face with flat-out denial of the directly observable as regards the appearance of our skies.

It's really getting down to Hell when the whompers further deny that there is a problem to begin with.

As in the problem of persistent stratospheric ozone layer deterioration.

By the way, and for what it's worth, business-as-usual air traffic isn’t exactly helping with that problem either. As we know.

Halvar, I thought you said chemtrails were to stop global warming. My evil cousin Jay is gonna be all over you for this. Hey cousin, try to take it easy on him. I think he is the only one reading your posts.

[halva]

If you and Raynolds are the only people reading my posts that is all more reason for you yourself to read them carefully. I do not claim to know what chemtrails are for. I ask that the people responsible for what is happening in the skies adopt policies of transparency and tell the public what they are doing. If present day politicians won't help us to get this transparency, we shall have to proceed to build our own political structures to secure what we need.

[Jeff Reynolds]

If you and Raynolds are the only people reading my posts that is all more reason for you yourself to read them carefully. I do not claim to know what chemtrails are for. I ask that the people responsible for what is happening in the skies adopt policies of transparency and tell the public what they are doing. If present day politicians won't help us to get this transparency, we shall have to proceed to build our own political structures to secure what we need.

Hi Halva, sorry I just noticed I mispelled you're name. I am new to being at forums. You also misunderstood me. I meant that you are the only one who seems to care what Lord Pepper and Onions posts.

Listen son, I am old enough to know that you are spending too much time interacting with such a sleazeball.Has he come up with anything new since 1999? Is he a believer in William Cooper, the whackjob wingnut conspiracy theorist? No one takes him seriously. In fact, it gets kind of boring to always read the same crap out of both of you.

Don't take this the wrong way. Maybe you are just young and naive. You need to back away from the monitor, take a deep breath, then start afresh. You will go insane if you keep thinking about the rotten redneck. Trust me. No one pays attention to him. He can't even explain how chemtrails are forming well below 35,000 feet with sometimes no humidity. The videos, eyewitnesses, the Paul Moyer show in Los Angeles, the truth is out there. One truth is that you should stop reading anything that swine prints.

He is a William Cooper wingnut. Maybe he is buddies with that guy Hal Turner too. Would not surprise me. There are a lot of right wing nutjobs out there, Some get paid. Some might not.

Come on Halva, give it a try.:)

[halva]

I am not young, Jeff Reynolds. I may well be older than you. I'm glad you want to do something about your unacceptable namesake.

These are the options for you:
1) Stay here and help out,
2) Lurk, be irritated and put up with it, or
3) do what people usually do when they are bored, e.g. with a television programme.

Raynolds himself is continually giving me the kind of advice I now hear from you. Who or what are you more worried about, me or the subject matter of these threads?

[halva]

Halvar, I thought you said chemtrails were to stop global warming.

If you read the link that Deborah refers us to you will get the idea that geoengineering activity in the troposphere ("chemtrails to stop global warming" as you put it) may be causing further deterioration in the stratosphere, including damage to the ozone layer . Hence Crutzen's proposals for spraying sulphates and carbon in the stratosphere.

[jayreynolds]

"I have been banned from Megasprayer. Don't let the 90% warning fool you. I got suckered into a fight by the legendary moderator and now have been locked out. It seems that Chem11 is the know all of everything with chemtrails, although he thinks they are supercontrails which are created by commercial and military aircraft alike!"
http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=generalobservations&action=display&thread=1168067572

[jayreynolds]

Wayne, you boys are getting a "thump'in":
http://p090.ezboard.com/fcontrailsandchemtrails22884frm1.showMessage?topic ID=5333.topic

[Jeff Reynolds]

It's too bad about your close association to William Cooper, Mr. Onion Breath.
It must suck to have no credibility and be living out your senior years as some crackpot troll.

[halva]

Not only that but he's inviting us to go to where the other crackpot trolls hang out to compare notes. As if anyone could be bothered.

[halva]

This is poetry:

When I see, as I have seen for the last few years, infants and little children anxiously twisting around in their strollers trying to avoid direct sunlight in their eyes while their parents are standing by and yakking on their cell phones, oblivious; when I hear about crop failure in an already poor country due to ridiculously excessive precipitation following an extended period of drought; when I see spring flowers blooming in Boston in December; when I hear that polar bear females are struggling to maintain body weight sufficient to reproduce successfully – and so on – I have to wonder how it is that human beings can know of these things and not be moved. How can they not be affected? How can they not instinctively want to more closely observe these situations and consider what can be done about them?

[Jeff Reynolds]

Wayne, you boys are getting a "thump'in":
http://p090.ezboard.com/fcontrailsandchemtrails22884frm1.showMessage?topic ID=5333.topic

Hey dumbass, the real story is to be found here:
Chem11 Declares That All Aircraft Are Involved (http://www.gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=generalobservations&action=display&thread=1168067572&page=1)

[halva]

Jeff Reynolds, if you are in fact "Socrates" please come clean. I didn't think you were because "Socrates" acted surprised when you turned up, and there were other things about you also that didn't seem to fit with the "Socrates" identity, but I think it would be better for all non-debunkers here if we get the record straight on this. Virtually Reynolds' ONLY good point is that he does not, as far as I know, post under other names.

[halva]

Anyway. from this point onwards, until given proof to the contrary, I am going to assume that "Jeff Reynolds" and "Socrates" are the same person.

No big deal. "Socrates" and I are on the same side as far as I am concerned. If he doesn't want to believe it it is his problem. This disbelief has led him into some erratic and undignified behaviour.

[jayreynolds]

Hey dumbass, the real story is to be found here:
Chem11 Declares That All Aircraft Are Involved (http://www.gastronamus.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=generalobservations&action=display&thread=1168067572&page=1)
Interesting. And you swear on a stack of Bibles you don't post there, Socrates?
As for Jim Phelps, usually a good source of information are the people he hates who live in the same community. Check his website and you'll find him fighting with them.

[halva]

Raynolds is a groupie of the anti-semite William Cooper!

[halva]

And probably a Judas to that particular crowd also.

But just as he lies to himself and others about chemtrails, he also lies to himself and others about Cooper.

[jayreynolds]

You're not making much sense with those contradictory claims, Wayne.

Well, I see swampy refused to answer your question about Socrates/'Jeff Reynolds', then immediately locked down the thread. Seems as if he had some trouble with your question, Wayne. Just get over it. Swampy, Lou, and Socrates are all having a big laugh at your expense, Wayne, because you are the odd man out when it comes to their multiple personality games.
they lied straight to your face when they disclaimed any knowedge about their multiple identities, when it's become quite obvious who they are. How does it feel when your people laugh at you behind their little fingers, Wayne?

[jayreynolds]

Raynolds is a groupie of the anti-semite William Cooper!
It's been a few weeks ago that I challenged you to show any proof of your 'antisemite' claim, Wayne.
Bill Cooper's website and hundreds of hours of broadcasts are all right there at your disposal.
You have certainly gone through it all with a fine-toothed comb, but what did you find?
If there was a shred of evidence you certainly would have shown it by now.
You haven't.
You won't.
Because you can't.
Thanks for proving me correct, and just how stupid your accusations always are.
You're starting to act like Jim Phelps, Giacomm, or maybe whiteymajicman.
Be careful about that............it can be used against you far more effectively than you might think!
QED

[halva]

You're not making much sense with those contradictory claims, Wayne.

Well, I see swampy refused to answer your question about Socrates/'Jeff Reynolds', then immediately locked down the thread. Seems as if he had some trouble with your question, Wayne. Just get over it. Swampy, Lou, and Socrates are all having a big laugh at your expense, Wayne, because you are the odd man out when it comes to their multiple personality games.
they lied straight to your face when they disclaimed any knowedge about their multiple identities, when it's become quite obvious who they are. How does it feel when your people laugh at you behind their little fingers, Wayne?

This is something to be taken up with Jeff Reynolds. I would imagine that Swamp is irritated and possibly also anxious, particularly if he is arguing with his wife about what is happening at their forum. Not laughing.

[halva]

It's been a few weeks ago that I challenged you to show any proof of your 'antisemite' claim, Wayne.
Bill Cooper's website and hundreds of hours of broadcasts are all right there at your disposal.
You have certainly gone through it all with a fine-toothed comb, but what did you find?
If there was a shred of evidence you certainly would have shown it by now.
You haven't.
You won't.
Because you can't.
Thanks for proving me correct, and just how stupid your accusations always are.
You're starting to act like Jim Phelps, Giacomm, or maybe whiteymajicman.
Be careful about that............it can be used against you far more effectively than you might think!
QED

Use the anti-semite accusation against me, swinish punk. Just try.

[halva]

If i feel like calling YOU and/or William Cooper an anti-semite, I will do so. With impunity.

[halva]

Cooper is your Achilles heel, Reynolds. Or one of them. Because you are sincere in what you feel about him. Sincere to the point of over-compensation.

[jayreynolds]

Wayne, you've gone quite mad as a hatter...............

[halva]

Anti-Semite Raynolds, would you like to know the names of the people who have been assigned functions in relation to chemtrails by the new mayor of Aigina, so that you can contact them and harass them?

Would you like to know the names of the other municipalities in Greece that are taking up the issue, so that you can contact them and harass them?

Would you like more information about the parliamentarian who put the issue before parliament, so that you can contact her and harass her?

[jayreynolds]

Anti-Semite Raynolds, would you like to know the names of the people who have been assigned functions in relation to chemtrails by the new mayor of Aigina, so that you can contact them and harass them?

Would you like to know the names of the other municipalities in Greece that are taking up the issue, so that you can contact them and harass them?

Would you like more information about the parliamentarian who put the issue before parliament, so that you can contact her and harass her?

Sure, Wayne, why have you been witholding this information?
Spit it out, man.

[halva]

I can't do it without their consent. Just as I can't hold a video conference with Crutzen without his consent.