It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature

[foot_soldier]

"halva" wrote:

These discussions on aircraft exhaust are a way of factoring in the "chemtrail" element to the climate change debate without acknowledging any complicity in illegal activity.
Yeah, well.

Bottom line, the chemistry of the only atmosphere we have is being changed by a near-continuous, excessive level of shit from aircraft, period. This isn't rocket science. And it's no damned joke, either.

[halva]

Here are quotations from some of the correspondence I have from the Tyndall Centre:

1.

"I know little about this subject: ....(my job)....means that you tend
to know a little about many things, but not a lot about many things. In
general I am not in favour of attempts at large scale geo-engineering.
I would much rather prevent the problems in the first place. I suppose
that I have to admit that if we fail in our attempts to redirect
economies to more benign paths, it may be useful if such
geo-engineering techniques have already been tested at a small scale,
but this will not guarantee their efficacy at a large scale and, worse,
may distract from efforts directed at impact prevention.

I don't really want to get into an extended discussion on this subject
- to get my own work done I have to be quite blinkered, unfortunately,
as there are just too many opportunities for distraction, however
important they may be."


2.

"It would be impossible and an ineffective tactic for us to enter into dialogue with every climate change sceptic. Although we understand the damage that climate change sceptics can do to this debate, we also understand that it in most cases, fruitless efforts will be expended whilst attempting to change their minds. There are however, people out there who want to listen and act. It is more fruitful to concentrate on general awareness raising, working with stakeholders and the public in order to facilitate sustainable policy options and informed decision making."

[halva]

Also, from the office of Sir David King:

"Dear Wayne,

Sir David King has asked me to thank you for your email of 12 March and for sharing your views on the issue of ‘chemtrails’, and asked that I reply on his behalf.

Sir David shares your interest in climate change and the environment, and is, as you note, committed to promoting awareness of these issues, both to policy- and key decision-makers, and the public. Sir David is aware of the growing debate on ‘chemtrails’ or the deliberate release of particles into the atmosphere to form clouds and mitigate climate change. Whilst Sir David works to maximise his contribution to international efforts to combat climate change, and promote environmental sustainability, he has to weigh up the various merits of the many science issues in which he is involved. In this area there are several factors to be taken into consideration.

In your email you note that climate mitigation programmes such as cloud seeding are already in progress......

With regards to US policy, without having data to hand I cannot confirm for certain that the US does not at present carry out such programmes........"

[jayreynolds]

This is rich.

-Brain dead Deborah Stark(footsoldier) won't dare touch the ten questions which reveal her complicity with the establishment and maintenance of the "chemtrail" hoax. Instead, she does another round of

''I guess I better copy/paste some more stuff other people wrote so I won't look too foolish'. 'Maybe no one will notice that I didn't answer Jay's horrid little questions."

Guess what? None of what she posts has to do with her "chemtrail" claims, rather it shows she doesn't believe in the hoax at all anymore, and can't bear to promote or defend it. Yet, frozen by her past association with all her hoaxer friends, she is unable to shake off the yoke of lies that binds her.

Like I've been telling you for years now, Deborah, get out of the hoax now, disavow and expose the liars nuts, ratfinks and profiteers for whatyou know them to be. If you are truly interested in genuine issues which deal with reality, as you say you do, you are spinning your wheels and digging a deeper pit everyday you stick with the hoax and it's cultists.

They can do nothing but drag you down further into their vortex of lies and deceit. You know many of the sad little secrets, the lies and tales about what has gone on behind the scenes among the upper echelons of the hoaxers, you can blow the lid on most of them. You know I am right and justice will be had in the end for those who deceive. It is as inevitable as day follows night. Don't torture yourself any longer by being a part in this.

Enter halva.
Well pummelled over his refusal to provide proof of his claims that some scientists support the cockamamie idea of "chemtrails", he produces what he claims are excerpts from these alleged people.
No names.

Well, that doesn't surprise me much!

Sorry, Wayne, everybody is fed up-to-here with anonymous bull-crap, it is all meaningless and irrelevant because it's all unconfirmable, hearsay.

In the end, even if the quotes were genuine, we have one guy admitting he knows nothing, and some underling who also knows nothing asking you for hard data, data which everybody knows you people don't have. This would've been a great time to have the answer to question # 7, wouldn't it, Wayne?

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

It would have been a great time to have already made the effort to go a mere six miles up and sample what you people call "chemtrails", or undertake a concerted campaign to get close up photos of the ordinary commercial airliners that you claim are military jets.

But no, after five years there is absolutely NO DISCUSSION AT ALL of doing any of these things.

Readers, ask yourselves why?

Why? Because, you hoaxers know that would be the end of the hoax, that would be the scientific thing to do, and you run away from science because it is the sword of truth that unveils your lies. You people aren't interested in the truth, you are determined to run away from it as fast as you can.

Now we know why the ten questions simply cannot be answered honestly. If a chemmie dares to try, he knows the hoax falls apart and he is shown to be a fool.

[jayreynolds]

In your email you note that climate mitigation programmes such as cloud seeding are already in progress......


Hey, dummie, anybody with an inkling about meteorology will tell you cloud seeding isn't climate mitigation. A cloud does not a climate make, wayne. You people are still trying to piggyback the hoax onto something in reality like cloud seeding. It won't work. Cloud seeding is done under strict laws, with public notice, public hearings, permits, records and logs, there is total transparency in the process.
http://cwcb.state.co.us/weather_modification/permit_program.htm

It is sophistry to try and ride the "chemtrails" hoax on cloud seeding.

Similarly, contrails are made in the open sky. Anybody who wishes can get a telescope and see for themselves what planes fly over head:
http://houstonnewsandentertainment.com/chuck%20schramek.htm

It is sophistry to claim that a contrail is made by a military jet and make no effort to determine what plane made it.

For insight into the extent of discussion regarding making an attempt at actual sampling, these links are relevant:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001415.html
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001998.html

What you can see is that the cult ringleaders MOCK anyone who dares propose making an effort to do some real science.

It is sophistry to try and piggyback the "chemtrail" hoax onto concerns about atmospheric chemistry or climate, yet make no attempt WHATSOEVER to get a single sample, and discourage discussion of doing so.

[jayreynolds]

regarding:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000112.html
Wayne, you are such a stupid fool. We debunkers have been trying to tell your people that there really are evil troll people out there who promote the hoax simply for evil personal egotism.

These are the "whistleblowers" who claim to be Wright-patterson scientists, FAA air traffic controllers, airline managers and mechanics. These are the sorts who post horror stories online. They use many many multiple IDs because each new ID brings them a new opportunity to create a new lie. CTC is able to control them somewhat, but look at the memberlist there and see all of those multiples who never have posted yet, 'throwaway' ID's just waiting to be activated, see for yourself. Thermit knows about this, ask him. Eeven his own moderator, Dan Rockwell, was found to have four separate ID's, and was finally exposed and forced to resign. EMFX knows about Dan Rockwell continuing to post elsewhere under several ID's, yet tolerates it.

It's one reason Thermit dropped out, the whole hoax is built on deception, and he couldn't bear the load.

Chemtrailtrackingusa is TOTALLY CONSUMED by this sort of thing. At minimum, half of the postings are made by multiple Iders, with the balance by brain dead morons or other mental defectives. No wonder they get nowhere fast, eh?

Get smart, end the hoax NOW, get over it, and moveon.

[letxa2000]

Halva: These discussions on aircraft exhaust are a way of factoring in the "chemtrail" element to the climate change debate without acknowledging any complicity in illegal activity. There has to be someone "denouncing" all this, but it is difficult to denounce while at the same time maintaining a political alliance with those who keep up the pretence, for their own reasons.

Cute little conspiracy theory all wrapped up like a little present with a colorful bow on top. Again, you haven't answered the 10 simple questions that have been posted and reposted for a hundred pages but you've defined a conspiracy theory in such a way that it can't be disproven (though it certainly can't be proven either).

Also, the emails you posted, even if accurate, don't show any of those parties acknowledging that chemtrails actually exist. What a joke.

[jayreynolds]

letxa wrote:
"Also, the emails you posted, even if accurate, don't show any of those parties acknowledging that chemtrails actually exist. What a joke."

Actually, from the excerpts, no mention was made of the hoax at all, especially the word "chemtrails". The chemmies have to be sly when they approach people with credibility. Usually they don't let prospective cult abettors know their true intentions, and hide their true reasons as long as possible. This is why Carnicom & co, among others, went to the word "aerosol operations" rather than their former term "chemtrails".

Amusingly, when Carnicom first started in 1999, the term "chemtrail" hadn't been coined yet, and he always used to say "contrails" were what he saw. :oops:

They share this tactic with many other cults such as the "Unification Church", also known as "Moonies", who are devotees of the Korean cult leader "Rev." Sun Myung Moon. When Moonies approach a newbie, they don't usually mention that they are with the "Unification Church", and certainly not that they are 'moonies'. They usually will just say that they are members oif a "Youth group", and then ask for you to buy some cheap plastic flowers, wind chimes, or overpriced trinkets.

In the same way, I'm sure Wayne never actually mentioned that he was a member of chemmie cult, that when he sees contrails he thinks they are "spraying", or his association with nutcases like Jim Phelps, Julian Penrod, or Mark Sky. No way did he refer anyone at tyndall to this thread or to sites such as chemtrailcentral. He knows what the advertisements for secret alien abductions, etc would say to an ordinary person -"Hey these people are freaks".

Wayne Hall is an inveterate liar who has told so many lies he couldn't tell the truth if he tried. He is a total failure hated by even his closest associates and fellow cult members. as I've warned him before, he is on the edge of the cult already and closer to being banned among chemmies every day because of his antics. He has a nasty way of speaking about Americans, too:
"You Americans are all going to end up eating each other."

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000112.html

[Peter Angelo]

We fool with mother nature everytime we get into a car and turn on the air conditioner - or have an operation.

All we do is fool with mother nature - too many bugs and all that,

In the end - mother nature will be rid of us.

[halva]

By the way I invited Asher Minns from the Tyndall Centre to this thread to debate with you your idea that geoengineering is a lot of nonsense. But he said no thanks. I wonder why.

Probably because he knows little about the subject, Wayne. This hunch is borne out by the dearth of references in these two searches:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=asher+minns+contrails

"Your search - asher minns contrails - did not match any documents."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=asher+minns+geoengineering&btnG=Search

"Your search - asher minns geoengineering - did not match any documents."

Of course, it could also be that he doesn't wish to risk getting his personal dose of ass-whup delivered in public.

That said, I predict that no one at Tyndall Centre will ever support the "chemtrail" cult's claims.

At their symposium in January they used the term "macroengineering".

If Asher Minns came here and you whupped his ass, would it be ass-whupping for the pipe-dream, pie-in-the-sky science fiction the Tyndall Centre is advocating and defending, or ass-whupping for something else?

If something else, what?

This was the point where the discusssion left off yesterday. Reynolds didn't answer the question, availed himself of a posting by footsoldier to launch a diatribe of personal abuse against her, and then returned to his favourite (indeed ONLY) subject of chemtrails-versus-contrails as if that is what we had been talking about prior to the digression.

Once again the story is that I am obliged to answer a reiterated series of questions, which are related to only one aspect of the subject matter of this thread, and not the aspect that Asher Minns would have been addressing if he had come here, which would have been the appropriateness of the geoengineering technique of spraying particulate matter as a means of mitigation of problems of climatic change. Reynolds' position is that the advocacy of such measures is pipe-dream, pie-in-the-sky science fiction, by implication unworthy of a serious scientific institution. (This position buttresses his claim that he knows such measures are not actually under implementation.)

Reynolds is thus telling us that if a representative of the Tyndall Centre condescended to debate with him, Reynolds would be able to whup his ass, convincing both him and the world that the Centre for which he speaks has no plausible claim for being allowed to exist and should therefore close down.

I will repeat MY question. Is that what you claim?

What a shame for you and for us that you are not going to be able to prove it, because they will not debate with you.

Why will they not debate with you? The Tyndall Centre says: “"It would be impossible and an ineffective tactic for us to enter into dialogue with every climate change sceptic. Although we understand the damage that climate change sceptics can do to this debate, we also understand that it in most cases, fruitless efforts will be expended whilst attempting to change their minds.”

I don’t think the office of Sir David King, chief scientific advisor to the British government, would be much keener to debate with you, either about whether there is such a thing as anthropogenetic climate change, or about their position that they “cannot confirm that the US does not carry out such programmes”........(climate mitigation programmes involving spraying from aircraft). (i.e. unlike you they do not claim to KNOW that such programmes are NOT under implementation).

So in other words, in my opinion you don’t have much chance of muscling into the debate on climate change being promoted in Europe and abroad by the Tyndall Centre and the British government’s science advisor (and reflected in the U.S. in the so-called ‘Pentagon Report’). “Chemmies”, by contrast, do have a good chance of participating, and are already doing so.

I have been receiving criticism from some of my colleagues that I am continuing this debate with you here, rather than withdrawing as they have done, and as indeed I urged them to do. ShowMeTruth commented very aptly that she prefers talking to the living rather than to the dead.

One of the reasons I do stay here is footsoldier’s persistence in doing the same. She points out accurately that:

“On THIS forum it is in direct violation of Jay Reynolds' ground rules to discuss the following:
1) Contrails and aviation cirrus.
2) Atmospheric remediation protocols.
3) Climate change, regional and/or global.”

As she says: “Allowable input on this forum is strictly limited to analysis of "cults" and "belief systems."

For this persistence she is viciously slandered by Reynolds as being an “ex-chemmie” who remains in the debate on false pretences after altering its premises.

What one defends by remaining here is an alliance, an alliance that it is the obsessive desire of all debunkers posting here: Reynolds, Letxa, Whitemajikman, to break up. Whether one calls it an alliance between “chemmies” and those concerned about global climate change, or an alliance between supporters of European integration and of American national sovereignty, is a matter of semantics. The point is that this alliance is what Reynolds and is ilk fear above all, just as Nazis feared (and tried to stave off) an alliance between liberal democracy and the Communist world.

My first posting on this thread was an invitation to Arianna Huffington and her supporters, not to become “chemmies”, but to join this alliance.
The invitation remains open, and nothing Reynolds and the rest of the scum trailing along behind him, do or say, can close the door.

In fact the invitation is more and more being accepted.

[jayreynolds]

By the way I invited Asher Minns from the Tyndall Centre to this thread to debate with you your idea that geoengineering is a lot of nonsense. But he said no thanks. I wonder why.
To which Jay Reynolds replied:

"Probably because he knows little about the subject, Wayne."

Well, Wayne, according to the text you claim he wrote, I was correct, for Asher minns wrote:

"I know little about this subject"


If Asher Minns came here and you whupped his ass, would it be ass-whupping for the pipe-dream, pie-in-the-sky science fiction the Tyndall Centre is advocating and defending, or ass-whupping for something else? If something else, what?

Well Wayne, here's your answer:
Minns other comment shows that he is a superficial person, a person who might at first appear knowledgeable, but knows his knowledge is insufficient to withstand close scrutiny.

"....(my job)....means that you tend to know a little about many things, but not a lot about many things."

First of all, if this sort is wise enough, he doesn't enter debate, he will usually try and find a rationalization for being chicken.

I've found that a person like that usually gets his ass whupped in debate if he's foolish enough to engage, and I reckon I could whup his ass on just about anything, anytime, anywhere.



Once again the story is that I am obliged to answer a reiterated series of questions, which are related to only one aspect of the subject matter of this thread, and not the aspect that Asher Minns would have been addressing if he had come here, which would have been the appropriateness of the geoengineering technique of spraying particulate matter as a means of mitigation of problems of climatic change.

Well, Wayne, your claim in your opening post on page one says:

"It is time for there to be exposure, and honest public debate, about what is ALREADY being done by the proponents of geoengineering 'solutions'."

When I tried to engage you in the "honest public debate" you said you wanted, you immediately called for my banning, and have run from such a debate for 134 pages. The questions I reiterate are part of the debate YOU said you wanted. The truth is that you have hoped that by changing the subject you can avoid and run from the debate you thought would be against a loser. Now that you've had your ass-whupped for 134 pages you want to change the subject -desperately.


Reynolds' position is that the advocacy of such measures is pipe-dream, pie-in-the-sky science fiction, by implication unworthy of a serious scientific institution. (This position buttresses his claim that he knows such measures are not actually under implementation.) Reynolds is thus telling us that if a representative of the Tyndall Centre condescended to debate with him, Reynolds would be able to whup his ass, convincing both him and the world that the Centre for which he speaks has no plausible claim for being allowed to exist and should therefore close down.

I never said they should shut down, I did say they would never support your claims about "chemtrails", and they haven't. I said they would never debate "chemtrails" here, and I was correct on both accounts. The fact of the matter is that "pie-in-the-sky" is actually a quote from Dr. Patrick Minnis, whom Deborah has also quoted. Dr. Minnis coined the term in respect to geoengineering in a letter to a "chemtrail" believer:

http://www.rense.com/general9/naschem.htm
"I would also rule out the climate modifcation aspect. The effort would be too expensive, require too much manpower and equipment and probably would not work. Large, climate-changing programs have been hypothesized and written about for years, but inevitably they are pie in the sky. Maybe pies in the sky would change climate." "As I think I mentioned in the last email, the theories such as those you mention below (Teller) are still pie in the sky.

So, there you have it, Wayne, an eminent atmospheric scientist, a specialist in cloud processes says geoengineering is "pie-in-the-sky", and if you read his whole text at the link above, he agrees with me as to the reasons why! Sorry, you lose again, bud.


So in other words, in my opinion you don’t have much chance of muscling into the debate on climate change being promoted in Europe and abroad by the Tyndall Centre and the British government’s science advisor (and reflected in the U.S. in the so-called ‘Pentagon Report’). “Chemmies”, by contrast, do have a good chance of participating, and are already doing so.

Frankly, Wayne, I haven't ever tried to "muscle" into any such debate, but I know that any effort to proselytize scientists ANYWHERE, into joining your cult's belief in "chemtrails" will meet defeat, without me so much as moving a muscle.


I have been receiving criticism from some of my colleagues that I am continuing this debate with you here, rather than withdrawing as they have done, and as indeed I urged them to do.

Wayne, they ran away rather than face the questions. While cowardly, it shows they have enough intelligence to know they have been ass-whupped.

You, on the other hand, are fool enough to stay and let me demonstrate the poverty of the "Chemtrail" claims for 134 pages by asking them.



One of the reasons I do stay here is footsoldier’s persistence in doing the same. For this persistence she is viciously slandered by Reynolds as being an “ex-chemmie” who remains in the debate on false pretences after altering its premises.

Hey, she can respond by debating my points, so far Deborah hasn't claimed otherwise, and it's clear she has belatedly realized that what she sees were simply ordinary contrails. She is in a real quandary because if she wants to focus on a real issue she must disavow the false one, but doing so means she must admit to being a silly, gullible, and foolish woman who was deceived and a deceiver. In the process she has destroyed her credibility.

She knows that only the truth CAN restore her credibility, and THAT IS HER ONLY PATH TO FREEDOM.

Anything other than full disclosure keeps her in a self-made prison of her own design. One day she will break free.


My first posting on this thread was an invitation to Arianna Huffington and her supporters, not to become “chemmies”, but to join this alliance.

Don't try and lie when the truth is plain to see, Wayne.

This is what you said:

"It is time for there to be exposure, and honest public debate, about what is ALREADY being done by the proponents of geoengineering 'solutions'."

All anyone has to do is go to page one and see the invitation you gave was for "honest public debate", a debate you have been running away from for 134 pages of obfuscation, spam, and useless rhetoric.

[halva]

The person you assumed was Asher Minns is in fact a specialist on the effects of aircraft emissions on the climate.

The reason they don't talk straight at the official level is that they haven't yet managed to change international law in such a way as to make their activities legal.

All the rest of your talk is a pile of crap. I don't have to prove anything to you. Your obsessiveness is an utter bore and if you want us to keep mooing at each other here forever, I will oblige you.

[halva]

Point One



I know that any effort to proselytize scientists ANYWHERE, into joining your cult's belief in "chemtrails" will meet defeat, without me so much as moving a muscle.


This is tantamount to acknowledgement of the totally superfluous nature of your own role. If you don't have to move a muscle, don't move a muscle. Let the scientists do their policing work for themselves.

Point Two



Deborah is in a real quandary because if she wants to focus on a real issue she must disavow the false one, but doing so means she must admit to being a silly, gullible, and foolish woman who was deceived and a deceiver. In the process she has destroyed her credibility.


Unlike you I am sure that Deborah (footsoldier) would receive a warm welcome (and no doubt does) from scientists researching the question of climate change. The notion that she needs to gain some kind of clearance from you, with whom the relevant scientists do not wish to discuss anything, in order to gain their acceptance, is grotesque. It is because of assertions like this that some people (e.g. SmT) are convinced that you must be sending your messages from inside an an insane asylum.

Which takes us back to point one. If scientists don't need any help in rejecting "chemmies", why do you play the self-proclaimed intermediary betwen "chemmies" and scientists?

[jayreynolds]

Wayne, I have always been aware that the "chemtrails" hoax was a dead-end issue, after all, you can only make such a ridiculous claim for so long, and time has a way of debunking hoaxes. (See question #10)

That said, I subscribe to this quote by Burke, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Wayne, better make yourself at home here, because if you are willing to stay forever, i will be here 'bird-dogging' you till then.

As far as Deborah goes, the only way she will ever find company in the realm of science is by disavowing the "chemtrails" hoax, or being deceptive about her past support of it during the time she believed in it.
Sure, she is able to prevaricate and mislead, but the fact is that she knows chemmies are not welcome in polite society, not once the whole sordid belief system is understood, and certainly not when one becomes aware of the cultish aspects of the participants.

She has made it clear to me and many others that she is no longer a 'believer', though she may make public pretenses to sate the cult.
She knows, Wayne, and so do I.

I've seen chemmies in action at public functions trying to convince others, with little success.
When the chemmie got far enough away, ordinary people bagn to snicker and make jokes!

I've also overheard two chemmies in quiet discussion at a public function. They kept to themselves, kept the talk in low conspiratorial tones, and probably thought no one heard them or knew what they were talking about. Little did they know Jay Reynolds was just behind them standing on line in the qeue!

In the end, I know I am a small cog in a big world, Wayne. Lest your megalomania lead you to believe you come close, remember-

Your ineptitude has relegated yourself to the level of insignificance of a fleck of dirt that gets crushed between the cogs, over and over and over and over and over.............

[halva]

Once again you did not answer the question. You did not explain why you play the self-appointed intermediary between "chemmies" and environmental scientists, given your claim that scientists are capable of protecting themselves from the contagion of what you identify as "chemmie" viewpoints. Your quoting from Burke is inapposite, because according to you the scientists are not "doing nothing". They don't need help, you have said, in isolating "chemmies". They do so anyway.

But despite the fact that they don't need help, your mission is to protect them from "evil".

It is clear that you are utterly uninterested in truth or falsehood in relation to either anthropogenetic climate change or in relation to chemtrails/geoengineering. You say you know that anthropogenetic climate change is not a reality although nowadays that brings you into conflict with what is getting closer and closer to a consensus in scientific opinion.

You say that you know that geoengineering projects are not being pursued in the skies for climate mitigation purposes even though not even the British government's scientific advisor will say that he knows that.

As I have indicated in previous postings, what you identify as the "triumph of evil" is the prospect of an alliance between "chemmies" and environmental scientists. This is why you spend so much of your time molesting both parties, doing everything in your power to prevent free and uninterrupted communication between them (free from FEAR, for one thing, because a number of people are afraid of you, and you like that).

When I first started this thread I was inviting Arianna Huffington and her supporters to come into such an alliance. I was not even thinking of you, and when you immediately posted my first impulse was to try to get you banned, because I know you, and I think that banning is the only thing to do with you. You cannot make any worthwhile contribution to this debate until you have been politically defeated.

You are interested only in causing problems, not in solving them.

If geoengineering corresponds to a real need, and many of the relevant scientists seem to think that it does, then a framework of law is needed that makes it possible for it to be carried out without being secret, in the full light of public opinion and public criticism. I think you would agree to that, in theory.

It is quite possible that the world's political system cannot provide such a legal framework. If that is the case, radical reformers must overturn the power relations that are preventing us from having what we need.

When that is achieved, and it becomes possible for geoengineering specialists to talk openly about what they are doing without fear of being accused of illegal actvity, it may well turn out that there are some aspects of what is going on that are indefensible by any standards. That is when there may be a role for hard-core "chemmies" like Carnicom and his supporters.

You say the only "chemmie" behaviour you have witnessed at public functions has been furtive and conspiratorial, with "ordinary people" snickering about them as soon as their backs are turned.

I have now organized or helped to organize two public functions in which both environmental scientists and "chemmies" have spoken openly, there has been no snickering, no recriminations, no defensive ironies or other manifestations of the neurotic behaviour which is the reality you are familiar with and want to keep in existence.

As I said, when I started this thread, I was not thinking of you. It was Arianna and her supporters that I was inviting into the alliance.

But I have indicated that you could conceivably at some future point be of use if you are really opposed to "chemtrails" and think they are unacceptable. You could be of use as an opponent of "chemtrails" rather than of "chemmies".

But I do not believe that you will agree of your own accord to make this transition. You will only, in the most optimistic scenario, do it when you have been forced to come to terms with total humiliating political defeat.

[jayreynolds]

wayne wrote:

"Once again you did not answer the question. You did not explain why you play the self-appointed intermediary between "chemmies" and environmental scientists, given your claim that scientists are capable of protecting themselves from the contagion of what you identify as "chemmie" viewpoints. Your quoting from Burke is inapposite, because according to you the scientists are not "doing nothing". They don't need help, you have said, in isolating "chemmies". They do so anyway."

Wayne, I've ALWAYS answered your questions. I will reiterate mine which have gone unanswered for 135 pages in a moment.

I'll put it to you in as simple terms as I think you'll understand.

Lies are evil.
The idea of "chemtrails" is a lie, they are ordinary contrails.
Therefore the "chemtrail" hoax is an evil thing to promote.
'Chemtrail" promoters are evildoers.
If good people don't expose evil they abet it and evildoers get a victory.
Evil can never win against truth, in the end, given time and freedom.

That is why even though most people, even the majority of present-day chemmies, will eventually disavow the hoax and move on, I spend some time exposing the hoax.

For to watch evil make progress and do nothing is evil in and of itself.
By taking action, my conscience is clear and I'll bet I sleep much better than you, Wayne.


But I have indicated that you could conceivably at some future point be of use if you are really opposed to "chemtrails" and think they are unacceptable. You could be of use as an opponent of "chemtrails" rather than of "chemmies".

But I do not believe that you will agree of your own accord to make this transition. You will only, in the most optimistic scenario, do it when you have been forced to come to terms with total humiliating political defeat.

Wayne, I really can't make it any clearer, I already oppose "chemtrails".

I ALREADY OPPOSE "CHEMTRAILS FOR WHAT THEY
REALLY ARE, "CHEMTRAILS" ARE A LIE, A HOAX, A FABRICATION. What you see and call "chemtrails" are simply ordinary contrails.
I don't actually oppose chemmies, though I do oppose chemmie liars.
Lies are chains that bind people, Wayne.
When people are bound by lies and belief in lies, they are not free.
When I expose lies I am a freedom fighter and release those held captive by the chains of lies they have been told and believe.

If you think you can defeat me, bring it on. In 135 pages you haven't ever answered my ten simple questions, and that amounts to a 135 page rout. NOW ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!

1.Do you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"? If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?

2.Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?

3.Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

10. When three, five, or ten years have passed, and the rest of the world goes on about their business, oblivious of the hoax, how will you feel?

[halva]

I am not going to attempt to answer your questions.

[whitemajikman]

I am not going to attempt to answer your questions.


Halva you will not answer because to do so, would make you look like a bigger fool than you already appear to be..........

because quite simply you have no answers.......

And for 135 pages you have proven this over and over and over again.

[halva]

For reasons which many of my colleagues and collaborators deplore, I have consented to play with Reynolds the one and only game he knows how to play.

Without, of course, answering his questions.

Reynolds thinks that this has something to do with who is going to "win" politically.

I don't believe that, but that, of course, is my view, not his.

Part of the rules of the game are that he has to answer my questions. Otherwise he does not have the moral right to keep insisting that I should answer his.

And the fact is that he has not answered a number of my questions.

For example he has not answered how it is that he has better access to information than the official science adviser to the British government, Sir David King, such that he is able to state that he KNOWS the United States is not carrying on any spraying operations from aircraft for purposes of climate mitigation when Sir David King says that he is not able confidently to make any such claim.

[jayreynolds]

Dear Wayne,

Part of the rules of the game are that you must also answer my questions. Otherwise you do not have the moral right to keep insisting that I should answer yours.

Now, Wayne, I have prepared an answer to this question of yours and will gladly post it after you follow your ground rules by answering one of my ten questions.

Wayne Hall wrote:
"how it is that he has better access to information than the official science adviser to the British government, Sir David King, such that he is able to state that he KNOWS the United States is not carrying on any spraying operations from aircraft for purposes of climate mitigation when Sir David King says that he is not able confidently to make any such claim."

I eagerly await your compliance with the ground rules you set out, Wayne, and am happy that you will now answer all ten questions which you have thus far evaded for 135 pages.

[halva]

Dear Wayne,

Part of the rules of the game are that you must also answer my questions. Otherwise you do not have the moral right to keep insisting that I should answer yours.


I don't insist, in the sense I have no objection to terminating the game now, if you agree.

But if you want to keep playing the game you must answer my question.

[jayreynolds]

So, Wayne doesn't want to play by his own rules, eh?
Typical 'junta' behavior, Wayne.
Not very 'democratic' when the rules apply to you, eh Wayne Hall?

Isn't there even one chemmie out there brave enough to answer ten itsy-bitsy basic questions about their hoax?

These questions would be basic ones any reasonable scientist, reporter, or ordinary person would ask before jumping on the "chemtrail" bandwagon.

Why are they so hard to provide answers to, especially now, five years into this "chemtrails" thing, you'd think there would be a FAQ answer for all of these already, plug-ins, that sort of thing.

Why does Wayne, footsoldier, sore, SMT, and all the others keep running away desperately from these 10 simple questions?

Is their faith and belief so weak that it can't withstand the slightest interrogation, so fragile that a few score of words would cause it to collapse?

It seems so.
These ten simple questions are an insurmountable task for even the truest believers to take on.
They are shown lacking, publicly humiliated, and will remain so archived and accessible as long as this forum lasts.

So, once again, let's see what the chem-cultists fear most-

Here are the ten questions- answer them.
1.Do you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"? If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?

2.Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?

3.Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

10. When three, five, or ten years have passed, and the rest of the world goes on about their business, oblivious of the hoax, how will you feel?

[halva]

These are not “my rules”. They are the rules of self-evident morality and fair play. Whoever takes it upon himself to ask questions of another person must be prepared to answer that person’s questions.

If you want to have the moral right to ask me questions, you must answer:

1. Why do you play the self-appointed intermediary between "chemmies" and environmental scientists, given your claim that scientists are anyway perfectly capable of protecting themselves from the contagion of what you identify as "chemmie" viewpoints?
2. How can you say that you know geoengineering projects are not being pursued in the skies for climate mitigation purposes when not even the British government's scientific advisor will say that he knows that. Do you have access to better information than he does?

[jayreynolds]

Wayne, click here and note that I began asking these questions MONTHS AGO, on March 6th, 130 pages ago.
http://www.ariannaonline.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=59656#59656

I'm way ahead of you in the question asking game, Wayne.

It's way past time for you to answer two of mine and you'll get your two in the morning. You'll get no more from me till you comply, and that is final.
bye

[halva]

There is a third question to add to my list also:

3. If there is a genuine need for geoengineering techniques to be applied to mitigate the symptoms of climate change, as many scientists assert, should it not be possible for this mitigation to be carried out without those involved in it having to fear accusations that they are behaving illegally?

[jayreynolds]

My questions have been on the table 12 weeks now, Wayne. They were asked on page 5 of a 136 page debate and you have dodged them ever since.

There is a good reason for this and readers of this forum can see just what a hypocrite you are by continuing to avoid them.

Answer the questions.

1.Do you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"? If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?

2.Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?

3.Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

10. When three, five, or ten years have passed, and the rest of the world goes on about their business, oblivious of the hoax, how will you feel?

[halva]

1. Why do you play the self-appointed intermediary between "chemmies" and environmental scientists, given your claim that scientists are anyway perfectly capable of protecting themselves from the contagion of what you identify as "chemmie" viewpoints?

2. How can you say that you know geoengineering projects are not being pursued in the skies for climate mitigation purposes when not even the British government's scientific advisor will say that he knows that. Do you have access to better information than he does?

3. If there is a genuine need for geoengineering techniques to be applied to mitigate the symptoms of climate change, as many scientists assert, should it not be possible for this mitigation to be carried out without those involved in it having to fear accusations that they are behaving illegally?

[whitemajikman]

3. If there is a genuine need for geoengineering techniques to be applied to mitigate the symptoms of climate change, as many scientists assert, should it not be possible for this mitigation to be carried out without those involved in it having to fear accusations that they are behaving illegally?



Wayne, what is causing Climate Change......?

Wayne, why is there no concensus on the causes of Climate change......?

Wayne, Why is there no Chemtrail Samples......?

Wayne, Why isn't there one reputable "Whistleblower" regarding the chemtrail hoax.......?

Wayne, For 136 pages you have told everyone who reads this thread that you believe that chemtrails exist but you cannot answer Jay's question's..........If the chemtrail Hoax did indeed exist you would have been able to answer at least a few of them.........and since you have answered not even 1 of them ...........



It seems to me that you are living in a self-imposed world of conspiracy,and you have lost all sense of rationality.

Do yourself a favour ......Give up......Before it's too late.

[gaiacomm]

Wayne:

leave these idiots alone! They cannot hold a candle to you. They could give a rats ass about the environment. They just are lucky that the internet was invented. Now they can post fake champion the cause claims and other fake concerns. They abuse the environment everyday. One good point is that they will not give up their gas powered cars. So with that said, it doesn't make any difference what they claim. They are polluters of the environment! They just come here to play and play you!
Who cares what they think! They are the problem!
Just ignore them and they will go away like a bad dream!

[gaiacomm]

To: the Families and to the Troops that are serving their country everywhere in the world!

I wish to give my deepest condolences to the families of the troops that have lost their lives serving this great country of the United States of America.

I wish to praise the families and the troops that are serving and protecting us all from the evils that men do.

Thank you for protecting my freedom!

God bless you all this Memorial Day!

Sincerely,

A United States of American Citizen!

[halva]

1.Do you have a background in a technical field?

No. I have not studied the physical sciences since 4th year high school.

2. If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"?

There are, and have been, many such people, but they are described by you as "chemmies" because they do not occupy powerful enough official positions to make it impossible for you to ridicule them or dismiss them.
The British government's chief scientific advisor, Sir David King, would be familiar with the relevant data and his spokesman has said "Sir David is aware of the growing debate on ‘chemtrails’ or the deliberate release of particles into the atmosphere to form clouds and mitigate climate change." Note that she says it is "growing", not fading away, as you often assert.

3. If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?

If you mean why no-one in an important enough official position, the reason is that their governments would be complicit in the activity, which would be illegal, as you acknowledge, so that damaging lawsuits could be taken out against them. Another reason many official people have for not speaking out is a belief that at least some of the spraying activity that may be occurring is necessary, so that the challenge is to find a way of legalising it, not stopping it.

[halva]

The above reply gives me the moral right to demand that you answer the following questions prior to any continuation of the discussion:

1. Why do you play the self-appointed intermediary between "chemmies" and environmental scientists, given your claim that scientists are anyway perfectly capable of protecting themselves from the contagion of what you identify as "chemmie" viewpoints?

2. How can you say that you know geoengineering projects are not being pursued in the skies for climate mitigation purposes when not even the British government's scientific advisor will say that he knows that. Do you have access to better information than he does?

3. If there is a genuine need for geoengineering techniques to be applied to mitigate the symptoms of climate change, as many scientists assert, should it not be possible for this mitigation to be carried out without those involved in it having to fear accusations that they are behaving illegally?

[jayreynolds]

I'm happy to see that Wayne has finally taken the challenge.

I will first address his answers to my questions. I see that he has decided to change the count but that's Ok, I can do the same.

[question]- 1.Do you have a background in a technical field?

[Answer]- No, I have not studied the physical sciences since 4th year high school.

[comment]- So what Wayne Hall is telling us is that even though he is trying to deal with a scientific matter, he has not advanced his own education to be conversant with the issue. This is a case of deliberate and intentional ignorance, which is a hallmark of chemmie behavior. To my knowledge, NOT ONE chemie has ever confirmably taken a course in meteorology. For my part, I have taken one university level course in meteorology and oceanography, and have an engineering background heavy in gas turbine technology, thermodynamics and fluid mechanics.

[question]-2. If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"?

[answer]-There are, and have been, many such people, but they are described by you as "chemmies" because they do not occupy powerful enough official positions to make it impossible for you to ridicule them or dismiss them. The British government's chief scientific advisor, Sir David King, would be familiar with the relevant data and his spokesman has said "Sir David is aware of the growing debate on ‘chemtrails’ or the deliberate release of particles into the atmosphere to form clouds and mitigate climate change." Note that she says it is "growing", not fading away, as you often assert.

[comment]- This answer is insufficient.
I asked for a person's name with a scientific background who would state that what is being seen now are geoengineering "chemtrails". Neither King's spokesman or King himself said that, or ever will.

The woman you refer to as his spokesman is as misinformed as you regarding Teller's sunscreen idea. That idea would not have generated clouds, but mimicked the atmospheric spread of dust by volcanoes. This is the sort of problems you run into when you fail to have sufficient education to understand the science of the matter.

[question]3. If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?

[answer]- If you mean why no-one in an important enough official position, the reason is that their governments would be complicit in the activity, which would be illegal, as you acknowledge, so that damaging lawsuits could be taken out against them. Another reason many official people have for not speaking out is a belief that at least some of the spraying activity that may be occurring is necessary, so that the challenge is to find a way of legalising it, not stopping it.

[comment]- In the previous question you labeled(2), you made an attempt to imply that David King would state the case for what you call "chemtrails" being a case of geoengineering. Your attempt was already exposed as false.

NOW WE GET TO THE BOTTOM LINE, YOU ADMIT THAT NO PERSON WITH A TECHNICAL BACKGROUND WILL STATE THE CASE FOR "CHEMTRAILS" SEEN BEING A CASE OF GEOENGINEERING!

The balance is just another implausible conspiracy theory.

Summation:
Wayne Hall is as ignorant as a high school boy regarding the science behind contrails and meteorology, or any other science. He hasn't advanced his knowledge for 30+ years and even after taking on a crusade requiring such knowledge, he chose to remain ignorant.

Wayne Hall was unable to cite a single specific person's name with a technical background who would state the case for what is seen as "chemtrails" being a case of geoengineering.

Wayne Hall made unsuccessful attempts to imply that Sir David King would, without directly stating so. Typical chemmie trickster style behavior.

Wayne Hall then proffered yet another conspiracy theory to explain why no scientist would state the "chemtrails" case. Laughably, if his theory was plausible, the implication would be that all scientists are guilty of participating in a coverup intent on escaping prosecution, including Sir David King!

This is another typical chemmie behavior, when they fail to find facts which support their case, they just concoct yet another conspiracy theory with similar failings to try and shore up the first one that failed. Won't work with me, Wayne.

All in all, Wayne, your answers revealed ignorance, sophistry, and a failure to cite any support from the scientific community. We already knew that, but it's nice to have you admit it publicly.

It's strawberry harvest time and I've a date with some girls to go picking, so I'll try and address your questions when more important matters are finished.
bye

[gaiacomm]

Jay:

You still presist by putting someone down when they are attempting to stand as a man!

You will get your answers but not in your timeframe! Who are you? Just a cybercop? I think not!

Wayne is serious and you are not! You are there to make yourself feel important when in fact reading all of your posts you are but a child. Go back to your wife Karen and make love to her!

Leave Wayne alone! He does not wish you any harm! His belief is what it is and you always seem to find a way to make someones day cloudy with your rantings and stupid comments!

You are afraid of me and should be because I can reach out and touch you!

But Wayne is a man who has beliefs and convictions and wishes to know!

He answered your questions and you still did what you did!

Now its my turn to give back to you what you have given to US!

[halva]

I will leave question 2 for the time being, and go on to three, which reads:



[3.Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?


I can't speak for others but not being a scientist I wouldn't have gone to any of these gatherings.

In any case, knowing what I know now, it is obvious that it would be the wrong strategy to do something like that.

It is unreasonable to go to scientists and expect them to solve problems that are political.

I've talked about this before.

It is naive, in fact childish, to go to scientists and expect them to provide answers to something firstly that they may not know about and secondly if they do know about it they will realise that there is no "arbitrator" to appeal to, that the problem is bigger than them or us, or both of us together..

Far better to do what we did and invite the scientists to our meetings. They may glimpse from the faint hope of an "arbitrator" emerging from OUR activities, to which they will then be able to turn with THEIR problems.

Scientists cannot help us, except by coming to us with their knowledge.

[halva]

From the May 2004 Idaho Observer:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtrails and Terror in the Age of Nuclear War

by Amy Worthington

North America is now suffering its seventh year of conspicuous and dangerous aerosol and electromagnetic operations conducted by the U.S. government under the guise of national security. Concerned citizens watch in fear as military tankers discolor the skies with toxic chemicals that morph into synthetic clouds.

We continually witness bizarre meteorological occurrences as powerful electromagnetic devices manipulate both the jet stream and individual storm fronts to create artificial weather and climatic conditions. Black operations projects embedded within these aerosol missions are documented to sicken and disorient select populations with biological test agents and psychotronic mind/mood control technologies.

Part of what is happening in the atmosphere above us involves the Pentagon’s secret space weapons program, designed for strategic, operational and tactical levels of war. NASA missions will soon be transferred to Pentagon control.1 The Air Force Space Command declares that, in order to monitor and shape world events, it must fight intense, decisive wars with great precision from space.2 Air Force Secretary James G. Roche has stated: "Space capabilities are integrated with, and affect every link in the kill chain."3

A glimpse into new death technologies under construction4 is in legislation introduced by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinch. His unsuccessful Space Preservation Act of 2001 was intended to ban space deployment of:


* electronic, psychotronic and information weaponry

* high altitude ultra low frequency weapons

* plasma, electromagnetic, sonic and ultrasonic weapons

* laser weapons

* strategic, theater, tactical or extraterrestrial weapons

* chemical biological, environmental climate or tectonic weapons

* chemtrails (this item was stricken from a later version, suggesting duress)

In their quest to remain top dog in the kill chain, the purveyors of perpetual war have deliberately dimmed earth’s life-giving sunlight5 and reduced atmospheric visibility6 with lung-clogging particulates and polymers. This ecological terrorism has severely compromised public health, according to thousands of testimonials. Years of mass appeals to legislators, media and military officials for information, and for cessation of catastrophic atmospheric degradation, have fallen on deaf bureaucratic ears. Public awareness of what befalls us remains as murky as our skies because those "in the know" are muzzled by national secrecy laws and Americans have no authority to challenge matters of national security. Left to gather clues, we know this much so far:


1. At least part of the aerosol project has been dubbed Operation Cloverleaf,7 probably due to its multi-faceted operations, which include: weather modification, military communications, space weapons development, ozone and global warming research plus biological weaponry and detection testing.


2. Dumping tons of particulate matter from aircraft has geo-engineered our planetary atmosphere into a highly charged, electrically-conductive plasma useful for military projects.8 The air we breathe is laden with asbestos-sized synthetic fibers and toxic metals, including barium salts, aluminum, and reportedly, radioactive thorium.9 These materials act as electrolytes to enhance conductivity of military radar and radio waves.10 Poisonous on par with arsenic and a proven suppressant of the human immune system,11 atmospheric barium weakens human muscles, including those of the heart.12 Inhaled aluminum goes directly to the brain and medical specialists confirm that it causes oxidative stress within brain tissue, leading to formation of Alzheimer's like neurofibrillary tangles.13 Radioactive thorium is known to cause leukemia and other cancers.14


3. Only a small percentage of the military’s atmospheric modification projects are visibly obvious. What we can’t see is equally dangerous. The ionosphere, the earth and its inhabitants are continually bombarded with high frequency microwaves used to manipulate the charged atmosphere for weather modification, information gathering and for tectonic (earthquake-producing) weaponry.15 Independent chemtrail researcher Clifford Carnicom confirms that we are also continuously subjected to extremely low electromagnetic frequencies (ELF) pulsing at 4 hertz multiples, frequencies known to profoundly affect human biological and mental functioning.16


4. There is a well-documented biological component to continuously ongoing atmospheric studies in which nations and regions are furtively inoculated via specially designed delivery systems with combinations of viruses, bacteria, fungi, mycoplasma, desiccated blood cells and exotic biological markers so that testmasters can assess human, animal and plant response.17


5. The multi-organizational megalith perpetrating these bio-chem projects against humanity includes the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and its research arm DARPA, plus the Department of Energy (DOE) with its huge network of national labs and universities. Private defense contractors and pharmaceutical companies are heavily involved.18 Cooperating governments of other nations and probably some United Nations agencies are complicit, since the aerosol projects are global in scope.


Gross chemical and electromagnetic pollution is only part of the horrific realities we endure. The sociopaths who brazenly pervert skies, climate and weather for power and profit are the same madmen who have waged four limited nuclear wars since 1991. Radioactive weaponry, declared both illegal and immoral by the entire civilized world, has been used by the Pentagon in Desert Storm, the Balkans campaign and the on-going occupation-wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. Few Americans understand the extent of carnage inflicted in their name across the planet.

By scientific definition, the missiles, tank penetrators and bunker busting bombs unleashed against Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. and British forces in the so-called war on terror are nuclear weapons.19 Refuse from radioactive weaponry does not disperse, but remains in the atmosphere organotoxic, mutagenic and carcinogenic to all living flesh for 4.5 billion years.

Inhabitants of the Pentagon’s two newly "liberated" nations are now slowly dying of radiation and heavy metal poisoning. Victims of U.S. weaponry used in Afghanistan have a concentration of non-depleted uranium isotopes in their bodies never before seen in civilian populations.20 Tons of depleted and non-depleted uranium contaminating their land, air, food and water guarantee their painful demise. Using data from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), nuclear scientist Leuren Moret calculates that the estimated 2,500+ tons of depleted uranium used against Iraq in 1991 and 2003 is sufficient to cause 25 million new cancers.21 Is it a coincidence that the population of Iraq, according to the CIA, is 25 million?

The quarter million U.S. and British fighting forces who have helped the Pentagon deliver this holocaust also face inevitable radiological death by slow burn. Rotated into atomic war zones since 2001, coalition troops have inhaled and ingested millions of tiny invisible ceramic uranium particles which emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation as they embed in lungs, kidneys, blood, lymph and bone.22 Radiation exposure to a single internalized U-238 (uranium) alpha particle is 50 times the allowable whole body dose for one year under international standards.23 As U-238 decays into daughter isotopes, it becomes ever more radioactive, causing cell and organ destruction to escalate over time.24 Uranium contamination leads to incapacitating, multi-organ system disorders identical to illnesses suffered by thousands of Gulf War I vets. Bodily fluids poisoned with uranium isotopes sicken spouses and visit upon offspring a genetic Armageddon.25

Who knows what a disabled and prematurely dying military population will mean to future stability and safety of USA? Yet Senator Chuck Hagel (R- Neb.) now demands that America provide more fodder for its atomic battlefields by reinstating the military draft so that "all of our citizens...bear some responsibility and pay some price" in order to "understand the intensity of the challenges we face."26

Despite disingenuous denials that biological harm will result from atomic warfare,27 the Pentagon knows full well the gruesome realities of uranium weaponry by virtue of its own voluminous studies spanning 60 years. Pentagon documents confirm that America’s war establishment knowingly exposes its own troops to dangerous levels of radiation.28 The resulting illness of those now returning from the war zones is already making headlines.29

Because our military-industrial overlords brazenly poison the very grunts who make their war games possible, we must logically conclude there is virtually nothing they would not secretly and sadistically do to the rest of us. Military officials lie as perniciously about chemtrail operations30 as they do about effects of DU weaponry. If people were to consider the published science regarding chemtrails and DU, they would understand that we are all in mortal jeopardy.

Both the Pentagon’s aerosol operations and its limited nuclear wars are deeply interconnected. We can trace the beginnings of Operation Cloverleaf right to the Strangelove brain of Dr. Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb and proponent of nuking inhabited coast lines to rearrange them for economic projects.31 Before he died in 2003, Teller was director emeritus of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where plans for nuclear, biological and directed energy weapons are crafted. In 1997, Teller publicly outlined his proposal to use aircraft to scatter in the stratosphere millions of tons of electrically-conductive metallic materials, ostensibly to reduce global warming.32

Shortly after Teller’s presentation, the public began seeing frenetic chemtrailing. In 2000, CBS News admitted that scientists were "looking at drastic solutions for global warming, including manipulating the atmosphere on a massive scale." CBS confirmed that the plan to load the air with tiny particles would "deflect enough sunlight to trigger global cooling."33

Teller estimated that commercial aircraft could be used to spew these particles at a cost of 33 cents a pound.34 This gives credence to a report by an airline manager, forced by a compulsory non-disclosure agreement to remain anonymous, that commercial aircraft have been co-opted to assist the military in consummating Project Cloverleaf.35 A 1991 Hughes aircraft patent confirms that sunscreen particulate materials can be run through jet engines.36 A science textbook now used in some public schools discusses the sunscreen project by showing a large orange-red jet with the caption, "Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen." The logo on the plane says "Particle Air."37 The implications of this crucial information should not be understated. A program to make America’s millions of annual jet flights a source of specially designed particulate pollution is serious business.

Cloverleaf particles and polymers saturating the air we breathe are smaller than 10 microns (PM 10) and are invisible to the human eye. By comparison, a human hair is 60 to 100 microns in thickness. Scientists and the EPA report that because PM10 and sub-micron pollution particles bypass lung filters and enter the blood stream, they cause radical changes in the endocrine and nervous systems. 38 They can trigger high blood pressure and cause heart attack within two hours of inhalation.39 They cause the blood to become sticky, making it tougher for the heart to pump and increasing the risk of blood clots and vessel damage.40 Now researchers in Taiwan document "a significant increase" in the number of stroke victims when PM10 pollutant levels rise.41 The American Lung Association confirms that we are breathing more toxic air than ever.42 No wonder nationwide asthma rates have been soaring in recent years.43

Tiny synthetic filaments called polymers are part of the brew. In 1990, a NATO report detailed how high-flying aircraft can modify the atmosphere by spraying polymers to absorb electromagnetic radiation.44 U.S. patent number 6315213 describes how cross-linked aqueous polymers dispersed into a storm diminish rain.45

Polymer chemist Dr. R. Michael Castle has studied atmospheric polymers for years. He has found that some of them contain bioactive materials, which can cause "serious skin lesions and diseases when absorbed into the skin."46 He has identified microscopic polymers comprised of genetically-engineered fungal forms mutated with viruses. He says that trillions of fusarium (fungus)/virus mutated spores, which secrete a powerful mico-toxin, are part of the air we breathe.47 Allergies anyone?

We can safely bet that into our particle-enriched air, experimenters are also dumping nanoparticles, developed for a variety of military and industrial uses. These engineered carbon molecules, as small as one-thousandth the diameter of human hair, display bizarre chemical properties and are known to trigger organ damage.48 A recent study at Southern Methodist University found that fish exposed to one type of nanoparticle suffered severe brain damage after only 48 hours.49

The military’s aerosol operations have been climate altering to the extreme. Air traffic is a huge source of greenhouse pollution. Increasing that traffic exponentially in order to scatter tons of heat-trapping metallic particulates and heat-liberating barium salts have undoubtedly led to accelerated global warming. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, have reached a record high this year.50 As carbon dioxide levels rise, oxygen levels decrease.

In 1996, Scientists for Global Responsibility compiled a report contending that dangerous geoengineering, as proposed by Teller and the Global Change Research Coordination Office, would be absolutely ineffective in mitigating global warming. The report noted that climate engineering research is funded by industry with a vested interest in continued high consumption of fossil fuels.51 The hair-brained scheme of particle engineering was contrived to ensure that industry polluters will never be forced to decrease their greenhouse gas emissions. But because warming and pollution trends have worsened drastically since the aerosol projects began, we must suspect that the warming mitigation program is a hoax and that chemtrailing is really intended, among other things, to create a series of "hobgoblins."

The establishment’s modus operandi for maintaining a fierce and lucrative hold upon the collective American mind has been defined precisely by satirist H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) who wrote: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and thus clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

In The Report from Iron Mountain published in 1967, just as the Pentagon’s lucrative Vietnam War was being revved into high gear, establishment braintrusters confirmed that perpetual war is absolutely vital for controlling and manipulating the masses. The document even suggested a number of options for creating fictitious enemies, noting that perpetual war induces populations to give blind allegiance to political authority.52

Since the 1930s, when the Eastern Establishment, including the Bush family, used its New York banks and oil companies to secretly fund Hitler’s German Nazi party,53 our controllers have employed FEAR, the concept of ENEMY and WAR to keep us in bondage. Chemtrailing is a manifestation of the Fourth Reich, an era of corporate fascism ushered in by a powerful military juggernaut, which manufactures enemies and unleashes fake terror attacks to scare us into voiceless submission.

Both Saddam Hussein and the al Queda networks have long been nourished with U.S. government and corporate funding and groomed by U.S. military and corporate advisors to play useful roles as "enemies."54 Former German Defense Minister Andreas von Bulow recently confirmed on U.S. radio that hijacked planes were able to fly around the eastern U.S. on 9/11 unimpeded by military interdiction because those attacks were part of a carefully-orchestrated "covert operation" designed to coerce America into perpetual conflict with the Muslim world.55

Now, a "secret" Pentagon report has been conveniently leaked to the media. It contends that abrupt climate change is the most fearful hobgoblin yet.56 Authored by change agents with ties to the CIA and the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, the report contends that abrupt climate change will lead to a global catastrophe of monumental proportions, including nuclear war and natural disasters, as whole nations disappear beneath the encroaching sea and survivors fight for dwindling food, water and energy supplies.

Yet the Pentagon has been involved for decades in the drastic manipulation of weather, climate and atmospheric conditions. The U.S. used a chemical agent dubbed Olive Oil during Operation Popeye to induce heavy rains in Vietnam 40 years ago.57 The Air Force document titled "Weather As a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" lists its weaponized agenda for creating abrupt climate change including: Storm creation and modification, fog and cloud creation, precipitation enhancement, precipitation denial, drought inducement and artificial creation of "space weather." This document also states that the military’s radical weather modification agenda will "become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications."58

Weather weapons are now routinely used in war zones. A citizen reporting from Serbia noted that during NATO operations in the Balkans, black clouds suddenly materialized out of blue skies, hailstones were the size of eggs, and surreal thunder and lightening terrified the people. He reported that scientists found that the electromagnetic field over Serbia had been punctured, causing rain systems to circumvent the region.59 In addition to manufactured drought, scientists also predict that Serbia will suffer 10,000 cancer deaths from DU weaponry used there.60

According to University of Ottawa Professor Michael Chossudovksy, the military’s High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), operating in Alaska as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative, is a powerful tool for weather and climate modification.61 Operated jointly by the U.S. Navy and Air Force, HAARP antennas bombard and heat the ionosphere, causing electromagnetic frequencies to bounce back to earth, penetrating everything living and dead.62

HAARP transmissions make holes in the ozone,63 creating yet another hobgoblin. HAARP inventor Bernard Eastlund described in his original patent how antenna energy can interact with plumes of atmospheric particles, used as a lens or focusing device, to modify weather.64 HAARP is capable of triggering floods, droughts and hurricanes, much to the chagrin of both the European Parliament and the Russian Duma.65

HAARP also generates sweeping pulses through the ULF/ELF range.66 In 2000, independent researchers monitored HAARP transmissions of 14 hertz. They found that when these signals were broadcast at high output levels, wind speeds topped 70 miles per hour. They watched as these same transmissions dispersed a huge weather front approaching the west coast from California to British Columbia. Although precipitation had been originally forecast, the front was seen shredding apart on satellite photos and rain did not materialize.67 The hobgoblin drought can be an enriching and empowering tool for certain corporate and governing entities.

HAARP is not only capable of destabilizing agricultural and ecological systems anywhere on the planet, but its effects can target select regions to affect human physical, mental and emotional responses during non-lethal warfare projects.68 HAARP frequencies beamed at specific targets can generate catastrophic earthquakes,69 exactly like the quake last December which killed thousands of people in Iran, a nemesis nation according to the Bush administration.

The Pentagon’s warning about climate catastrophe is surely nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to prepare the masses for the bizarre atmospheric upheavals we can expect as the military continues to brutalize our planet and near space with its grotesque toys. And we ain’t seen nothing yet. Dr. Eastlund and his ilk have developed plans for solar power satellites designed to modify the weather with electromagnetic beam output that dwarfs the present HAARP system.70 As abrupt climate change is increasingly orchestrated, we will surely need additional fascist agencies, an ever-growing military budget and more poison-particle projects that just happen to ensure population reduction as a side benefit.

Despite visual evidence that every aspect of our physical environment is being manipulated and damaged for war games, some Americans cannot accept that dangerous covert operations are being conducted by a government they still believe to be a virtuous defender of freedom. Their stumbling block is a numbing belief that their own officials would never perpetrate dangerous experimentation on humanity since "they have families too." History and the release of declassified government documents disprove such naiveté.

Although "they" had families too, the U.S. government and its defense contractors exposed citizens of the northwest U.S. to huge and deliberate releases of radioactive iodine 131 from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation where plutonium was produced for nuclear bombs.71 Those Cold War releases unleashed radiation illnesses upon thousands of downwinders, some of whom received up to 350 rads of radiation when a maximum safety dose is set at .025 rads annually.72 Between 1949 and 1952, radioactive pellets, dust and particles were tested on the hapless citizens of Utah and New Mexico.73

By 1963, 1,200 nuclear weapons tests conducted at the Nevada test site had exposed every person in the U.S. to deadly radioactive fallout, causing millions of fetal deaths, spontaneous abortions, stillbirths and birth defects.74 The U.S. government also conducted over 4,000 radiation experiments on individual human test subjects without their informed consent.75 The delayed effects of decades of radiation exposure from weapons testing are today demonstrated by a U.S. population plagued with epidemic cancer and heart disease, neurological disorders, low fertility, chronic fatigue, obesity (thyroid involvement), immune system dysfunction and learning disabilities. Approximately half of all pregnancies in the U.S. result in prenatal or postnatal death or an otherwise less than healthy baby.76 As military tankers spew white chemical plumes across America at a cost of $3,448 per hour per tanker,77 we are reminded of Dr. Leonard Cole’s 1994 testimony before a Senate Committee regarding 45 years of open air testing during which military aircraft sprayed American cities with bacteria, fungus and carcinogenic chemicals.78 Between 1962-1973, the U.S. Navy conducted hundreds of bio-chem tests known as Operation SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense). SHAD projects like Autumn Gold and Copper Head exposed 10,000 navy personnel to aircraft spray laden with biological and chemical warfare agents, including sarin nerve gas.79 The cocktails used in those genocidal "tests" are now linked to cancer, heart and lung problems suffered by surviving guinea pigs.

We are told that defense officials perpetrated these atrocities so that scientists could learn about how to "protect" Americans from attack. So why, in the late 80s, would our "protectors" fall all over themselves to supply Saddam Hussein's war machine with 90 shipments of chemical and biological weaponry, including sarin, anthrax, botulism, brucella and West Nile Virus?80

It will likely be years before Americans are told what is being tested upon them during our present chemtrail/space wars era. The Hanford downwinders did not learn until 1986 what had been unleashed upon them some 30 years earlier; SHAD victims filed suit in 2003 to learn the extent to which they were intentionally exposed to dangerous substances in the 60s.

To understand how our nation has arrived at this doomsday corruption, we must recall that immediately after WWII ended, the U.S. government initiated Operation Paperclip through which a large number of German Nazi scientists were imported to the United States. Once issued new identities, these death industry pros were employed in U.S. military laboratories to develop a dazzling array of secret weaponry projects.81 With congressional funding, the crowning achievement of this nexus was the creation of ghastly new bioweapons, including the AIDS virus82 and an incapacitating chronic fatigue agent engineered from mycoplasma and brucella.83

The military is empowered to continue lethal experimentation by devious wording of Section 1520a Chapter 32 of U.S. Code Title 50. The law states that the Secretary of Defense may NOT conduct any chemical or biological test or experiment on civilian populations, unless such tests are for medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial purposes or for research in general or for protection against weapons or for law enforcement purposes, including riot control. So DOD may not use us for guinea pigs, unless it is for any "good" reason under the sun! The law states that human subjects must give informed consent. But a nasty loophole in Section 1515 of Chapter 32 allows informed consent to be suspended by executive order during a period of national emergency, a situation under which this nation perpetually labors by deliberate hobgoblin design.

Few American test rats realize that the Pentagon’s boys in Congress have now:


* appropriated millions of dollars for the manufacture and testing of new "mini nukes" and bunker buster bombs.84


* authorized the DOE to resume nuclear testing in Nevada.85


* exempted DOD and DOE from landmark environmental laws in the development of these new weapons.86


America’s 70,000 nuclear weapons manufactured since 1945 are not sufficient! As DOE gears up to develop and test fourth-generation nukes, numerous reports continue to surface about the agency’s sordid corruption and mismanagement. DOE’s habitual cover-up of site contamination and its devious efforts to downplay serious illnesses suffered by many of its nuclear workers are among recent scandals.87

When new "low yield" nuclear weapons (defined as being smaller than 5 kilotons) are tested in Nevada, downwinders might like to know that a mini .5 kiloton nuclear warhead would have to burrow 150 feet to eliminate atmospheric fallout. No weapon yet developed can penetrate more than 40 feet into the earth. A tested nuclear warhead that burrows to only 40 feet will throw a million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the atmosphere.88

The Pentagon’s new nuke era is in the capable hands of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has so ably presided over the pre-emptive nuclear incineration of Middle Eastern Muslims. Rumsfeld has never adequately explained why his Department was unable to defend the Pentagon building despite a full hour’s notice that hijacked planes were in the air. Should Rumsfeld be replaced due to the Pentagon’s Iraqi torture scandal, we are assured that his Bush-appointed successor will share his have-nuke-will-travel ideology.

Working closely with Rumsfeld is a coven of pro-nukers, including his advisor Keith Payne, a vocal advocate of pre-emptive nuclear war. Payne has written that an "intelligent" nuclear offensive launched by the U.S. would result in only 20 million U.S. casualties, "a level compatible with national survival and recovery."89

Now that we have tied together the historical and political realities for which we mindlessly wave our flags, we still hope that sufficient numbers of American lab rats will miraculously awaken from their collective stupor and take stock of our appalling situation. After all, rodents have a notoriously short life span and are always killed when no longer useful to those conducting research. The irony of this horror story is that we rats are being plundered to finance our own demise. Our national debt of 7.2 trillion grows by $1.8 billion a day.90 The Pentagon cannot account for $2.3 trillion of its shadowy transactions.91 The radioactive operations in Iraq are costing $3.7 billion a month, those in Afghanistan $900 million a month.92 No one knows how many $billions are being flushed into Operation Cloverleaf and other hobgoblin projects. The U.S. spends $11,000 per second on weapons, according to calculations of celebrated author William Thomas.93

So, while we await the great awakening, have a wonderful, barium-dried summer under a synthetic tarpaulin of aluminum-white, particle-laden, electrically-charged aviation scum that passes for sky. Endure well your respiratory and ocular difficulties while staring at huge oily sun rings and smeary sundogs, the patent signature of chemical assault. Don’t forget to salute and click your heels when you see tanker formations patriotically saturating the atmosphere with such a dense, micro-particulate brew that they cast black shadows alongside or ahead of themselves.

As you witness the noxious drama in the skies, remember, it’s all just part of the "kill chain."

***


NOTES



1. "USAF Plans to Utterly Dominate, Rule Space," Joel Bleifuss, editor of In These Times.com, 9-14-03.

2. Almanac 2000, Journal of the Air Force Association, May 2000, Vol. 83.

3. Roche's "kill chain" statement was made during his October 2002 speech at the Conference on the Law and Policy Relating to National Security Activities in Outer Space.

4. "Pentagon Preps for War in Space,"Noah Shachtman, wirednews.com, 2-20-04.

5. "The Theft of Sunlight," Clifford Carnicom, 10-25-03: "...Measurements show a rapid reduction in the transmission of sunlight from a value of 97% on a 'clear day' to the lower level of approximately 80% during the early stages of heavy aerosol operations....The absorption and displacement of this solar energy into environmental, military, biological and electromagnetic operations represents a theft of the natural and divine rights of the inhabitants of this planet." www.carnicom.com.

6. "Visibility Standards Changed," Clifford Carnicom, 3-30-01: "It will be noted that in October of 1997, a change in the reporting system of visibility data was reduced from a former maximum of 40 miles to a limit of 10 miles. It is a reasonable question to ask as to why that change was made, and whether or not it was made in anticipation of...large scale aircraft aerosol operations over large scale geographic regions." www.carnicom.com.

7. "A Meeting," Clifford Carnicom, 7-26-03. See www.carnicom.com.

8. "Atmospheric Conductivity," Clifford Carnicom, 7-09-01, www.carnicom.com.

9. For facts on barium toxicity, see Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, September 1995. For references on barium related to chemtrails, see www.carnicom.com for the following articles: "Barium Tests are Positive," Clifford Carnicom, 5-10-04; "Sub-micron Particulates Isolated," Carnicom, 4-26-04; "Barium Affirmed by Spectroscopy," Clifford Carnicom, 11-1-2000; "Electrolysis and Barium," Carnicom, 5-27-02; "Rainwater Metals," Carnicom, 7-30-01; "Barium Identification Further Confirmed," Carnicom, 11-28-00.

10. "The Plasma Frequency: Radar Applications," Clifford Carnicom, 11-05-01; See www.carnicom.com.

11. "Functional heterogeneity in the process of T lymphocyte activation; barium blocks several modes of T-cell activation, but spares a functionally unique subset of PHA-activable T cells," Clinical Experimental Immunology, Pecanha and Dos Reis, May 1989.

12. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Safety Data Sheet.

13. Aluminum Toxicity, Barbara Barnett, MD, 11-26-02. See emedicine.com.

14. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, July 1999; For information on thorium in chemtrails: "The Methodic Demise of Natural Earth," Dr. Mike Castle, 3-27-04, www.willthomas.net.

15. Angels Don't Play This HAARP, Nick Begich and Jeane Manning, 1995; "HAARP: Vandalism in the Sky?" Begich and Manning, Nexus Magazine, January 1996.

16. "Elf Radiation is Confirmed," Clifford Carnicom, 11-17-02; "Elf Disruption & Countermeasures," Clifford Carnicom 11-27-02; "A Proposal of Cascading Resonance," Clifford Carnicom, 4-21-03. See www.carnicom.com for these and numerous other frequency studies; also "Electromagnetic Waves Linked to Children's Brain Tumor," Kyodo News Service, 6-8-03.

17. Death In the Air, Global Terrorism and Toxic Warfare, Leonard G. Horowitz, Tetrahedron Publishing Group, 2001; "Military Conducting Biological Warfare in Washington," 12-12-97, www.rense.com; Probing the Chemtrails Conundrum, William Thomas, Essence Publications, 2000, www.willthomas.net.

18. For a comprehensive list of those involved in Operation Cloverleaf and associated projects, see: "Chemtrails--Top Intel, Military, and Defense Contractors Watching Carnicom.com," rense.com, 1-12-00. Among agencies most interested in opposition to chemtrail projects is the United States Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute associated with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. See: "The Monitors of JGI," Clifford Carnicom, March 17, 2003, carnicom.com. 19. The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War-- A paper presented at the World Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference at the University of Hamburg, October 16-19, 2003, Dr. Leuren Moret. Dr. Moret is a former staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Her work is highly documented with scientific papers.

20. Uranium Medical Research Centre, "Afghan Field Trip #2 Report," November 2002; www.umrc.com; also "Astoundingly High Afghan Uranium Levels Spark Alert," Alex Kirby, BBC News Online, 5-23-03.

21. Moret, op. cit.

22. "Medical Effects of Internal Contamination with Uranium," Dr. Asaf Durakovich, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington D.C. March 1999. Volume 40, No. 1

23. Moret, op. cit.

24. "Contamination of Persian Gulf War Veterans and Others By Depleted Uranium," Leonard A. Dietz, 2-21-99.

25. Durakovich, op cit; Dietz, op. cit. Moret, op. cit.

26. "Republican Senator: Bring Back the Draft," World Net Daily, 4-20-04.

27. "Pentagon's Uranium Denial," New York Daily News, 4-27-04; "Pentagon: Uranium Didn't harm N.Y. Unit," Associated Press, 5-3-04. "Pentagon-Depleted Uranium No Health Risk," Dr. Doug Rokke; 3-15-03. Dr. Rokke was an U.S. Army DU expert (1991-1995) and he confirms that the Pentagon is lying about DU risks.

28. Documents in which the hazards of uranium and depleted uranium exposure are discussed include: U.S. Army Training Manual STP-21-1-SMCT: Soldiers Manual of Common Tasks; "Health Effects of Depleted Uranium," David E. McClain, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) Bethesda, Maryland; Marine Corp Memo Concerning DU (unclassified) 9-8-90; US Army Training Video, U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project video: Depleted Uranium Hazard Awareness, 1995; "Army Not Adequately Prepared to Deal With Depleted Uranium Contamination," General Accounting Office, January 1993; Office of the Secretary of Defense, Memorandum from Bernard Rostker to chiefs of all military branches re: Depleted Uranium Ammunition Training, 9-09-97.

29. "Soldiers Believe Depleted Uranium Cause of Illnesses," Associate Press, 4-9-04; "Poisoned?" Juan Gonzalez, New York Daily News, 4-4-04. Other stories in this series are: "Inside Camp of Troubles" and "Army to Test N.Y. Guard Unit."

30. "Air Force Increases Rank of Lie," letter by Walter M. Washabaugh, Colonel, USAF, denying the existence of chemtrails, received by e-mail on May 22, 2001 and posted at www.carnicom.com by Clifford E Carnicom, May 22 2001.

31. Begich and Manning, op. cit. p. 51.

32. Global Warming and Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Change, Edward Teller and Lowell Wood, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, prepared for invited presentation at the International Seminar On Planetary Emergencies, Erice, Italy, August 20-23, 1997; also "The Planet Needs a Sunscreen," Wall Street Journal, 10-17-97.

33. CBS News Eye on America Report : Cooling the Planet in two parts: 1-15-01 and 1-16-01.

34. Teller and Wood, op. cit.

35. "An Airline Manager's Statement," Posted by C.E. Carnicom on behalf of the author, 5-22-00. Quote: "The few airline employees who were briefed on Project Cloverleaf were all made to undergo background checks, and before we were briefed on it we were made to sign non-disclosure agreements which basically state that if we tell anyone what we know we could be imprisoned....They told us that the government was going to pay our airline, along with others, to release special chemicals from commercial aircraft....When we asked them why didn't they just rig military aircraft to spray these chemicals, they stated that there weren't enough military aircraft available to release chemicals on such a large basis as needs to be done....Then someone asked why all the secrecy. The government reps then stated that if the general public knew that the aircraft they were flying on were releasing chemicals into the air, environmentalist groups would raise hell and demand the spraying stop."

36. US patent 5003186; Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding for Reduction of Global Warming, Hughes Aircraft Company, issued March 26, 1991.

37. Secondary school text book: Science I Essential Interactions, published by Centre Point Learning, Inc. of Fairfield, Ohio. See "Chemtrail Sunscreen Taught in Schools," William Thomas, www.willthomas.com.

38. "Dirty Air and High Blood Pressure Linked," Reuters Health, 3-31-01; "Bad Air Worsens Heart Trouble: Study Blames Particulates for Many Sudden Deaths," Marla Cone, Los Angeles Times, June 4, 2000.

39. "Tiny Air Pollutants In the Air May Trigger Heart Attacks," John McKenzie, ABC News 6-21-01, www.abcnews.go.com.

40. "Air Pollution 'Increases Stroke Risk,'" BBC News, 10-10-2003.

41. Ibid.

42. "Americans Breathing More Polluted, Toxic Air Than Ever," Natalie Pawelski, CNN Environmental Unit, www.cnn.com.

43. Asthma Statistics, www.getasthmahelp.org; "Asthma Deadly Serious," Spokesman Review, 7-6-97; www.asthmainamerica.com.

44. NATO paper: "Modification of Tropospheric Propagation Conditions," May, 1990.

45. US patent 6,315,213 (Cordani) issued November 13, 2001.

46. "Chemtrails, Bio-Active Crystalline Cationic Polymers," Dr. Mike Castle, 7-14-03 See www.willthomas.net.

47. Ibid.

48. "Nanoparticles Toxic in Aquatic Habitat, Study Finds," Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 3-29-04.

49. Ibid.

50. "Greenhouse Gas Level Hits Record High," 3-22-04, NewScientist.com.

51. Climate Engineering: A Critical Review of Proposals, Scientists for Global Responsibility, School of Environmental Sciences, UEA, Norwich NR47TJ, November 1996.

52. Lewin L. C et al. Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace, New York: The Dial Press, 1967.

53. Trading With the Enemy, Charles Higham, Delacorte Press, 1983; Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Antony Sutton, 1976; "IBM Sued by Holocaust Lawyers --100 other US Firms Targeted for Nazi Links," Paterson and Wastel, The Telegraph, UK, 2-18-0l; "Ford and GM Scrutinized for Alleged Nazi Collaboration," Michael Dobbs, Washington Post, 11-30-98; "How the Bush Family Made Its Fortune From the Nazis," John Loftus, 7-2-02, www.rense.com. (John Loftus was a U.S. Department of Justice Nazi War Crimes prosecutor.)

54. This is a "Google project" that can fill volumes. Go to Google and type "CIA and al Queda," then "CIA and Saddam." Do the same with "Carlyle Group" for information on the Bush family's shady dealings with the "enemy."

55. Former German Defense Minister Confirms CIA Involvement in 9/11: Alex Jones Interviews Andreas von Bulow, 2-17-21, www.apfn.net.

56. "Pentagon Tells Bush: Climate Change Will Destroy Us," Mark Townsend and Paul Harris, The Observer, UK 2-24-04; "Climate Collapse, The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare Could change Radically and Fast," David Stipp, Fortune Magazine, 2-9-04.

57. The Dead Farmer's Almanac, Who Really Controls the Weather? Jim Larranaga, Priority Publications, 2001.

58. Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather In 2025, June 17, 1996. This report was produced by directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force.

59. "Very Weird Weather in Serbia, What's Happening?" Goran Pavlovic, 10-30-03, rense.com.

60. "The Secret Nuclear War," Eduardo Goncalves, The Ecologist, 3-22-01.


61. "Washington's New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change," Center for Research on Globalization, Professor Michael Chossudovsky, University of Ottawa, January 2001.

62. "HAARP: Vandalism in the Sky?" Nick Begich and Jeane Manning, Nexus Magazine, December 1995.

63. Ibid.; also Castle, op. cit. Dr. Castle presents information on how HAARP punches massive holes in the open-air column ozone and how the Air Force then uses toxic chemicals to "patch" the holes it has created: Dr. Castle says: "Welsbach seeding and ozone hole remediation sciences utilize chemistries that are toxic to humans and the environment."

64. "HAARP: Vandalism in the Sky?" Begich and Manning; Researcher David Yarrow is quoted as saying that Earth's axial spin means that HAARP bursts are like a microwave knife producing a "long tear--an incision" in the multi-layer membrane of ionospheres that shield the Earth's surface from intense solar radiation.

65. U.S. HAARP Weapon Development Concerns Russian Duma, Interfax News Agency, 8-10-02.

66. HAARP Update, Elfrad Group,http://elfrad.org/2000/Haarp2.htm. 6-27-00.

67. "14 Hertz Signal Suppresses Rainfall, Induces Violent Winds," 10-25-00, Newshawk Inc.; "When the Army Owns the Weather--Chemtrails and HAARP," Bob Fitrakis, 2-13-02: In this article HAARP inventor Bernard Eastlund is quoted on how HAARP can affect the weather: "Significant experiments could be performed. The HAARP antenna as it is now configured modulates the auroral electrojet to induce ELF waves and thus could have an effect on the zonal winds." Find this article with search engine at www.rense.com.

68. Angels Don't Play This HAARP, Begich and Manning, op. cit.

69. Ibid.

70. "Space Based Weather Control: The 'Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite,' " Michael Theroux. See www.borderlands.com/spacewea.htm.

71. "After 12-year Wait for Trial, Downwinders Losing Hope," Spokesman Review, 5-18-03; also "Hanford Plaintiffs Seek Details," Spokesman Review, 4-2-04.

72. "Hanford Put Area At Risk: Spokane, North Idaho Were Exposed to Significant Radiation," Spokesman Review," April 22, 1994.

73. "Sick Century," Eduardo Goncalves, The Ecologist, 11-22-01.

74. Moret, op. cit. "The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War" contains excellent statistics on the U.S. health ramifications of Cold War nuclear weapons testing and includes references to numerous scientific papers which document this tremendous damage to the national health.

75. Undue Risk, Secret State Experiments on Humans, Jonathan D. Moreno, Freeman & Co. 1999: Moreno was a senior staff member of the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments which completed in 1995 its studies of horrific U.S. government radiation experiments conducted since World War II.

76. Information reported by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine in a 2000 study titled: Scientific Frontiers in Developmental Toxicology, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology.

77. "Trouble With Tankers," William Thomas, www.willthomas.net.

78. Testimony by Dr. Leonard A. Cole before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, May 6, 1994; also Clouds of Secrecy, The Army's Germ Warfare Tests Over Populated Areas, Leonard A. Cole, Rowman & Littlefield, 1988.

79. "Secret Germ Warfare Experiments?" CBS News, 5-15-2000; "Pentagon to Reveal Biowarfare Tests," CBS News, 9-20-2000; "US Navy Sprayed BioWarfare Chemtrails on Its Own Ships and Men," NewsMax.com, 7-8-00; "Sailors: 'We Were Used,' " Florida Today, 1-31-03.

80. Senate Banking Committee Report 103-900 (Riegle Report) issued May 25, 1994. This 551-page document contains a comprehensive list of biological and chemical warfare agents shipped to Saddam by U.S. companies under purview of the U.S. Commerce Department for use against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in the late 80s during the regime of George Bush Sr.

81. Moreno, op.cit. "To this day few Americans know about the special top-secret program that brought German scientists to the United States after World War II, and fewer still know that their number included medical scientists. Code-named Operation Paper Clip...hundreds of 'specialists' ...entered the United States under Joint Chiefs' protection, avoiding regular immigration procedures and requirements...It is hard to escape the conclusion that many of the German recruits were for decades important consultants on a myriad of military-medical projects."

82. Emerging Viruses: Aids and Ebola, Dr. Len Horowitz, Tetrahedron Inc., 1996.

83. The Brucellosis Triangle, Donald W. Scott, Chelmstreet Publishers, 1998.

84. "Bush Signs Bill for New Generation Nuclear Weapons," rense.com, 12-2-03. The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2004 allocates millions for new nuclear weapons and bolsters readiness for new weapons testing at the Nevada nuclear test site.

85. Ibid.

86. "House Approves Pentagon Wish List--Bill Includes Military Exemptions From Environmental Laws," Nick Anderson, Los Angeles Times, 11-8-03.

87. "DOE Count of Worker Injuries Inaccurate," Spokesman Review, 3-28-04; also "Book Alleges Cover-up at Nuclear Site," Spokesman Review 3-28-04; also DOE Has Record of Broken Promises, editorial, 4-11-04.

88. "Kennedy Warns on Nuclear Tests," Julian Borger in Washington, The Guardian www.guardian.co.uk, 4-30-03.

89. "Rumsfeld's Dr. Strangelove," Fred Kaplan, MSN.com, 5-12-03.

90. "Bush Drives the Nation Towards Bankruptcy," Peter Eavis, The American Conservative, 2-15-04.

91. The War on Waste, 1-29-02, cbsnews.com.

92. "Money for Iraq Fight Running Out," The Australian 2-12-04 These figures are from U.S Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker.

93. "Fight of the Century," William Thomas, www.willthomas.net.

[foot_soldier]

"halva" wrote:

It is unreasonable to go to scientists and expect them to solve problems that are political.
This is an accurate statement.

[airtankerpilot]

Wow, another long article full of ignorance, lies, and false statements.

Looks like a chemmie figured if they wrote something long enough and tried to throw enough BS, something would stick. And of course, then ties 9/11 into it. Watch out Halva, yet another chemmie shows how that 9/11 conspiracy belief is very prevalent among chemtrail believers. How many other conspiracies are there too in that article?

[airtankerpilot]

"halva" wrote:

It is unreasonable to go to scientists and expect them to solve problems that are political.
This is an accurate statement.

So you are using that excuse as an explanation for why there are ZERO reputable scientists tagging onto your silly conspiracy?

Has it crossed your mind that maybe the completely lack of evidence, but the abundance of ignorance, might play a role?

[foot_soldier]

"airtankerpilot" wrote:

So you are using that excuse as an explanation for why there are ZERO reputable scientists tagging onto your silly conspiracy?

Has it crossed your mind that maybe the completely lack of evidence, but the abundance of ignorance, might play a role?
Whatever you say.

Fortunately there are people out there who have no trouble correctly interpreting halva's comment.

Hope you're enjoying yourself. You guys are a real trip. I see right through you and couldn't care less that you all continue to twist people's words to suit a disgusting agenda which in my opinion goes a hell of a lot deeper than is apparent on its surface. I'm afraid you underestimate people's capacity to see you for just what you are - and, more importantly, for what it is you're really attempting to do.

As if you even have the right let alone the authority.

Bull.

[airtankerpilot]

Have you even decided if you believed in chemtrails yet? And no I dont mean incidental pollution, but a vast conspiracy of sprayplanes, all releasing {insert chemical or substance of choice}, flown by UN/CIA/USAF/Space aliens, and these planes never land?

I think my explanation of why no scientists are on board with chemtrails makes a lot more sense than the conspiratorial nonsense chemtrails believers come up with.

[halva]

There is a guy called Ballias who has spoken at a number of our meetings (of ATTAC and of various ecological groups). He himself is a lawyer and he is concerned not with climate change (or with chemtrails) but with genetically modified foods.

But he has an analysis of the role of scientists that applies for all these problems.

One of the achievements of liberal democracy and the pluralistic parliamentary party system is the transformation of scientists into competing subalterns who will prove whatever the lobby, party or interest group that employs them wants to be proved.

These parties started off life as advisers to the king/queen, monarch, emperor or whatever, who was the one who decided whose advice he would take, until with the rise of parliamentarism he/she had to take the advice of the party with the majority in the parliament.

Now of course instead of the monarch there is only "we the people". But we the people do not exist as a political entity. And Otto von Hapsburg is not the Emperor of the European Union but just one (albeit powerful) Europarliamentarian.

Ballias thinks that the European Union is doing better than the United States (in relation to the topic that he knows about, genetic modification) in dealing with this side effect of 'pluralism'. He has quite a sophisticated analysis, which I will not attempt to reproduce. But of course it is to "the movement of movements" that he says these things. We are his "parliament".

[halva]

I have heard it said that in the United States "scientists" have the status that priests had in the theocratic societies of the past (e.g. Byzantine Empire).

That is being confirmed by the naive postings of the debunkers that still remain here now that the head debunker is being expected to answer questions instead of just asking them.

[airtankerpilot]

Oh well that is an attitude more of conspiracists/chemmies who have no need for science and scientists. What country in the world do people come to study the sciences? Its the US.

Name a chemtrail believer with a solid background in science? Or aviation? Or meteorology? Scientists are regularly treated with derision by chemtrail believers and just included in the conspiracy.

You ask questions that are not even really relevant because no matter what ones answers and opinions are, it does nothing to prove the existence of a vast fleet of aircraft/space ships dropping barium, blood cells, SARS, AIDS, cold viruses, webs, fibers, etc.

[halva]

This might seem irrelevant, but it's something that's happening to a member of my family. Her grievances are in one sense trivial and not worth mentioning when compared to some of the other indescribable bestialities going on at this moment, but they are nevertheless indicative of something.

This girl (of Greek nationality) is a student in Montreal. She was on an educational visit to Peru, which had included a stopover in the United States, for which she had to get a transit visa. Having visited the United States once or twice before she was very careful to get everything right so that there would be no problems. The visa she had was for a stopover, and for multiple use. There was no problem on the flight to Peru, but now that the time has come to go back she finds that the transit visa she has is not being recognized. She tried to get the name of the official who would not recognize the visa, but all she got was that his name is "The-Officer-in-Charge". It took a great deal of persistence to get the name of this person.

Finally at the US Embassy they told her that the visa she had could only be used to return from Mexico, not from Peru. But then, when she said she would go to Mexico to get a flight back to Montreal (via the USA) the Embassy official said: "I can't guarantee anything".

"I can't guarantee anything"!!!!!

What kind of a state is it that operates in this fashion?

The result is that this young girl is stranded in Lima. She has been told she will have to wait at least two weeks for a visa. She is dependent on the hospitality of chance acquaintances she met in Peru (they are Peruvians, not Americans). She is going to miss her graduation ceremony at the University and she is going to miss an important job interview.

All because of the way the United States has become.

A government that can get away with 9/11 thinks it can get away with anything and this stance of unaccountability has penetrated to every level of officialdom, so that there are no rules. Each petty rubber stamper makes them up as he goes along, and subsititutes for coherence and knowledge by abitrary aggressiveness and authoritarianism.

There are little Jay Reynolds sitting at every level of officialdom in the United States. Americans have lost their rights.

Why should the rest of the world lose OUR rights along with you?

[halva]

Getting back to Reynolds’s questions. I will answer first those that are easiest for me as a non-scientist to answer, leaving the rest until later. This still puts me a long way ahead of Reynolds, who hasn’t yet answered any of my questions.

Question 9 was:


9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?
[/b]

Well of course, here is another question the answer to which requires knowledge of the physical sciences. Will Thomas was one of the first people to draw my attention to the “chemtrails�/geoengineering issue, and my assessment of him over time has of course been based on different criteria to those of Reynolds.

I have not found any reason to doubt Thomas’s sincerity or honesty. Nor do I take seriously the innuendos or accusations Reynolds likes to make about Thomas being in the chemtrails game for the money. I might add that this puritanism about the profit motive, about people being “in� things “for the money� is a characteristic of Reynolds’ mentality I find particularly odious, coexisting as it does with an intense ideological zeal on his part for “capitalism� and “the free market�.

Rather than just taking the possibility of people being in things for the money as one possibility to be weighed up calmly and dispassionately, and then factored into one’s overall nuanced assessment, it is something Reynolds is eternally on the lookout for so as then to ram his moralistic condemnations of it down our throats.

So, as I say, I don’t doubt Will Thomas’s sincerity or honesty, or assign money-grubbing motives to him. But I do not altogether trust his judgement.

I first became alerted to Will Thomas’s less than 100% reliable judgement when the “Deep Shield� interviews became available on the internet. As an ex-military man, Thomas did not seem to be able to focus properly on the mentality of “Deep Shield�, which seemed unfamiliar and strange to him. He obviously was having trouble believing in its authenticity.

Notwithstanding three weeks or so in the reserves of the Australian army, I am much more familiar with peace movement and anti-nuclear movement mentalities than I am with military mentalities, and to me the “Deep Shield� mentality, or rather neurosis, was instantly familiar. The co-opted would-be ecologist, with his deep fears of the psychology of free human beings. I don’t think military people often have precisely this kind of fear in them, though they may pretend to have it (Reynolds often does).

Anyway, Will Thomas’s judgement with Deep Shield was wrong, in my opinion, and this led to me subjecting his judgement on other issues to further scrutiny also.

Will Thomas is a true believer in “nuclear deterrence�. Another chink in his armour in my opinion.

This belief makes him insensible to the numerous Jay Reynolds that are ensconced at various positions in the nuclear “weapons� and nuclear “deterrence� racket also, employing identical strategies.

Look at this excerpt from Reynolds’ response to my first posting in reply to his questions:



Wayne Hall then proffered yet another conspiracy theory to explain why no scientist would state the "chemtrails" case. Laughably, if his theory was plausible, the implication would be that all scientists are guilty of participating in a coverup intent on escaping prosecution, including Sir David King!


This remark may appear to be directed to the chemmie audience, showing them how ridiculous it is to postulate “chemtrails� since it would presuppose such a huge conspiracy. But in fact the intended recipients of this message are the other side: the environmental scientists who are worried about the illegality of the activity they feel to be so regrettably necessary. “Deep Shield� is one of these. After all, did he not say in his interview:

“All those who know are expected to remain silent. All of those who suspect are either faced with trying to prove the virtually unprovable or are faced with good enough reasons to remain silent. I would assume that this situation is worldwide and could be considered one of the dangers of this project.�

The secrecy is “one of the dangers of this project�. It is regrettable.

Why is it regrettable? If something is kept secret, the natural assumption of outsiders is that the people keeping it secret have got something to hide. People who try to have got something to hide are blackmailable by the threat of exposing what they are hiding. When Reynolds says: “The implication would be that all scientists are guilty of participating in a coverup intent on escaping prosecution, including Sir David King!�, he is using chemmies as a veiled threat to keep environmental scientists in their place. Keep your mouth shut or we will unleash the chemmies against you.

This is identical to the kind of blackmail that was used to keep the Soviet Union in the nuclear arms race, and is still used to keep Russia in it.

Reynolds plays both sides. He plays environmental scientists against chemmies and he plays chemmies against environmental scientists. Divide and rule.

These subtleties are lost on Will Thomas.

That said, Will Thomas and I are on the same side and I defend him against Reynolds’ slanders.

[jayreynolds]

[Question]- 9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information? [/b]

[Answer]- "Well of course, here is another question the answer to which requires knowledge of the physical sciences. Will Thomas was one of the first people to draw my attention to the “chemtrails”/geoengineering issue, and my assessment of him over time has of course been based on different criteria to those of Reynolds.
I have not found any reason to doubt Thomas’s sincerity or honesty. Nor do I take seriously the innuendos or accusations Reynolds likes to make about Thomas being in the chemtrails game for the money. I might add that this Puritanism about the profit motive, about people being “in” things “for the money” is a characteristic of Reynolds’ mentality I find particularly odious, coexisting as it does with an intense ideological zeal on his part for “capitalism” and “the free market”.
Rather than just taking the possibility of people being in things for the money as one possibility to be weighed up calmly and dispassionately, and then factored into one’s overall nuanced assessment, it is something Reynolds is eternally on the lookout for so as then to ram his moralistic condemnations of it down our throats.
So, as I say, I don’t doubt Will Thomas’s sincerity or honesty, or assign money-grubbing motives to him. But I do not altogether trust his judgement.
I first became alerted to Will Thomas’s less than 100% reliable judgement when the “Deep Shield” interviews became available on the internet. As an ex-military man, Thomas did not seem to be able to focus properly on the mentality of “Deep Shield”, which seemed unfamiliar and strange to him. He obviously was having trouble believing in its authenticity.
Notwithstanding three weeks or so in the reserves of the Australian army, I am much more familiar with peace movement and anti-nuclear movement mentalities than I am with military mentalities, and to me the “Deep Shield” mentality, or rather neurosis, was instantly familiar. The co-opted would-be ecologist, with his deep fears of the psychology of free human beings. I don’t think military people often have precisely this kind of fear in them, though they may pretend to have it (Reynolds often does).
Anyway, Will Thomas’s judgement with Deep Shield was wrong, in my opinion, and this led to me subjecting his judgement on other issues to further scrutiny also.
Will Thomas is a true believer in “nuclear deterrence”. Another chink in his armour in my opinion.
This belief makes him insensible to the numerous Jay Reynolds that are ensconced at various positions in the nuclear “weapons” and nuclear “deterrence” racket also, employing identical strategies.
Look at this excerpt from Reynolds’ response to my first posting in reply to his questions:
Wayne Hall then proffered yet another conspiracy theory to explain why no scientist would state the "chemtrails" case. Laughably, if his theory was plausible, the implication would be that all scientists are guilty of participating in a coverup intent on escaping prosecution, including Sir David King!
This remark may appear to be directed to the chemmie audience, showing them how ridiculous it is to postulate “chemtrails” since it would presuppose such a huge conspiracy.
But in fact the intended recipients of this message are the other side: the environmental scientists who are worried about the illegality of the activity they feel to be so regrettably necessary. “Deep Shield” is one of these. After all, did he not say in his interview:
“All those who know are expected to remain silent. All of those who suspect are either faced with trying to prove the virtually unprovable or are faced with good enough reasons to remain silent. I would assume that this situation is worldwide and could be considered one of the dangers of this project.”
The secrecy is “one of the dangers of this project”. It is regrettable.
Why is it regrettable? Because it could leak out. To quote Reynolds: “The implication would be that all scientists are guilty of participating in a coverup intent on escaping prosecution, including Sir David King!”
So here is Reynolds using chemmies as a veiled threat to keep environmental scientists in their place. Keep your mouth shut or we will unleash the chemmies against you.
This is identical to the kind of blackmail that was used to keep the Soviet Union in the nuclear arms race, and is still used to keep Russia in it.
Reynolds plays both sides. He plays environmental scientists against chemmies and he plays chemmies against environmental scientists. Divide and rule.
These subtleties are lost on Will Thomas. That said, Will Thomas and I are on the same side” and I defend him against Reynolds’ slanders."

[Comment]- I asked:

1. if the -76 degree figure was correct?
and
2. if you considered Thomas as an accurate source of information?

In 200 words and more, you failed to answer either question.

The figure cited by Thomas is factually incorrect, and considering the extremely basic nature of the question, even their fellow chemmies must decide which of the following is true?-

1. Both Wayne Hall and William Thomas are inept enough to get even the most basic fact wrong about their own conspiracy theory.
OR
2. They have deliberately and purposefully misled their fellow chemmies for their own particular reasons.

Before deciding which of the above possibilities is most plausible, ask yourself why, after giving Wayne this chance to correct the record regarding Thomas' inaccurate information, he did not but instead chose to write:
"Will Thomas and I are on the same side”

[jayreynolds]

regarding the article posted by Wayne Hall from "The Idaho Observer", by Amy Worthington, a central theme was that ordinary commercial planes were fitted with a spray apparatus as part of "Operation Cloverleaf".

She bases this claim solely on a statement which was sent anonymously and then promulgated by Clifford Carnicom. The claim, according to Mark Steadham webmaster of chemtrailcentral.com is a DISINFORMATION HOAX.
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/disinfo.shtml

Time has borne out that no such apparatus exists after five years. Supposedly, the same persons who empty septic tanks aboard commercial aircraft fill the spray tanks and everybody is kept in line through fear of losing their jobs!

[halva]

1. Why do you play the self-appointed intermediary between "chemmies" and environmental scientists, given your claim that scientists are anyway perfectly capable of protecting themselves from the contagion of what you identify as "chemmie" viewpoints?

2. How can you say that you know geoengineering projects are not being pursued in the skies for climate mitigation purposes when not even the British government's scientific advisor will say that he knows that. Do you have access to better information than he does?

3. If there is a genuine need for geoengineering techniques to be applied to mitigate the symptoms of climate change, as many scientists assert, should it not be possible for this mitigation to be carried out without those involved in it having to fear accusations that they are behaving illegally?

[foot_soldier]

�halva� wrote:

So here is Reynolds using chemmies as a veiled threat to keep environmental scientists in their place. Keep your mouth shut or we will unleash the chemmies against you.

This is identical to the kind of blackmail that was used to keep the Soviet Union in the nuclear arms race, and is still used to keep Russia in it.

Reynolds plays both sides. He plays environmental scientists against chemmies and he plays chemmies against environmental scientists. Divide and rule.

I think this pretty much covers it.

THANK YOU, halva.

[letxa2000]

Halva: It is unreasonable to go to scientists and expect them to solve problems that are political.

Interesting you should say that when mixing scientists and politics has become the latest fad thanks to the global warming issue. There is no evidence that scientists are averse to political issues. Rather, the lack of scientists speaking out against chemtrails is pretty clear evidence that there is no scientific evidence to support it.

[jayreynolds]

Halva: It is unreasonable to go to scientists and expect them to solve problems that are political.

Interesting you should say that when mixing scientists and politics has become the latest fad thanks to the global warming issue. There is no evidence that scientists are averse to political issues. Rather, the lack of scientists speaking out against chemtrails is pretty clear evidence that there is no scientific evidence to support it.

Actually, it is unreasonable to go to scientiosts and expect them to buy into a hoax which is being promoted by ignorant boobs, illogical fools, and those who willfully choose to remain ignorant.

For a rather lengthy list of moguls who have disdained to join the "chemtrail" cult, even after receiving a complete packet of the best the chemmies have to offer, see this link
Read, and weep(or laugh, whichever the case may be).

http://www.carnicom.com/notice1.htm

[halva]

1. Why do you play the self-appointed intermediary between "chemmies" and environmental scientists, given your claim that scientists are anyway perfectly capable of protecting themselves from the contagion of what you identify as "chemmie" viewpoints?

2. How can you say that you know geoengineering projects are not being pursued in the skies for climate mitigation purposes when not even the British government's scientific advisor will say that he knows that. Do you have access to better information than he does?

3. If there is a genuine need for geoengineering techniques to be applied to mitigate the symptoms of climate change, as many scientists assert, should it not be possible for this mitigation to be carried out without those involved in it having to fear accusations that they are behaving illegally?

[gaiacomm]

Jay:

You still presist by putting someone down when they are attempting to stand as a man!

You will get your answers but not in your timeframe! Who are you? Just a cybercop? I think not!

Wayne is serious and you are not! You are there to make yourself feel important when in fact reading all of your posts you are but a child. Go back to your wife Karen and make love to her!

Leave Wayne alone! He does not wish you any harm! His belief is what it is and you always seem to find a way to make someones day cloudy with your rantings and stupid comments!

You are afraid of me and should be because I can reach out and touch you!

But Wayne is a man who has beliefs and convictions and wishes to know!

He answered your questions and you still did what you did!

Now its my turn to give back to you what you have given to US!

[halva]

"Dear me," said the Voice, "how sudden! Well, come to me tomorrow, for I must have time to think it over."

"You've had plenty of time already," said the Tin Woodman angrily.

"We shan't wait a day longer," said the Scarecrow.

"You must keep your promises to us!" exclaimed Dorothy.

The Lion thought it might be as well to frighten the Wizard, so he gave a large, loud roar, which was so fierce and dreadful that Toto jumped away from him in alarm and tipped over the screen that stood in a corner. As it fell with a crash they looked that way, and the next moment all of them were filled with wonder. For they saw, standing in just the spot the screen had hidden, a little old man, with a bald head and a wrinkled face, who seemed to be as much surprised as they were. The Tin Woodman, raising his axe, rushed toward the little man and cried out, "Who are you?"

"I am Oz, the Great and Terrible," said the little man, in a trembling voice, "but don't strike me-- please don't-- and I'll do anything you want me to."

Our friends looked at him in surprise and dismay.

"I thought Oz was a great Head," said Dorothy.

"And I thought Oz was a lovely Lady," said the Scarecrow.

"And I thought Oz was a terrible Beast," said the Tin Woodman.

"And I thought Oz was a Ball of Fire," exclaimed the Lion.

"No, you are all wrong," said the little man meekly. "I have been making believe."

"Making believe!" cried Dorothy. "Are you not a Great Wizard?"

"Hush, my dear," he said; "don't speak so loud, or you will be overheard - and I should be ruined. I'm supposed to be a Great Wizard."

"And aren't you?" she asked.

"Not a bit of it, my dear; I'm just a common man."

"You're more than that," said the Scarecrow, in a grieved tone; "you're a humbug."

"Exactly so!" declared the little man, rubbing his hands together. "I am a humbug."

"But this is terrible," said the Tin Woodman; "how shall I ever get my heart?"

"Or I my courage?" asked the Lion.

"Or I my brains?" wailed the Scarecrow, wiping the tears from his eyes with his coat sleeve.

"My dear friends," said Oz. "I pray you not to speak of these little things. Think of me, and the terrible trouble I'm in at being found out."

"Doesn't anyone else know you're a humbug?" asked Dorothy.

"No one knows it but you four - and myself," replied Oz. "I have fooled everyone for so long that I thought I should never be found out. It was a great mistake my ever letting you into the Throne Room."

(from L. Frank Baum: "The Wizard of Oz".

[halva]

Pardon me for pointing this out, Raynolds, but you seem to be having difficulties dealing with any input that wasn't part of your training.

You are unprepared to deal with questions from the direction I am launching them, and you are at a loss.

From all that long answer I gave you on the subject of Will Thomas, all you could assimilate was that I do not dissociate myself from his alleged assertion that the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F.

I explained, in answer to your inquiry, that I do not have a scientific training and that my assessment of Will Thomas has been based on different criteria to yours. I have not said anything about the "accuracy" of what he says. I have told you what I think about the reliability of some of what he says, and while defending him as someone basically on the same side as myself, I have pointed out one way in which I think he does not have sufficient insight into the games played by people like you.

You have not indicated any understanding of my reply and have retorted in a mechanical fashion as if I were defending what Thomas says about the temperature at which condensation trails form.

This a sign of inflexibility. You cannot modify your line to take into account the specific characteristics of your interlocutor.

And you haven't even tried to answer my three questions.

You'd better go back to your handlers and give them a briefing on the new situation. Perhaps your replacement will be able to do a better job.

[halva]

1. Why do you play the self-appointed intermediary between "chemmies" and environmental scientists, given your claim that scientists are anyway perfectly capable of protecting themselves from the contagion of what you identify as "chemmie" viewpoints?

2. How can you say that you know geoengineering projects are not being pursued in the skies for climate mitigation purposes when not even the British government's scientific advisor will say that he knows that. Do you have access to better information than he does?

3. If there is a genuine need for geoengineering techniques to be applied to mitigate the symptoms of climate change, as many scientists assert, should it not be possible for this mitigation to be carried out without those involved in it having to fear accusations that they are behaving illegally?

[halva]

Would you like me to try to answer some more of your questions?

[jayreynolds]

"And you haven't even tried to answer my three questions."

Wayne, I waited twelve weeks to get yours. See how it feels?
Don't be a Rush-ian!

"Would you like me to try to answer some more of your questions?"

Well, let's see how you've done so far. The majority of your asnwers dodged the question completely.

- 1.Do you have a background in a technical field?

Your answer was an unequivocal NO, and you admitted you have remained willfully ignorant on the subject of this debate. I consider this answer sufficient.

-If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"?

You provided no name thus admitting that there is no person with a technical background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being "geoengineering".

- If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?

You replied with an illogical conspiracy theory in which thousands of atmospheric scientists are participating in an illegal coverup. Preposterous.

I'm still waiting on a straight answer on #9.

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

The answer you gave "I have not found any reason to doubt Thomas’s sincerity or honesty." did not address the question whatsoever.

Get Real, Wayne, you're not fooling anybody. Anybody that reads this debate can see you are full of meaningless rhetoric for the purpose of evading the questions. Don't try to blow smoke up my ass. Answer the questions or else you lose the debate, it's that simple.

[airtankerpilot]

While maybe you think William Thomas has okay intentions, that is not the same as him being accurate.

Chemtrail believers are going to have to realize that details DO matter, and specifics are neccessary. Vague generalities and incorrect statements will get you nowhere.

Ignorance of science is not an excuse. If you believe in chemtrails, why do you avoid science and go to politics? The science behind basic meteorology and aviation is not rocket science or differential equations.

But as long as there are silly statements like

Trails from an aircrafts tail indicates chemtrails because jets dont have engines there.

Parallel or intersecting trails means chemtrails.

It was a hot day, so there is no way planes should be making contrails..

Or any statement where someone sees a trail way overhead and thinks it it will come straight down on them.

Learn about lapse rate (3-4 degree cooling per 1000 ft altitude)
Learn about upper level winds. (Virtually always out of the west, increasing with altitude)
Learn that conditions for natural (and aircraft made) cirrus often precede cold fronts.
Learn about how high cold thin air will not evaporate/sublimate moisture near as quick as low thick warmer air.
Learn about how some jet route airways are full of aircraft one after another, especially at certain times of day.
Jet Fuel and gasoline are NOT the same thing, nor can one just be turned into another.
Jet aircraft, especially USAF refueling tankers, can not just fill their fuel tanks full of Barium, Aluminum, SARS, AIDS, red blood cells, etc, nor are their engines just big cuisinarts that you run anything thru you want.
Air force aircraft are not being flown around by space aliens/reptilians, no matter what Mark Sky says

Details and Specifics DO MATTER. Avoiding specifics to focus on political opinions or speculation, is silly and pointless.

[gaiacomm]

Table 5.2: Annual source strength for present day emissions of aerosol precursors (Tg N, S or C /year). The reference year is indicated in parentheses behind individual sources, where applicable.

Northern
Hemisphere Southern
Hemisphere Globala Range Source

NOx (as TgN/yr) 32 9 41 (see also Chapter 4).
Fossil fuel (1985) 20 1.1 21 Benkovitz et al. (1996)
Aircraft (1992) 0.54 0.04 0.58 0.4-0.9 Penner et al. (1999b); Daggett et al. (1999)
Biomass burning (ca. 1990) 3.3 3.1 6.4 2-12 Liousse et al. (1996); Atherton (1996)
Soils (ca. 1990) 3.5 2.0 5.5 3-12 Yienger and Levy (1995)
Agricultural soils 2.2 0-4 Yienger and Levy (1995)
Natural soils 3.2 3-8 Yienger and Levy (1995)
Lightning 4.4 2.6 7.0 2-12 Price et al. (1997); Lawrence et al. (1995)
NH3 (as TgN/yr) 41 13 54 40-70 Bouwman et al. (1997)
Domestic animals (1990) 18 4.1 21.6 10-30 Bouwman et al. (1997)
Agriculture (1990) 12 1.1 12.6 6-18 Bouwman et al. (1997)
Human (1990) 2.3 0.3 2.6 1.3-3.9 Bouwman et al. (1997)
Biomass burning (1990) 3.5 2.2 5.7 3-8 Bouwman et al. (1997)
Fossil fuel and industry (1990) 0.29 0.01 0.3 0.1-0.5 Bouwman et al. (1997)
Natural soils (1990) 1.4 1.1 2.4 1-10 Bouwman et al. (1997)
Wild animals (1990) 0.10 0.02 0.1 0-1 Bouwman et al. (1997)
Oceans 3.6 4.5 8.2 3-16 Bouwman et al. (1997)
SO2 (as TgS/yr) 76 12 88 67-130
Fossil fuel and industry (1985) 68 8 76 60-100 Benkovitz et al. (1996)
Aircraft (1992) 0.06 0.004 0.06 0.03-1.0 Penner et al. (1998a); Penner et al. (1999b);
Fahey et al. (1999)
Biomass burning (ca. 1990) 1.2 1.0 2.2 1-6 Spiro et al. (1992)
Volcanoes 6.3 3.0 9.3 6-20 Andres and Kasgnoc (1998) (incl. H2S)
DMS or H2S (as TgS/yr) 11.6 13.4 25.0 12-42
Oceans 11 13 24 13-36 Kettle and Andreae (2000)
Land biota and soils 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.4-5.6 Bates et al. (1992); Andreae and Jaeschke (1992)
Volatile organic emissions (as TgC/yr) 171 65 236 100-560
Anthropogenic (1985) 104 5 109 60-160 Piccot et al. (1992)
Terpenes (1990) 67 60 127 40-400 Guenther et al. (1995)

[gaiacomm]

14.2.6 Trace Gases, Aerosols, and the Climate System
The goal is a completely interactive simulation of the dynamical, radiative, and chemical processes in the atmosphere-ocean-land system with a central theme of characterising adequately the radiative forcing in the past, in the present, and into the future (See Chapter 6, Sections 6.1 and 6.2; see also Chapter 9, Section 9.1). Such a model will be essential in future studies of the broad question on the role of the oceans, terrestrial ecosystems, and human activities in the regulation of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other radiatively active atmospheric constituents. It will be required for understanding tropospheric trace constituents such as nitrogen oxides, ozone, and sulphate aerosols. Nitrogen oxides are believed to control the production and destruction of tropospheric ozone, which controls the chemical reactivity of the lower atmosphere and is itself a significant greenhouse gas. Tropospheric sulphate aerosols, carbonaceous aerosols from both natural and anthropogenic processes, dust, and sea salt, on the other hand, are believed to affect the Earth’s radiation budget significantly, by scattering solar radiation and through their effects on clouds. Systematic observations of different terrestrial ecosystems and surface marine systems under variable meteorological conditions are needed along with the development of ecosystem and surface models that will provide parametrizations of these exchanges.


Models that incorporate atmospheric chemical processes provide the basis for much of our current understanding in such critical problem areas as acid rain, photochemical smog production in the troposphere, and depletion of the ozone layer in the stratosphere. These formidable problems require models that include chemical, dynamical, and radiative processes, which through their mutual interactions determine the circulation, thermal structure, and distribution of constituents in the atmosphere. That is, the problems require a coupling of the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere. Furthermore, the models must be applicable on a variety of spatial (regional-to-global) and temporal (days-to-decades) scales (see Chapter 6). A particularly important and challenging issue is the need to reduce the uncertainty on the size and spatial pattern of the indirect aerosol effects (see Chapter 6, Section 6.8).


Most of the effort in three-dimensional atmospheric chemistry models over the last decade has been in the use of transport models in the analysis of certain chemically active species, e.g., long-lived gases such as nitrous oxide (N2O) or the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). In part, the purpose of these studies was not to improve our understanding of the chemistry of the atmosphere, but rather to improve the transport formulation associated with general circulation models and, in association with this improvement, to understand sources and sinks of CO2. The additional burden imposed by incorporating detailed chemistry into a comprehensive general circulation model has made long-term simulations and transient experiments with existing computing resources challenging. Current three-dimensional atmospheric chemistry models which focus on the stratosphere seek a compromise solution by employing coarse resolution (both vertical and horizontal dimensions); incorporating constituents by families (similar to the practice used in most two-dimensional models); omitting or simplifying parametrizations for tropospheric physical processes; or conducting “off line� transport simulations in which previously calculated wind and temperature fields are used as known input to continuity equations including chemical source/sink terms. This last approach renders the problem tractable and has produced much progress towards understanding the transport of chemically reacting species in the atmosphere. The corresponding disadvantage is the lack of the interactive feedback between the evolving species distributions and the atmospheric circulation. Better descriptions of the complex relationship between hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen species as well as hydrocarbons and other organic species are needed in order to establish simplified chemical schemes that will be implemented in chemical/transport models. In parallel, better descriptions of how advection, turbulence, and convection affect the chemical composition of the atmosphere are needed. (See Chapter 4, Section 4.5.2.)


We also need improved understanding of the processes involving clouds, surface exchanges, and their interactions with radiation. The coupling of aerosols with both the energy and water cycles as well as with the chemistry components of the system is of increasing importance. Determining feedbacks between the land surface and other elements of the climate system will require careful attention to the treatments of evapotranspiration, soil moisture storage and runoff. All of these occur on spatial scales that are small compared with the model meshes, so the question of scaling must be addressed. These improvements must be paralleled by the acquisition of global data sets for validation of these treatments. Validation of models against global and regional requirements for conservation of energy is especially important in this regard. (See Chapter 4, Section 4.5.1.)


The problems associated with how to treat clouds within the climate system are linked to problems associated with aerosols. Current model treatments of climate forcing from aerosols predict effects that are not easily consistent with the past climate record. A major challenge is to develop and validate the treatments of the microphysics of clouds and their interactions with aerosols on the scale of a general circulation model grid. A second major challenge is to develop an understanding of the carbon components of the aerosol system. Meeting this challenge requires that we develop data for a mechanistic understanding of carbonaceous aerosol effects on clouds as well as developing an understanding of the magnitude of the anthropogenic and natural components of the carbonaceous aerosol system. (See Chapter 6, Sections 6.7 and 6.8; see also Chapter 4, Section 4.5.1.2.)


As attention is turned toward the troposphere, the experimental strategy simply cannot adopt the stratospheric simplifications. The uneven distribution of emission sources at the surface of the Earth and the role of meteorological processes at various scales must be addressed directly. Fine-scaled, three-dimensional models of chemically active trace gases in the troposphere are needed to resolve transport processes at the highest possible resolution. These models should be designed to simulate the chemistry and transport of atmospheric tracers on global and regional scales, with accurate parametrizations of sub-scale processes that affect the chemical composition of the troposphere. It is therefore necessary to pursue an ambitious long-term programme to develop comprehensive models of the troposphere system, including chemical, dynamical, radiative, and eventually biological components. (See Chapter 4, Sections 4.4 to 4.6.)


The short-lived radiatively important species pose an observational challenge. The fact that they are short-lived implies that observations of the concentrations are needed over wide spatial regions and over long periods of time. This is particularly important for aerosols. The current uncertainties are non-trivial (see again Chapter 6, Figure 6.7) and need to be reduced.


In sum, there needs to be an expanded attack on the key contributors to uncertainty about the behaviour of the climate system today and in the future. As stated in Chapter 13, Section 13.1.2, “Scenarios should also provide adequate quantitative measures of uncertainty. The sources of uncertainty are many, including the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions in the future, their conversion into atmospheric concentrations, the range of responses of various climate models to a given radiative forcing and the method of constructing high resolution information from global climate model outputs (see Chapter 13, Figure 13.2). For many purposes, simply defining a single climate future is insufficient and unsatisfactory. Multiple climate scenarios that address at least one, or preferably several, sources of uncertainty allow these uncertainties to be quantified and explicitly accounted for in impact assessments.�


In addition to this needed expansion in the attack on uncertainties in the climate system, there is an important new challenge that should now be addressed more aggressively. It is time to link more formally physical climate-biogeochemical models with models of the human system. At present, human influences generally are treated only through emission scenarios that provide external forcings to the climate system. In future comprehensive models, human activities will interact with the dynamics of physical, chemical, and biological sub-systems through a diverse set of contributing activities, feedbacks, and responses. This does not mean that it is necessary or even logical to attempt to develop prognostic models of human actions since much will remain inherently unpredictable; however, the scenarios analysis could and should be more fully coupled to the coupled physical climate-biogeochemical system.


As part of the foundation-building to meet this challenge, we turn attention now to the human system.

[gaiacomm]

14.3.2 Humans: Drivers of Global Change: Recipients of Global Change
The provision of useful guidance to inform policy requires observation and description of human contributions to global change, as well as theoretical studies of the underlying social processes that shape them. We also need to understand how global change affects human welfare. This requires not merely studies of direct exposure but also of the capacity to respond.


Causal models of social processes have large uncertainties, and pose problems that are of a qualitatively different character than those encountered in modelling non-human components of the Earth system. This is due, first and foremost, to the inherent reflexivity of human behaviour; i.e., the fact that human beings have intellectual capabilities and emotional endowments enabling them to invent new solutions and transcend established “laws� in ways that no other species can do. As a consequence, predictive models may well alter the behaviour that they seek to predict and explain – indeed, such models are sometimes deliberately used exactly for that purpose. Moreover, the diversity of societies, cultures, and political and economic systems often frustrates attempts to generalise findings and propositions from one setting to another. Representation of human behaviour at the micro (individual) and macro (collective) scale may require fundamentally different approaches (see Gibson et al., 1998).


These kinds of difficulties intrinsically limit the predictive power that can be ascribed to models of social processes. As a consequence, research on human drivers and responses to climate change cannot be expected to produce conventional predictions beyond a very short time horizon. This does not imply, however, that research on human behaviour and social processes cannot provide knowledge and insight that can inform policy deliberations. A considerable amount of basic knowledge and insight exist, and this knowledge can be used, inter alia, for constructing scenarios showing plausible trajectories and identifying the critical factors that will have to be targeted in order to switch from one trajectory to another. From the perspective of policy-makers, this can indeed be an important contribution.


To make the most of this potential, further progress is required along two main frontiers. One challenge is to develop a more integrated understanding of social systems and human behaviour. With some exceptions, the first generation of models in this area represented “the human system� by a few key variables. For example, resource use was often conceived of as a function of population size and income level. The performance of such simplistic models was by-and-large poor. It is abundantly clear that the impact of human activities as drivers of climate change depends upon a complex set of interrelated factors, including also technologies in use, social institutions, and individual beliefs, attitudes, and values. At present, it seems fair to say that we have a reasonably good theoretical grasp of important types of institutions, such as markets and hierarchies, in ideal-type form. What we need to understand better is how their impure real-world counterparts work, and to improve our understanding of the intricate interplay of institutional complexes, i.e., how markets, governments and other social institutions interact to shape human behaviour. Research in political economy clearly indicates that phenomena such as economic growth are to a significant extent affected by the functioning of interlocking networks of institutional arrangements.


Similarly, we have a fairly good grasp on particular kinds of intellectual processes - in particular, the logic of rational choice - but we are doing less well when it comes to understanding how beliefs, attitudes and values change and how change in these factors in turn affects manifest human behaviour, such as consumption patterns. To address these challenges we need more interdisciplinary research designed to integrate knowledge from different fields and sub-fields into a more holistic understanding of “the human system�. The intellectual and organisational problems involved should not be underestimated, but we are confident that the prospects for making progress along this frontier are better now than ever before.


The other main challenge is to find better ways of integrating models of the biogeophysical Earth system with models of social systems and human behaviour. Some encouraging progress has been made at this interface, particularly over the last decade. For example, there has been a rapid increase in attempts to integrate representations of human activities in models with explicit formal linkages to other components of the Earth system. Such integrated assessment models have offered preliminary characterisations of human-climate linkages, particularly through models of multiple linked human and climate stresses on land cover. Moreover, they have provided preliminary characterisation of broad classes of policy responses, and have been employed to characterise and prioritise policy-relevant uncertainties.


Yet, effective integration is frustrated by at least two main obstacles. One is incongruity of temporal and spatial scales. Social science research cannot match the long time horizons of much natural science research. On the other hand, in studying consequences for human welfare and responses to these consequences, social scientists need estimates of biophysical impacts of climate change differentiated by political units or even smaller social systems. Aggregate global-scale estimates are of limited use in this context; human sensitivity to climate change varies significantly across regions and social groups, and so does response capacity. We can expect to see some progress in alleviating the spatial resolution problem, as regional-scale models of climate change are further developed, but we have to recognise that the scale problems are fundamental and that no quick fixes are in sight. The other problem pertains to the interface between different methodological approaches. In particular, concerted efforts are required to develop better tools for coupling approaches relying on numerical modelling with “softer� approaches using interpretative frameworks and qualitative methods. Some of these differences are too profound to be eliminated, but that does not imply that bridges cannot be built. Learning how to work more effectively across these methodological divides is essential to the further development of integrated global change research. Again, some encouraging progress is being made.

[gaiacomm]

Outlook
There is a growing recognition in the scientific community and more broadly that:


The Earth functions as a system, with properties and behaviour that are characteristic of the system as a whole. These include critical thresholds, “switch� or “control� points, strong non-linearities, teleconnections, chaotic elements, and unresolvable uncertainties. Understanding the components of the Earth system is critically important, but is insufficient on its own to understand the functioning of the Earth system as a whole.

Humans are now a significant force in the Earth system, altering key process rates and absorbing the impacts of global environmental changes. The environmental significance of human activities is now so profound that the current geological era can be called the “Anthropocene� (Crutzen and Stoermer, 2000).
A scientific understanding of the Earth system is required to help human societies develop in ways that sustain the global life support system. The clear challenge of understanding climate variability and change and the associated consequences and feedbacks is a specific and important example of the need for a scientific understanding of the Earth as a system. It is also clear that the scientific study of the whole Earth system, taking account of its full functional and geographical complexity over time, requires an unprecedented effort of international collaboration. It is well beyond the scope of individual countries and regions.


The world’s scientific community, working in part through the three global environmental change programmes (the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP)), has built a solid base for understanding the Earth system. The IGBP, IHDP and WCRP have also developed effective and efficient strategies for implementing global environmental change research at the international level. The challenge to IGBP, IHDP and WCRP is to build an international programme of Earth system science, driven by a common mission and common questions, employing visionary and creative scientific approaches, and based on an ever closer collaboration across disciplines, research themes, programmes, nations and regions.


We need to build on our existing understanding of the Earth system and its interactive human and non-human processes through time in order to:


improve evaluation and understanding of current and future global change; and

place on an increasingly firm scientific basis the challenge of sustaining the global environment for future human societies.
The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic, and there are central components which affect the system in a non-linear manner and potentially could switch the sign of critical feedbacks. The non-linear processes include the basic dynamical response of the climate system and the interactions between the different components. These complex, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system. Amongst the important non-linear processes are the role of clouds, the thermohaline circulation, and sea ice. There are other broad non-linear components, the biogeochemical system and, in particular, the carbon system, the hydrological cycle, and the chemistry of the atmosphere.


Given the complexity of the climate system and the inherent multi-decadal time-scale, there is a central and unavoidable need for long-term consistent data to support climate and environmental change investigations. Data from the present and recent past, credible global climate-relevant data for the last few centuries, along with lower frequency data for the last several millennia, are all needed. Research observational data sets that span significant temporal and spatial scales are needed so that models can be refined, validated, or perhaps, most importantly, rejected. The elimination of models because they are in conflict with climate-relevant data is particularly important. Running unrealistic models will consume scarce computing resources, and the results may add unrealistic information to the needed distribution functions. Such data must be adequate in temporal and spatial coverage, in parameters measured, and in precision, to permit meaningful validation. We are still unfortunately short of data for the quantitative assessment of extremes on the global scale in the observed climate.


In sum, there is a need for:


more comprehensive data, contemporary, historical, and palaeological, relevant to the climate system;

expanded process studies that more clearly elucidate the structure of fundamental components of the Earth system and the potential for changes in these central components;

greater effort in testing and developing increasingly comprehensive and sophisticated Earth system models;

increased emphasis upon producing ensemble calculations of Earth system models that yield descriptions of the likelihood of a broad range of different possibilities, and finally;

new efforts in understanding the fundamental behaviour of large-scale non-linear systems.
These are significant challenges, but they are not insurmountable. The challenges to understanding the Earth system including the human component are daunting, and the pressing needs are significant. However, the opportunity for progress exists, and, in fact, this opportunity simply must be realised. The issues are too important, and they will not vanish. The challenges simply must be met.

[halva]

1. Why do you play the self-appointed intermediary between "chemmies" and environmental scientists, given your claim that scientists are anyway perfectly capable of protecting themselves from the contagion of what you identify as "chemmie" viewpoints?

2. How can you say that you know geoengineering projects are not being pursued in the skies for climate mitigation purposes when not even the British government's scientific advisor will say that he knows that. Do you have access to better information than he does?

3. If there is a genuine need for geoengineering techniques to be applied to mitigate the symptoms of climate change, as many scientists assert, should it not be possible for this mitigation to be carried out without those involved in it having to fear accusations that they are behaving illegally?

[halva]

Raynolds, to agree to answer my questions (after you have got back from playing with the girls in the strawberries) and then not answer them because you decide my answers are "not good enough" is reminiscent of (and worthy) of a stonewaller like Letxa and not a hotshot proactive type like yourself.

Anyone can say his opponent's answers are "not good enough" in order to avoid answering questions himself.

[halva]

Raynolds,

You've got a challenge to debate from Dr. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber of the Tyndall Institute.

See below:


Dear Wayne,

I guess I will abstain, since this claim is just too sweeping. I'd be happy to consider more specific statements.


Regards,
John Schellnhuber



----- Original Message -----
Subject: Geoengineering ideas "unfeasible"


Dear Professor Schellnhuber,

At the discussion site Arianna on-line, a certain Mr. Jay Reynolds makes this claim:

"The geoengineering ideas were just pipe dreams and are unfeasible."
http://www.ariannaonline.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=99614#99614

Would you like to take him up on the forum on this claim?

Sincerely,

Wayne Hall
Athens, Greece

[jayreynolds]

Wayne, does this fellow know that you claim that what he sees in the sky and calls contrails, you claim are geoengineering "chemtrails"?

Have you actually laid out your whole conspiracy theory for him yet?


"It is time for there to be exposure, and honest public debate, about what is ALREADY being done by the proponents of geoengineering 'solutions'."

Does he know about some of the crap you put out by the anonymous "Deep Shield"?

Does he know about your claims that "Bush did 9/11 and got away with it"?

Does he know about this? "Look at those smoke rings in the sky. That's not traditional skywriting. Look at the mare's tails hanging down from them. They're chemtrails. In your face. The associations are with health, fitness and sport, not Alzheimer's, respiratory diseases and premature death." http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=Discussion&action=display&num=1069283108

Does he know about the faked picture from the greek magazine you promulgated through William Thomas, or about your continued faith in Thomas after his bogus information on contrails formation temperatures?

Wayne, have you been honest with this guy or is he completely in the dark about your chemtrail cult and it's claims?

[halva]

Presumably he can read this thread if he wants to.

And I have posted all the relevant correspondence I have had with the Tyndall Centre.

[halva]

If not, Whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"?

halva:
here are, and have been, many such people, but they are described by you as "chemmies" because they do not occupy powerful enough official positions to make it impossible for you to ridicule them or dismiss them. The British government's chief scientific advisor, Sir David King, would be familiar with the relevant data and his spokesman has said "Sir David is aware of the growing debate on ‘chemtrails’ or the deliberate release of particles into the atmosphere to form clouds and mitigate climate change." Note that she says it is "growing", not fading away, as you often assert.

Jay Reynolds: This answer is insufficient. I asked for a person's name with a scientific background who would state that what is being seen now are geoengineering "chemtrails". Neither King's spokesman or King himself said that, or ever will.

The woman you refer to as his spokesman is as misinformed as you regarding Teller's sunscreen idea. That idea would not have generated clouds, but mimicked the atmospheric spread of dust by volcanoes. This is the sort of problems you run into when you fail to have sufficient education to understand the science of the matter.

Raynolds, this could be a starting point for your debate over geoengineering with Dr. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber. You could ask him whether it would be possible for Teller's sunscreen idea to be applied because this would not have generated clouds but would have mimicked the atmospheric spread of dust by volcanoes.

This could be a first step towards your finding out whether geoengineering proposals are the fairy-tales and science fiction you assert they are. And this in turn would get us closer to finding out whether such programmes are in fact actually being implemented. If they are fairy-tales and science fiction I think we would all agree that it is less likely that they are.

[jayreynolds]

Wayne Hall wrote:
"1. Why do you play the self-appointed intermediary between "chemmies" and environmental scientists, given your claim that scientists are anyway perfectly capable of protecting themselves from the contagion of what you identify as "chemmie" viewpoints?"

Well, Wayne, I do it because I damn well feel like doing it, and there isn't a hell of a lot you can do about it, so bugger off and eat this, slag-boy. :lol:

email just sent:
To: a.minns@uea.ac.uk, h.j.schellnhuber@uea.ac.uk, samantha.jones@uea.ac.uk
subject:"Chemtrail" cult co-opting Tyndall Centre?
To:
Asher Minns, Tyndall Centre External Communications Manager
John Schellnhuber, Tyndall Centre Research Director
Samantha Jones, Tyndall Centre Manager

From: Jay Reynolds reality2u30@hotmail.com

Dear Sirs/Madam,

It has come to my attention that one Wayne Hall has had recent communications with several employees of the Tyndall Centre staff. Mr. Hall most likely approached you without revealing his true intentions which is to involve the Tyndall Centre in a cult of false belief to which he belongs.

Wayne Hall believes in a long-running hoax which has developed a cult-like folllowing over the past five years. The short story is that Hall and his cohorts believe that when they see an airplane making contrails, that they are not ordinary contrails made of water vapor from jet engine exhaust,
but rather nefarious "CHEMTRAILS" sprayed by US military jets.

Some "Chemmies", as they are called, claim that "chemtrails" are:

1. A covert aerial immunization against bioweapons(2117 members)
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com

2.An attack by alien Reptilian overlords of doom(635 members):
http://eff2.proboards21.com/

3.Geoengineering to combat global warming(237 members)
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi#stuff

4.chemtrails are for making people sick and various(3206 members)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/

"Chemtrail" believers are typically science illiterate, frequently gullible, and sometimes mentally unstable. Some have issued public threats to shoot down contrail forming airplanes with surface-to-air missiles. Some hold other beliefs on the new-age/alien abduction/anti-government/conspiracy/gaia fringe. Most are white middle class Americans with few real world worries and plenty of time on their hands. Most believe "chemtrails" are causing health problems. Almost none of them, however, believe the hoax enough to wear gas masks for protection, as gas masks just aren't very stylish.

This cult, which chiefly communicates via the internet, has existed for the past five years and has as it's primary activity recruitment of new members since it experiences a high turnover of membership. In the case of Wayne Hall, he seems particularly interested in gaining acceptance with the Tyndall Centre because of your recent conference on geoengineering.

His own personal theory is that you scientists are aware of "geoengineering chemtrails" because you can see the contrails he calls "chemtrails", but you are participating in a worldwide coverup because "chemtrails" would violate international law and you are culpable. The way he sees it, since the Tyndall Centre held the geoengineering conference you are trying to break the news about "chemtrails" gently because you truly believe, as he does, that they are necessary to prevent an imminent catastrophe from global warming. His goal is to engage you in discussions so that Tyndall Centre publicly lends support for his cult's claims that when they see contrails, they are seeing "chemtrails" sprayed by US military jets for geoengineering.

For my part, I am probably the longest running skeptic of the "chemtrails" idea, and created my own website debunking some of their claims:
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/

Please consider what I have told you as simply my own person opinion, don't take my word for it.
A simple search using the keywords Wayne Hall and chemtrails will lead you soon enough to the facts of the matter on which you need to decide for yourselves:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Wayne+Hall+chemtrails&btnG=Google+Search

Sincerely,
Jay Reynolds

[halva]

Neither Asher Minns nor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber said that they would discuss the question of "chemtrails" with you, Raynolds.

Dr. Schellnhuber said he would discuss you with your stated view that geoengineering proposals are "fairy tales" and "science fiction" if you would make your criticisms more specific.

But you clearly don't want to do this.You don't want to embark on a dialogue with a scientist that would expose the falsity of what YOU YOURSELF claim. You want to enlist scientists into your crusade against what OTHERS claim.

Why do you hide your identity as a climate-change sceptic from the scientists of the Tyndall Centre?

[jayreynolds]

Hey it's tough getting 'outed' as a chemmie, isn't it, Wayne?

Get used to it. When you run around bragging and making claims you can't support
in front of someone who bothers to check things out, what the hell do you expect?

You are free to write back and try to lie your way out of the mess you've got yourself into, and I expect you will. What else can you do? I'm perfectly aware that liars have an addiction and when caught, you think your only option is to try and compound the lie by telling yet another one.
Once you've told the second, you've already begun lying to yourself, however, and enter the world of the self-deceiver, the realm of being a scum-sucking hypocrite, somebody who knows he's a petty little failure who has to sneak around worrying about when he'll get caught next.

You're caught in a damn vicious circle, Wayne. There's only one way out, and that's to tell the truth, end the lying, and admit and repent for what you've done. All you chemmies can do it and be free of the chains of lies that bind you to the hoax. Ever wonder what became of all those former chemmies you never hear from anymore? Yep, they got wise, they got over it, they got out.

That's one of life's little lessons you haven't learned yet, eh, Wayne? I'll bet you lied to your mommy when you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar, didn't you? Probably got away with it and thought it worked Ok, so you made a practice of it, huh? Bet you've fired off an email already. Probably tell them what a big bad blue meany I am, how I'm a skeptic of 'global warming', how bougeoise and blunt Americans are, that sort of thing. You're thinking you can sway them with a little unctious schmooze and distraction, or try to make it seem like you're on their side against the uppity yank to gain sympathy.

Sorry, little buddy, won't work. Scientists are born skeptics, they like a good mystery as much as anyone and will follow the nasty little trail of lies you've left behind all for themselves, now that I've shown them the scent of blood. Face it, you idiot, your run at Tyndall centre is over.

Who's next?

[gaiacomm]

Originally Posted by gaiacomm
Jay:

You still presist by putting someone down when they are attempting to stand as a man!

You will get your answers but not in your timeframe! Who are you? Just a cybercop? I think not!

Wayne is serious and you are not! You are there to make yourself feel important when in fact reading all of your posts you are but a child. Go back to your wife Karen and make love to her!

Leave Wayne alone! He does not wish you any harm! His belief is what it is and you always seem to find a way to make someones day cloudy with your rantings and stupid comments!

You are afraid of me and should be because I can reach out and touch you!

But Wayne is a man who has beliefs and convictions and wishes to know!

He answered your questions and you still did what you did!

Now its my turn to give back to you what you have given to US!

[foot_soldier]

A slice of history:

Summary of Hearings on Global Climate Change (10-6-00)
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/climate_hearings.html

[jayreynolds]

you people need to get some new material.

[halva]

Dear Jay Reynolds,

Thank you for answering the first of the three questions I asked you.

The question was:

"1. Why do you play the self-appointed intermediary between "chemmies" and environmental scientists, given your claim that scientists are anyway perfectly capable of protecting themselves from the contagion of what you identify as "chemmie" viewpoints?"

Your answer was:

Well, Wayne, I do it because I damn well feel like doing it, and there isn't a hell of a lot you can do about it, so bugger off.

I take it that this answer was directed at me personally and not at the scientists who might also be interested in your answer, plus anyone else reading this board. You cannot want us all to bugger off. You you have sent off a separate answer to the Tyndall Centre, suggesting that in any case you do not want them to bugger off but to pay attention to you.

However, what you gave them was not an answer my question [which I was, in part, asking on their behalf], but another set of questions to them, on the subject of "chemtrails". This must be judged off-topic. If you have a question for someone at the Tyndall Centre it should be a question about the credentials of geoengineering as a science, directed to Dr. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, who agreed to take your questions on that subject, if you could be more specific than just saying that you think geo-engineering is "pie-in-the-sky" or "science-fiction".

You may remember that I ventured something approaching my own answer to the question I was asking you. I said:

" When Reynolds claims: 'The implication would be that all scientists are guilty of participating in a coverup intent on escaping prosecution, including Sir David King!', he is using chemmies as a veiled threat to keep environmental scientists in their place."

I added: "Reynolds plays both sides. He plays environmental scientists against chemmies and he plays chemmies against environmental scientists."

If you wanted to answer my question not just addressing me personally, but addressing all the potential audience, including the scientists I have accused you of trying to intimidate, you would give an answer that might satisfy them also. But you have simply said that you play the self-appointed intermediary between "chemmies" and environmental scientists because you feel like doing so and because I can't stop you.

You do not even try to refute my accusation that you are attempting to intimidate environmental scientists, meaning that you agree that this is indeed one of your purposes.

My second and third questions are:

2. How can you say that you know geoengineering projects are not being pursued in the skies for climate mitigation purposes when not even the British government's scientific advisor will say that he knows that. Do you have access to better information than he does?

3. If there is a genuine need for geoengineering techniques to be applied to mitigate the symptoms of climate change, as many scientists assert, should it not be possible for this mitigation to be carried out without those involved in it having to fear accusations that they are behaving illegally?

[jayreynolds]

Dear Chemmies,
Carefully read the article below because it describes what is really wrong with you.
FACE THE FACTS, CHEMMIES
GET HELP
GET OUT OF THE HOAX
GET ON WITH YOUR LIVES LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE AROUND YOU
=================
Delusional Disorders

Delusional disorder (sometimes called paranoid disorder) is one of the psychotic disorders. Psychosis has a variety of definitions, but it can be understood in simple terms as a gross impairment in the ability to recognize reality. Examples of psychotic symptoms are delusions (false beliefs) and hallucinations (false perceptions). Psychosis can be a part of many mental disorders including schizophrenia, mood disorders such as depression and some medical conditions.

The key feature of delusional disorder is the presence of one or more delusions, sometimes with a theme of persecution. People with this diagnosis do not have prominent mood disturbances nor do they typically have hallucinations. They do not exhibit strange forms of emotional expression, such as sometimes is seen in schizophrenia.

Delusions are false beliefs based on an incorrect interpretation of reality. The person holds the belief firmly, despite clear evidence or proof to the contrary. A religious or cultural belief that is also accepted by other members of the person's community (an idea that is an article of faith) is not a delusion. Delusional ideas have a wide variety of themes in addition to persecution. Delusions can have jealous themes or relate to body function (somatic delusions). Ideas can be erotic or grandiose. Delusions usually involve circumstances that could occur in reality. Bizarre ideas such as being controlled by an outside force or having thoughts inserted into one's head usually are not a feature of this illness.

Often, since people with delusional disorder are aware that their beliefs are unique, they do not talk about them. In these cases, the disorder can be detected only by observing unusual behavior that is a consequence of the belief.

Delusions, like all psychotic symptoms, can be a part of many different psychiatric disorders. The term delusional disorder is used when the problem is limited to delusional ideas or when delusions are by far the most prominent feature of the illness.

When hallucinations occur, they are part of the delusional belief. For example, someone who has the delusion that internal organs are rotting may hallucinate smells or sensations related to that delusion.

When functioning is impaired, it is a direct result of the delusion. The person may be capable of performing work, but may never leave the house because of a fear of being harmed. The lifetime risk of delusional disorder is less than one in 1,000. The cause of delusional disorder is not known.

Symptoms

The main symptom is a persistent delusion or delusions (a fixed belief) of something that is not happening but is plausible in real life. Types include:

Erotomanic — delusion of a special, loving relationship with another person, usually someone famous or of higher standing
Grandiose — delusion that the person has special power or ability, or a special relationship with a powerful person or figure (such as the president, a celebrity or the Pope)
Jealous — delusion that a sexual partner is being unfaithful
Persecutory — delusion that the person is being threatened or maltreated
Somatic — delusion of having a physical illness or defect
Diagnosis

Since delusional disorder is rare, other major illnesses, such as schizophrenia, mood disorder or a medical problem should be considered whenever delusional ideas arise. Medical causes should be considered, especially later in life. People who develop Alzheimer's disease, for example, can become delusional.

The diagnosis is more difficult when the affected person conceals his or her thoughts. Because the person is convinced of the reality of his or her ideas, he or she may not want help. If the person allows it, conversations with supportive family or friends can help. A general medical evaluation is useful. In a few cases, when a medical or neurological problem is suspected, diagnostic tests such as an electroencephalogram (EEG), a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) scan may be suggested.

Expected Duration

The duration of this illness is highly variable. Some have a persistent delusion that waxes and wanes in its intensity and significance. In some, the disorder will last only a few months.

Prevention

There is no known way to prevent this disorder.

Treatment

Treatment for this disorder is difficult, especially if the delusion is of long duration. Antipsychotic medications, such as risperidone (Risperdal) and olanzapine (Zyprexa), can be helpful. Since the patient may not believe he or she has a mental disorder, it can be more difficult to engage him or her in psychotherapy. However, support, reassurance, reality testing and education all can be helpful if the person is willing to meet with a therapist. Educating the family about how to respond to the person's needs can be useful.

When To Call A Professional

Call the person's primary care doctor, a psychiatrist or other mental-health professional as soon as the problem is detected.

Prognosis

The prognosis is variable. Although the disorder can go away after a short time, delusions also can persist for months or years. The inherent reluctance of a person with this disorder to accept treatment makes the prognosis worse. However, people with this disorder retain many areas of functioning, so some do reasonably well with limited assistance.

Additional Info

National Institute of Mental Health
6001 Executive Blvd.
Room 8184, MSC 9663
Bethesda, MD 20892-9663
Phone: (301) 443-4513
E-Mail: nimhinfo.gov
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/

National Alliance for the Mentally Ill
Colonial Place Three
2107 Wilson Blvd.
Suite 300
Arlington, VA 22201-3042
Phone: (703) 524-7600
Toll-free: (800) 950-6264
http//www.nami.org/

National Mental Health Association
1021 Prince St.
Alexandria, VA 22314-2971
Phone: (703) 684-7722
Toll-free: (800) 969-6642
Fax: (703) 684-5968
TTY: (800) 433-5959
http://www.nmha.org/

American Psychiatric Association
1400 K St., NW
Washington, DC 20005
Toll-free: (888) 357-7924
Fax: (202) 682-6850
E-Mail: apa@psych.org
http://www.psych.org/

American Psychological Association
750 First St., NE
Washington, DC 20002-4242
Phone: (202) 336-5510
Toll-free: (800) 374-2721
TTY: (202) 336-6123
Fax: (202) 336-5500
http://www.apa.org/

Last updated April 30, 2002

[halva]

Raynolds, you seem to be avoiding giving a straight answer.

Would you like to answer my questions two and three?

Please address ME, not 'chemmies'.

[jayreynolds]

My second and third questions are:

2. How can you say that you know geoengineering projects are not being pursued in the skies for climate mitigation purposes when not even the British government's scientific advisor will say that he knows that. Do you have access to better information than he does?

3. If there is a genuine need for geoengineering techniques to be applied to mitigate the symptoms of climate change, as many scientists assert, should it not be possible for this mitigation to be carried out without those involved in it having to fear accusations that they are behaving illegally?

[answer]2. Yes, the information I have available is that I am fully aware of the "chemtrails" hoax which started the rumor that ordinary contrails are "geoengineering". I was there and saw the genesis of the hoax, who started it, and have since followed the players and the play. I was also the first to have access to air traffic control data through the "FLIGHT EXPLORER" software which enabled me to confrm that I was observing ordinary commercial flights leaving behind what hoax promoters called "chemtrails".

[answer]3. Your question is prefaced by the hypothetical premise "if there is a genuine need.....blah blah blah".

I do not accept your premise as being factually correct, or even feasible, and certainly not possible covertly given the necessary size and complexity of such a scheme. No scientists assert that such a thing is ALREADY taking place,as YOU DO and none fear accusations of illegal conduct, AS YOU CLAIM. YOU have provided no proof whatsoever that any of these things are taking place and I therefore have no reason to have an opinion on any of it any more than hypotheticals about pixies or faeries. To the contrary, Drs. Katsaros and Zerefos, two greek scientists whom you falsely tried to assert would support your claims, turned out to actually agree with me!

Now, answer the questions you've dodged, including #9 which you did not answer:

2.Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

10. When three, five, or ten years have passed, and the rest of the world goes on about their business, oblivious of the hoax, how will you feel?

[halva]

[answer]3. Your question is prefaced by the hypothetical premise "if there is a genuine need.....blah blah blah".

I do not accept your premise as being factually correct, or even feasible, and certainly not possible covertly given the necessary size and complexity of such a scheme.


W.H.: It is not necessary to accept the premise in order to answer the question. It is a hypothetical question and can be answered as such.

[halva]

And by the way I note again that you make no attempt to refute my charge that you have been attempting to intimidate scientists, including Dr. Katsaros (who has made two public appearances speaking about the problem of 'chemtrails' since making his 'recantation' to you)
and Dr. Zerefos, who accepted an invitation to speak at a public meeting we organized, and then sent a close collaborator to replace him when he couldn't come himself. There was open discussion of 'chemtrails' at the meeting, both from official speakers and from the floor.

[jayreynolds]

"3. If there is a genuine need for geoengineering techniques to be applied to mitigate the symptoms of climate change, as many scientists assert, should it not be possible for this mitigation to be carried out without those involved in it having to fear accusations that they are behaving illegally?"

If such a thing were to be undetaken, hypothetically, there would be no need for secrecy, for such a thing could not be kept secret. The sky may be a vast and foreign place to you, Wayne, but to many tens of thousands it is the place they spend many waking and dreaming hours.
it is, after all, a very thgin shell covring our earth, only six miles thick, that you are speaking about. Those planes are only a short distance above you, you stupid chemmies! So damn close they can be easily seen with a telescope, you fools, there are no big secrets there in plain sight!

Actually, Wayne, if such a thing were to happen, it would be airline pilots and meteorologists/atmospheric scientists who would be exposing the illegal activity, not the participants and certainly not willfully ignorant chemmies who lie their way through life..

As you have seen, members of both groups of experts who live and/or make their living in the sky will, without exception, tell you that what you see are ordinary contrails.

If you continue living in a hypothetical dream world of what-if, you remain disconnected from reality, Wayne. I won't be bothered all day answering faerie and pixie questions as there is no end to them. My questions relate to reality, not make-believe , so now answer mine or admit you can't tell the difference between a "chemtrail" and a contrail because there is none, 'chemtrails" are just contrails after all.

You are living in a delusion, Wayne.
Get real.
Get help.
Get out.
Get over it.

[jayreynolds]

And by the way I note again that you make no attempt to refute my charge that you have been attempting to intimidate scientists, including Dr. Katsaros (who has made two public appearances speaking about the problem of 'chemtrails' since making his 'recantation' to you) and Dr. Zerefos, who accepted an invitation to speak at a public meeting we organized, and then sent a close collaborator to replace him when he couldn't come himself. There was open discussion of 'chemtrails' at the meeting, both from official speakers and from the floor.

Wayne, I wrote Katsaros and Zerefos seeking confirmation of your claim that they supported you. Katsaros wrote back saying that there was "no proof whatsoever" for "chemtrails". I answered several of his questions. Zerefos similarly answered back saying that you see "only contrails in the clear sky over Greece" No intimidating comments were made. You have never shown indepedent proof that contradicts either of these statements.

In short, your claim that I have intimidated anyone is bogus. If anyone wishes to show proof of "chemtrails", let them do so in full public view, and then it can be debunked. If anyone has proof that I intimidated them let them show such proof as well. But they won't because nothing of the sort occurred.

I previously published in this thread ALL correspondence that I had with those two men, with no text deleted, opposed to what you did with your correspondence with the Tyndall Centre, censored and excerpted to hide your lies and omissions..

[halva]

Quote:
(Originally Posted by jayreynolds)
If not, Whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"?

halva:
here are, and have been, many such people, but they are described by you as "chemmies" because they do not occupy powerful enough official positions to make it impossible for you to ridicule them or dismiss them. The British government's chief scientific advisor, Sir David King, would be familiar with the relevant data and his spokesman has said "Sir David is aware of the growing debate on ‘chemtrails’ or the deliberate release of particles into the atmosphere to form clouds and mitigate climate change." Note that she says it is "growing", not fading away, as you often assert.

Jay Reynolds: This answer is insufficient. I asked for a person's name with a scientific background who would state that what is being seen now are geoengineering "chemtrails". Neither King's spokesman or King himself said that, or ever will.

The woman you refer to as his spokesman is as misinformed as you regarding Teller's sunscreen idea. That idea would not have generated clouds, but mimicked the atmospheric spread of dust by volcanoes. This is the sort of problems you run into when you fail to have sufficient education to understand the science of the matter.

halva: Raynolds, this could be a starting point for your debate over geoengineering with Dr. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber. You could ask him whether it would be possible for Teller's sunscreen idea to be applied because this would not have generated clouds but would have mimicked the atmospheric spread of dust by volcanoes.

This could be a first step towards your finding out whether geoengineering proposals are the fairy-tales and science fiction you assert they are. And this in turn would get us closer to finding out whether such programmes are in fact actually being implemented. If they are fairy-tales and science fiction I think we would all agree that it is less likely that they are.

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

Really, Jay Reynolds, why didn't you proceed with this questioning of Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber about the scientific credentials of geoengineering, which you regard as "science fiction" and "pie-in-the-sky". This is an issue in which people are more interested, I would say, than they are in your idee fixe of "chemtrails".

At least it could be a starting point for a debate with a real scientist. You are not going to get them talking about chemtrails.

[halva]

Raynolds, one thing I find more admirable about you than, say, Letxa, is that you are not afraid to take risks.

[jayreynolds]

"Really, Jay Reynolds, why didn't you proceed with this questioning of Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber about the scientific credentials of geoengineering, which you regard as "science fiction" and "pie-in-the-sky". This is an issue in which people are more interested, I would say, than they are in your idee fixe of "chemtrails". At least it could be a starting point for a debate with a real scientist. You are not going to get them talking about chemtrails."

I have no reason to proceed where you have failed. Schellnhuber and the geoengineering claims of your cult hold no interest for me, and your ploy to enlist anyone from Tyndall Centre has already been foiled by my exposing the facts you had omitted about your true beliefs and goals.

See, Wayne, it does no good to try and lie your way into things, for mountains of lies can be effortlessly defeated with no risk using a few simple grains of truth. When you lie you always take the risk of exposure, which leads you to compound the lie even further, risking yet more.
When you tell the truth there is no risk at all, and you are certain to have success.

When will you ever learn?

BTW, don't underestimate Letxa, or risk him exposing you. He is meticulous to a fault, on point, and very accurate.

NOW ANSWER THE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE DODGED FOR OVER 200 PAGES OF THIS DEBATE. YOUR FAILURE TO DO SO HAS BEEN VIEWED 19,652 TIMES.

[halva]

What do you mean you see no need to proceed where I have failed? It was you, not I, who made the comments about geoengineering.

[halva]

The fact of the matter is that "pie-in-the-sky" is actually a quote from Dr. Patrick Minnis, whom Deborah has also quoted. Dr. Minnis coined the term in respect to geoengineering in a letter to a "chemtrail" believer:

http://www.rense.com/general9/naschem.htm
"I would also rule out the climate modifcation aspect. The effort would be too expensive, require too much manpower and equipment and probably would not work. Large, climate-changing programs have been hypothesized and written about for years, but inevitably they are pie in the sky. Maybe pies in the sky would change climate." "As I think I mentioned in the last email, the theories such as those you mention below (Teller) are still pie in the sky.


This is perhaps a point that could be directed to Dr. Schellnhuber.

[jayreynolds]

What do you mean you see no need to proceed where I have failed? It was you, not I, who made the comments about geoengineering.

Look, dumbass, you failed to interest anyone at Tyndall and have now been exposed there for what you were trying to do. I am not interested in them for any other reason. You can shove the "chemtrails" are geoengineering hoax up you-know-where for all I care, but you'll never make it reality because it's a fraud.

Furthermore, I predict you will give up on "chemtrails" before this coming New Years eve.
I can see that is inevitable, given the beating you have taken here.

[letxa2000]

Halva: Raynolds, one thing I find more admirable about you than, say, Letxa, is that you are not afraid to take risks.

Nice troll, but I'll bite: What risks have I avoided taking?

[jayreynolds]

I think Wayne doesn't want to risk a reply, letxa.

Just like neither he nor his friends risked anything here:

The International Ozone Commission (IOC)
of the International Association for Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences (IAMAS)
announces that the next
Quadrennial Ozone Symposium
QOS 2004
will be held in the island of Kos, Greece
from 1 - 8 June, 2004

[Peter Angelo]

Funny - I was playing golf yesterday with my father. I live in Clearwater, Florida. I looked up at the sky and noticed dozens of jet trails. I even made a comment about it.

I understand that MacDill Air Force Base is just across the bay in Tampa - and Tampa Airport - and St. Petersburg Airport - but that would not account for the number of trails I saw. Besides - the trails were very HIGH - the local traffic is much lower and doesn't leave trails at low altitudes.

CHEMTRAILS - why not? It's like crop dusting the whole planet.

Humans are funny creatures - the end will come with a comedy of errors - or is that a TRAGEDY OF ERRORS?

Either way - it seems inevitable that humans will self-destruct - it is like a group death wish - life is too hard and scary anyway.

HURRY UP!!!!!

[gaiacomm]

He who thinks he knows doesn't know, He who doesn't know, Knows!

[jayreynolds]

Peter, you and your associates are one sick bunch of sub-humans.
http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3602

[gaiacomm]

I like Peter's work now that I have been reading it!

[jayreynolds]

looks like Wayne Hall is on retreat at what amounts to the "chemtrails" cult cloistered nunnery
where they are currently discussing the finer points of question marks.-

http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=technosphere&num=1073367108&start=60

Hey, Wayne, the response I got from Tyndall Centre was that they rejected all your claims about chemtrails. Must be tough to be a loser, but you'll get used to it. Believers in lies get used to having the truth give them a 'smack-down'.

[halva]

Dialogue with Tyndall and other environmental scientists is continuing via private e-mail. People wishing to be included in it can PM me here. Those who have shown from their record that their only interest is to play environmental scientists off against 'chemmies' and/or vice versa will not of course be included.

[letxa2000]

Dialogue with Tyndall and other environmental scientists is continuing via private e-mail. People wishing to be included in it can PM me here. Those who have shown from their record that their only interest is to play environmental scientists off against 'chemmies' and/or vice versa will not of course be included.

Conducting "secret" communication and research and intentionally avoiding debate of the topics with skeptics: The absolute opposite of science and reason.

[jayreynolds]

Dialogue with Tyndall and other environmental scientists is continuing via private e-mail. People wishing to be included in it can PM me here. Those who have shown from their record that their only interest is to play environmental scientists off against 'chemmies' and/or vice versa will not of course be included.

Wayne's sort of 'dialogue' is actually a good idea. Any contact with science and reason would be helpful in dispelling the hoax. He makes it sound like he already has them convinced to join his cult of belief.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Centre wrote me saying that bio and geo sequestration are the only currently practical geoengineering ideas, and that there is no evidence, despite decades of systematic atmospheric aerosol analysis, for 'chemtrails'.

So, go ahead and play Wayne's game, all of you. You might actually learn something.

I'll admit it's funny for him to actually imagine he could exclude me from emailing anyone I choose, or ever persuade a scientist of something for which here is no evidence whatsoever.

Oh, that sounds so familiar for some reason!

"As you probably know there is no scientific evidence whatsoever concerning
chemtrails and their composition."-Dr. Nikos Katsaros- Director of Research, Demokritos Institute, Greece

[halva]

Look, dumbass, you failed to interest anyone at Tyndall and have now been exposed there for what you were trying to do. I am not interested in them for any other reason.

David Stewart, the interviewer of 'Deep Shield' has some good questions to ask Dr. Sarah Cornell (Tyndall Centre).

[halva]

"Deep Shield"

See http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/shieldproject.html

And more from David Stewart at:

http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/stewart.html

[halva]

Schellnhuber and the geoengineering claims of your cult hold no interest for me.

[jayreynolds]

Wayne Hall long ago admitted to me that he is knowingly promoting the "chemtrails" hoax.
This took place on Tue Sep 30, 2003 at a messageboard where he thought fellow "chemmies" wouldn't see the admission.

at the CICDD forum, I wrote:
"1. I will discontinue posting here at CICDD when Wayne stops
promoting the hoax here"

To which Wayne Hall responded:
"Comments from halva:

On 1. I have not stopped promoting the hoax."

=============================
There you have it, folks, straight from the horses(er, um, havla's) mouth(er, um, patoot).

touche!

[jayreynolds]

Well, looks like a new 'discreditor' has joined in over at chemtrailcentral.com. Ken Welch is good for some laughs, he was back in 1999, and still is. This time he has become an 'expert' on a woo-woo fad called 'reverse speech'. Supposedly, hidden messages can be found if you play someone's speech in reverse. Most of us got over that hoax when we realized Paul really wasn't dead back in '66!
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002120.html

To see the sort of stuff conspiracies were made of, check it out for yourselves.People like Ken Welch and Wayne Hall just recycle old hoaxes like TMC does Harlow and Bogart.
http://www.beatles-discography.com/index.html?http://www.beatles-discography.com/paul-is-dead.html

Oh, and love to see Ken Welch repeating the old "chemtrails are Ethylene Dibromide" routine.
You'd think that with the billions of tons of all that banned pesticide being sprayed year in year out someone would have detected it in an air sample by now.
WE ARE TALKING FIVE YEARS OF HEARING THIS CLAIM, CHEMMIES. ISN'T THERE EVEN ONE OF YOU GOING TO ASK KEN WELCH WHERE'S THE BEEF?

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000163.html

========================
Oh, and on another humorous note, check out the latest multiple personalities, supposedly from the far ends of the country, but obviously the same person posting as two different people:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/message/112863

The chemtrailtrackingusa board is just too easy for these "Sybils" to sign-on, and the moderators have no way to monitor what is going on. Check out the board and you'll find that "cowboy" and "ginnicus" have lots of company.

[foot_soldier]

June 14, 2004
The Los Angeles Times

A Romance With Oil in a Melting World
http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=32617

In 2002, I went to the Arctic to experience climate change in the flesh, and I found it — and sheer terror — several miles offshore from Barrow, Alaska, on the sea ice with a crew of Inupiat Eskimo whale hunters.

Unstable ice conditions over the last decade have made whale hunting increasingly dangerous. Every day, it seemed, the crews I traveled with hastily retreated amid melting ice and strangely hot sun to avoid floating off into the Arctic Ocean or being crushed by colliding floes.

The day after I returned safely to shore, the ice did break free and more than 90 whalers floated away. Rescue helicopters threaded their way through fog to the floes, keeping their rotors spinning to avoid putting their full weight down. All the whalers and most of their equipment were carried safely to shore over a long, treacherous night.

Whatever exaggerations may be contained in the current climate-change disaster movie "The Day After Tomorrow," climate change is real and dangerous for the indigenous people of the Arctic. A world that's solid only below freezing can be a scary place when the weather warms. Eskimos are threatened by thinning sea ice, softening permafrost ground, larger waves, faster erosion and changes in the seasons.

Yet these same people advocate for more oil production — including development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — despite powerful evidence that human use of fossil fuels is a major cause of the current Arctic changes.

The answer to why is largely economic. The Inupiat homeland is on top of the largest oil field in North America. Over the decades since oil was found at Prudhoe Bay they have parlayed that wealth into an excellent educational system, modern water, sewer and communication infrastructure, rescue helicopters and ownership of Alaska's largest corporation, Arctic Slope Regional Corp., which has more than $1 billion in annual revenues and is based in Barrow.

The Inupiat oppose offshore oil development for fear it would affect marine mammals, their traditional sustenance. But, on shore, the idea of ANWR oil drilling is popular. The opposition of environmentalists perplexes many Eskimos. It's hard to feel that Arctic wilderness is scarce when you are within its vastness, and predictions of harm to wildlife have lost credibility among the Inupiat since such predictions didn't come true after previous oil fields were developed.

As for climate change, whalers told me they're not the ones burning the oil. The world isn't ready to live without oil; therefore, the reasoning goes, it matters little where the oil comes from.

That's partly true, but it's also true that the Eskimos' allies on this issue are making little effort to address the larger problem. The fastest way to address climate change would be to use fossil fuels more efficiently while shifting to energy sources that emit less carbon dioxide — not the strategy on Congress' current agenda.

President Bush recently called again for ANWR drilling, saying it could reduce oil prices. Drilling proponents hope that dubious claim will persuade Congress as it takes up the issue in coming weeks. Cheap oil is still the priority.

In a sense, the world's wealthiest consumers and their representatives are in the same position as the Inupiat: facing disaster but unwilling to make economic sacrifices to avert it. Except that, unlike the Inupiat, Congress really can do something about it.

Charles Wohlforth is author of "The Whale and the Supercomputer: On the Northern Front of Climate Change" (North Point Press/FSG, 2004).

[jayreynolds]

Did it ever occur to you, Deborah, that arctic ice can be thinned two ways, not only by surface warming, but also by warmer currents flowing underneath, or even currents of water not necesarily warmer, but just faster?

The late John Daly wrote a nice article about this, one which anyone desiring a better understanding of weather, oceanography, and arctic climate issues would benefit by reading.
You won't find this sort of balance at climateark.com

http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm

[foot_soldier]

U.S. National Assessment - Alaska Region
Bering Sea Impact Study (BESIS)

A study of the consequences of climate change
for Alaska and the Bering Sea Region
http://www.besis.uaf.edu/default.html

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/

An international project of the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), to evaluate and synthesize knowledge on climate variability, climate change, and increased ultraviolet radiation and their consequences.

The Arctic Council is a high-level intergovernmental forum. The members are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States of America. IASC is a non-governmental organization that facilitates cooperation in all aspects of arctic research in all countries engaged in arctic research and in all areas of the arctic region.

The ACIA Secretariat is located at the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Funding for the Secretariat is provided by the U.S. National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

[foot_soldier]

June 14, 2004
The New Britain Herald

Greenhouse gas bill goes into effect today
http://www.newbritainherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11943811&BRD=1641&PAG=461&dept_id=10110&rfi=6

Only an unlikely gubernatorial veto could stop the legislation, which was passed by overwhelming majorities in the state House and Senate.

Gov. John Rowland accepted climate change recommendations in March to improve the state’s environment, including steps to cut back on production of so-called greenhouse gases.

These gases allow sunlight to be absorbed by Earth but trap re-radiated heat.

The Act Concerning Climate Change calls for lowering greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2010 and to reduce emissions by 85 percent by 2050.

Derek Murrow, policy analyst with Environment Northeast, said environmental groups hope that other states will follow Connecticut’s lead.

Brooke Suter, Connecticut director for Clean Water Action, said, "As with most major evolutions, someone has to get the ball rolling. We are fortunate that here in our region our key leaders understand the necessity to address global warming."

Otherwise, reducing Connecticut’s emissions would have little global impact, he said.

So far only Maine has adopted a similar law, Murrow said.

The Connecticut law would be aimed at curtailing production of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

Federal statistics show that Connecticut produced the equivalent of 48 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide accounted for 91 percent of the total, followed by methane, nitrous oxide and other gases.

Murrow said the biggest source of greenhouse gases in Connecticut is combustion of fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas in power plants.

Residential heating and highway transportation were also significant contributors.

Nearly 100 Connecticut businesses, non-profit organizations, state and local government agencies and colleges developed recommendations to cut Connecticut's emissions of greenhouse gases...... (continued)

[halva]

Thanks for continuing to post this information Foot Soldier.

[foot_soldier]

June 1 2004
Toronto Globe & Mail

Skin Cancer Cases on the Rise
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040531.wsun0531/BNStory/National/

Skin cancer cases on the rise have dermatologists urging Canadians to avoid the sun.

About 76,000 new cases are expected this year as compared with about 70,000 in 2000 and 58,500 new cases in 1994, said Dr. Ari Demirjian, a dermatologist affiliated with the McGill Laser Centre dermatology clinic.

But it's quite possible that these figures are underestimated, he told globeandmail.com, as a recent look at skin cancer cases showed the figure to be “closer to 39,000 in Quebec only�.

“The reason we are seeing the number of new cases jump is that people are outdoors unprotected a lot whether they are involved in their usual activities, sports activities or at the beach. Year after year, this results in excessive sun exposure,� Dr. Joel Claveau, national director of the Canadian Dermatology Association's National Sun Awareness Program, said in a statement before the 16th National Sun Awareness Week running May 31 to June 6.

“The number of people diagnosed with skin cancer this year will be enough to fill four ice hockey arenas. Surgical treatment is painful and too often disfiguring, to say nothing of the significant costs to the health-care system,� he added.

But it may take more than a stern warning to keep Canadians away from the sunlight following a dark and bitterly cold winter..... (continued)

Last two paragraphs:

The Canadian Dermatology Association and the Canadian Cancer Society recommend reducing exposure between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. when the sun's rays are strongest, to seek shade, cover up with lightweight clothing and a wide-brimmed hat, and to use broad spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 15 or higher – SPF 30 if you will be outdoors for most of the day. Broad spectrum sunscreen blocks both UVA and UVB rays.

“Now that it has been clarified that UVA and UVB rays do cause skin cancer and there is a hole in the ozone, it's time for people to start taking the necessary steps and protecting themselves a bit more,� Dr. Demirjian said.

[foot_soldier]

June 1 2004
Toronto Globe & Mail

Decline in amphibians linked to sunburn
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040601.wamphib0601/BNStory/

The global decline of amphibians, which do not have the luxury of slathering on sun block, is partly linked to sunburn, researchers suggest.

Ultraviolet radiation is one of several components that cause damage to amphibians at every stage of their life cycle, Oregon State University zoology professor Andrew Blaustein told globeandmail.com on Tuesday.

Mr. Blaustein, the lead author of the study, said the erosion of the ozone layer has contributed to the decline of amphibians – frogs, toads and salamanders – around the world.

“Every species you look at that has been exposed to ultraviolet rays has some kind of damage,� he said.

Researchers said other factors contributing to the global amphibian decline include habitat destruction, global climate change, introduction of exotic species and parasites, but UVB radiation is high on the list.

All amphibians exposed to natural levels of UVB rays are threatened as a result of a weakened immune system, deformity, and life-threatening illnesses, both as larvae and adults, the study reports.

Mr. Blaustein explains that UVB rays affect amphibians much like they do any plant, animal, or human – they damage the skin, causing a cell's death or mutation.

Unlike humans, amphibians can die almost immediately if their eggs are exposed to the radiation, or they can develop retinal damage and blindness as adults.

Other researchers theorized that amphibians could avoid radiation by keeping out of the sun or laying eggs in deeper water levels.

This theory, however, ignores “millions of years of evolution� in which amphibians learned to lay eggs in warm, shallow waters for heat and sunlight so that they can hatch before the water freezes or evaporates, Mr. Blaustein said.

He said it has become increasingly difficult for amphibians to seek shade as ponds dry out and water levels decrease.

The study reports that 60 species of frogs, toads, and salamanders in 46 states and across four continents have been found with deformed legs and eye damage.

Amphibian Monitoring Project
http://www.riversalive.org/amphibians.htm

With the help of scientists from the Jones Ecological Research Center, Georgia Adopt-A-Stream has initiated volunteer amphibian monitoring workshops. The first one was conducted on March 2. This workshop will focused on the amphibians volunteers might find at their adopted monitoring sites. Primarily this includes treefrogs and targeted salamanders species..... (continued)

[foot_soldier]

June 10, 2004
US Newswire

DOE's Carbon Sequestration Program Adds Partners; Seven States, Thirteen Organizations Added; Will Help Develop Sequestration Options
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=121-06102004

To: National Desk

Contact: Jeanne Lopatto, 202-586-4940, Drew Malcomb, 202-586-5806, both of the U.S. Department of Energy,

WASHINGTON, June 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Department of Energy (DOE) today announced that seven new states and 13 organizations have joined the Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnership Program, the centerpiece of national efforts to validate and deploy carbon sequestration technologies.

DOE's Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnership Program began last year and is a nationwide network of federal, state, and private sector partnerships that have the goal of determining the most suitable technologies, regulations, and infrastructure for future carbon dioxide capture, storage and sequestration in different areas of the country.

The original partnerships were selected in August 2003 to evaluate and promote the carbon sequestration technologies and infrastructure best suited to their unique regions. With the addition of seven new states and 13 organizations, the partnerships now include leaders from 154 organizations spanning 40 states, three Indian nations, and two Canadian provinces.

Three of the seven regional partnerships added new partners:

Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership -- The states of Virginia and Texas became part of the Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership in March, joining Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The state of Texas, already a member of the Southwest Regional Partnership for Carbon Sequestration, is now part of two partnerships. The focus of the Southeast Partnership in Texas will be carbon capture and sequestration opportunities in the Gulf Coast area.

The inclusion of Virginia and Texas will provide a broader representation of needs and opportunities within the Southeast Partnership. Virginia will be represented by the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Texas will be represented by the Gulf Coast Carbon Center, an academic-industrial partnership led by the Bureau of Economic Geology at the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin. Numerous academic, coal, power utility, and other organizations are partners with or serve as advisors to the partnership, which is headed by Southern States Energy Board. The major objectives of the partnership are to describe carbon sources, sinks, and transport requirements; to evaluate the lifecycle of storage options; to assess environmental risk; and to develop measuring, monitoring, and verification protocols.

The partnership will develop outreach plans to engage stakeholders and prepare action plans for carbon sequestration implementation in the southeastern U.S.

Plains CO2 Reduction Partnership -- The Plains CO2 Reduction Partnership also expanded in March with the addition of Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin. These states join the existing states of Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota, as well as partners from industry and academia. The partnership is led by the Energy & Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota. Other new members to this partnership are Ducks Unlimited Canada and the Institute for Wetland and Waterfowl Research Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center.

The newly added states have many similarities to the existing region, including energy sources from coal and gas, common agricultural practices, and adjacent boundaries to expansive geologic formations that could serve as future sinks for CO2. These additional states will be incorporated into the existing assessment of CO2 sources, transportation infrastructure, and terrestrial and geologic CO2 sinks. The partnership will also include an assessment of potential regulatory requirements for carbon sequestration projects in these states and expand their public outreach and education into these areas. Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership -- Michigan and Maryland have joined Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania to expand the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership. In addition, nine organizations have joined the partnership -- Michigan State University, the University of Maryland, Western Michigan University, the Maryland Geologic Survey, AES Warrior Run Power Plant, the Maryland Energy Administration, DTE Energy, Alliance Resources Partners, and Constellation Energy.

The Midwest Partnership, led by Battelle Memorial Institute, will identify greenhouse gas sources in its region and determine the technical feasibility and cost of capturing and sequestering these emissions in deep geologic formations, agricultural forests, and degraded land systems. Existing regulations and policies will be examined to determine if they hinder the cost-effectiveness of CO2 sequestration options, and ways to overcome these barriers will be outlined.

In addition to the three expanded partnerships, the national network includes the West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership, led by the California Energy Commission; Southwest Regional Partnership for Carbon Sequestration, led by the Western Governors' Association and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology; Northern Rockies and Great Plains Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership, led by Montana State University; and the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium, headed by the University of Illinois-Illinois State Geological Survey.

The Department of Energy is providing approximately $13 million to support the partnerships during the first phase of the project. Three participating organizations are contributing another $7.2 million, or an average of nearly 36 percent of the total funding. The partnerships are managed for DOE by the Office of Fossil Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory.

At the end of two years, technologies will be recommended for small-scale validation testing in a Phase II competition expected to begin in late fiscal year 2005. The second phase will provide additional funding to continue progress in environmental permitting, public involvement and education, and protocols and other infrastructure needs for ensuring that greenhouse gases can be safely and permanently sequestered.

The regional partnerships support President Bush's Global Climate Change Initiative, which calls for an 18 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas intensity by 2012, and they complement the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, an international effort spearheaded by DOE to develop and deploy carbon capture and storage technologies worldwide. The partnerships also provide a critical link to the Bush Administration's plans for FutureGen, a highly efficient and technologically sophisticated coal-fired power plant that will produce both hydrogen and electricity, with near-zero emissions. The partnerships will provide the regulatory, infrastructure, and site-selection basis for wide- scale deployment of FutureGen technology options.

[foot_soldier]

May 5 2004

DOE Seeks Public Input on Carbon Sequestration Program
Public Meetings Scheduled in Eight Cities
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/04/tl_sequestration_eis.html

Washington, DC - The Department of Energy today announced it will be seeking public comments on the environmental impacts of its Carbon Sequestration Program and has scheduled eight evening meetings in various parts of the country for citizen input.

"DOE's long-term goal is to develop a cost-effective, commercially ready, and environmentally sound portfolio of technology options to reduce greenhouse gases and stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide," said Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Mark Maddox. "We're offering this series of public meetings as a constructive step toward providing the foundation for future decisions about those options as they relate to future sequestration activities."

Carbon sequestration includes various methods for capturing and permanently isolating carbon dioxide gases that otherwise could contribute to global climate change. Affordable and environmentally safe sequestration approaches could offer a way to stabilize atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide without requiring the United States and other countries to make large-scale and potentially costly changes to their energy infrastructures..... (continued)

Americans are special. They shouldn't have to modify their consumption patterns. God forbid.

[jayreynolds]

Interesting form of 'spam' tactic you are using, Deborah. While you might feel it's cute, your fellow chemmies are beginnng to wonder why you and throatee don't ever post anything new about "chemtrails".

You both seem to have inordinate amounts of time to seek out, copy and paste enviro type articles that someone else wrote, but never get any real "activism" done on "cvhemtrails".

It's almost as if you've given up on ever exposing what you once believed in so passionately.

The longer you go on, the clearer it becomes that neither of you believes in "chemtrails" anymore at all, you have finally realized the folly of it all.

I knew it when you all turned on Carnicom last year over the supposed "anonlymous source" he continued to cite, you finally realized the fruitcakes you had been dining with.

Even when people like Billder, Ken Welch, Julian Penrod, and all the other misinformants come out ahead of you and take over the agenda discrediting the whole cult with their madness, you remain silent.

Yet another sign of your complacency. You've handed the reins over to a bunch of wackos anyone can detect. Now it is them who set the stage for you and all the rest.

Ever see a lunatic sitting quietly on a street corner, softly banging his head against a lamppost, mumbling some gibberish no one cares enough to listen to?

He gets just as much done as you two do, and really, what difference is there?

Basically, the lunatic headbanger, Throatee, and Deborah are all in the same boat, all adrift, all banging their heads, all lives wasted. No one will ever listen to you now, and you know it.

[halva]

Raynolds this thread is a notice-board.

The discussion is being conducted elsewhere and you are not invited.

[jayreynolds]

A "noticeboard", eh? Yes, people are starting to notice just how chemmie 'activism' amounts to some freak-O's practicing textual priapism.

Interesting that after hundreds of pages, Wayne has again dropped all petense to the original challenge of this thread, which was a debate. He was shown an abject loser, begged the moderators to ban his opponents, then began spamming in foreign texts. When attention was called to what he was doing, he actually resorted to an appearance of answering the questions raised in debate. When it became apparent his answers were merely dodges of the questions, he dropped out of sight. He then made claims to have seduced a scientific group towards his claims about "chemtrails". That ws revealed as false, they were opposed to his views. Now he is claiming to yet again be conducting 'secret discussions'.

Yes, wayne, I see the quality of discussion that takes place among your cult:
"The pope is trying to hide the fact that his church is a depraved, perverted sect of child molesters."

"George W Bush's blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs and his constant references to 'evil doers,' in the eyes of many devout Catholic leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of Revelations--the anti-Christ."
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/002315.html

=============================
"Ozone-Hole Remediation - The composition most notably utilized in Ozone-hole patching is elemental Selenium and an Aromatic Hydrocarbon such as Toluene (Benzene component of Gasoline) and mixed isomers of Xylene. Sprayed from Stratospheric flying Aircraft, films of this toxic mixture fall into the area just above the Troupopause, the Ozone Layer. Ozone or triatomic Oxygen forms rapidly upon the irradiation of the Selenium and the Hydrocarbon with Ultra-Violet/Actinic sunlight. This is the identical photon/chemical reaction that causes Ozone Alert Days and is problematic. The solid-state reaction of Selenium and Ultra-violet radiation is the same as the reaction that occurs during Xerography. Copy machines generate minute amounts of Ozone when the Selenium Toners are irradiated with UV light sources."
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000166.html
==============================

Chemtrailtracking USA has become one long infomercial for 'clodbusters'.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/message/112878
==============================
megasprayer is just another copy/paste noticeboard for bigbunny.
============================
Like I said, your people need to get some new material. The hoax is getting awfully stale.

[foot_soldier]

Interested parties might find some useful information in the following references. Specific legal issues relevant to intentional climate change mitigation are unfortunately without sufficient precedent to (as yet) provide what you might call a wealth of information. This is, however, an expanding field, and I'd expect that it will be interesting to watch its development over the next couple of decades.

Daniel Bodansky
University of Georgia School of Law
Publications
http://www.law.uga.edu/~bodansky/publications.html

Weblinks: International Environmental Law
http://www.law.uga.edu/~bodansky/links.html

November 2002
Climate Policy Center
The Need for Back-up Strategies on Climate Change
http://www.cpc-inc.org/library/files/9_lanenov02.pdf

Technologies for a Greenhouse Planet
Martin L. Hoffert
Department of Physics, New York University, New York, NY 10003
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/preprint/hoffert.martin.99A.pdf

Climate Change: Science, Law and Policy
http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/resguide/global/Climate%20change%20WSSD.htm

Legal Structures in Use for Climate Change Mitigation
http://www.law.pace.edu/globalwarming/pdffiles/ENERGEXPAPER.pdf

People & Planet
The Equity of Climate Change
http://www.peopleandplanet.org/climatechange/briefing.equity.php

[letxa2000]

Heheh, first Gaiaconn started spamming, then Halva followed his lead, now Foot_Soldier is doing the same with environmental articles that having nothing at all do with "chemtrails." I have to agree with Jay--they've all but conceded they have nothing to say about chemtrails, and that's probably because they know they don't exist.

Sad, truly sad...

[gaiacomm]

Heheh, first Gaiaconn started spamming, then Halva followed his lead, now Foot_Soldier is doing the same with environmental articles that having nothing at all do with "chemtrails." I have to agree with Jay--they've all but conceded they have nothing to say about chemtrails, and that's probably because they know they don't exist.

Sad, truly sad...

I wouldn't be to sure about your statements! Chemtrails exist, maybe not to the extent that some people claim but they do exist! And I have noticed that all of your rebuttals including the infamous JR and his wife Karen are all cut and pasted from the internet as well. No orginal thought always someone else's. Can you think on your own or do you still have to put people down because of your fear or truth!

You can attack me all you wish! I love it...!!! It just draws more attention which is good for the cause!

[gaiacomm]

I will say you all are good little researchers! You should think about getting a second job for some search engine company. But as activists you are novice children trying to look over the fence that is too high for you!

[gaiacomm]

Try this!

http://www.agu.org/

[gaiacomm]

Or try this one:

http://www.atmos.anl.gov/ACP/

[Bonehead9]

Hey Gaiacon, too bad they booted you off the ATS forums (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread58358/pg1)

:D :D :D

[letxa2000]

Gaiaconn: And I have noticed that all of your rebuttals including the infamous JR and his wife Karen are all cut and pasted from the internet as well. No orginal thought always someone else's. Can you think on your own or do you still have to put people down because of your fear or truth!

Hey, Giaconn, can you cite even one example of we copy/pasting from the Internet? A single example? A supporting quote is standard practice with a link back to the reference. But can you cite a single example of me copy/pasting any entire article? No, I didn't think so. Stop lying. You've been looking through your chemtrail glasses so long you can't distinguish reality from that which you've imagined in some part of your head.

[jayreynolds]

Hey Gaiacon, too bad they booted you off the ATS forums (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread58358/pg1)

:D :D :D
"giacomm is a hoax"
Sweet!

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread58358/pg1

I got a kick out o how Lance had to resort to posting at a Chinese messageboard, but even there with engrish as a second language they knew how to separate wheat from chaff:

"Lau, I think the link should be provided, becasue some of this messages, not the post I mean, are purposly confectioned and then launched. It would be good to find out if the such named person signing the article and the company he leads, really exist."

http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/forumpost.shtml?toppid=86660

[gaiacomm]

I love to watch and read propaganda especially when it involves me! Its great to be loved, hated and misunderstood!
All of this sure has attracted the right attention and all thanks to debunkers like you!

Its so SWEET when you are in control the whole time!

[gaiacomm]

I wouldn't be to sure about your statements! Chemtrails exist, maybe not to the extent that some people claim but they do exist! And I have noticed that all of your rebuttals including the infamous JR and his wife Karen are all cut and pasted from the internet as well. No orginal thought always someone else's. Can you think on your own or do you still have to put people down because of your fear or truth!

You can attack me all you wish! I love it...!!! It just draws more attention which is good for the cause!

Gee I don't see Lextra's name here! You are so quick to point out what you do not understand!

Dear Karen:

I appreciate the fact that you allow your husband JR to post so much on this forum and others. He is quite intelligent and witty. You should be proud of him. I am sure he is a good man. I hope you both remain together for a long time! I know he loves you very much and of course your children as well!

[gaiacomm]

June 30, 2004 the day after tomorrow!

I wonder what is in store for the Iraq people on that day or after?

They know what they plot!

Iran has nuclear weapons that are almost ready, Korea has them already and is waiting for the right moment, Israel is a bit nervous, Saudi Arabia finances the terrorists, Russia will make the first move, The USA will be spread too thin, France has warned us all, Spain is smart and went back to Socialist rule, South America will be were the Americans hide as did the fascists during Hitler, poor Europe will be caught in the middle, England will fall, The Irish will side with the Scots to divide the lands, Australia will be cut off from the rest, Africa will always remain in control, The Nordics will hide in the mountains, the Chinese will lead the war with India, Pakistan will be destroyed, the Middle East will move on Israel and so begins the day after tomorrow.

Oh yes, the Bush Administration pushed the wrong button!

Watch what happens in the Middle East after the day after tomorrow!

June 30, 2004?

[letxa2000]

gaiaconn: Gee I don't see Lextra's name here!

I guess you missed my message 3 posts earlier where I called you a liar.

[gaiacomm]

I guess you missed my message 3 posts earlier where I called you a liar.


Ok, So now what?

[halva]

No more fear-mongering: about climate change, about terrorism, about nuclear weapons, about anything.


June 30, 2004 the day after tomorrow!

I wonder what is in store for the Iraq people on that day or after?

They know what they plot!

Iran has nuclear weapons that are almost ready, Korea has them already and is waiting for the right moment, Israel is a bit nervous, Saudi Arabia finances the terrorists, Russia will make the first move, The USA will be spread too thin, France has warned us all, Spain is smart and went back to Socialist rule, South America will be were the Americans hide as did the fascists during Hitler, poor Europe will be caught in the middle, England will fall, The Irish will side with the Scots to divide the lands, Australia will be cut off from the rest, Africa will always remain in control, The Nordics will hide in the mountains, the Chinese will lead the war with India, Pakistan will be destroyed, the Middle East will move on Israel and so begins the day after tomorrow.

Oh yes, the Bush Administration pushed the wrong button!

Watch what happens in the Middle East after the day after tomorrow!

June 30, 2004?

[gaiacomm]

No more fear-mongering: about climate change, about terrorism, about nuclear weapons, about anything.


Watch what happens on June 30, 2004!

[halva]

Watch what happens at the Ozone Symposium on the island of Kos.

[gaiacomm]

Posters:

Oh how comfortable you are being able to sip Earl Grey Tea and post you’re ranting of rage and frolic. In the comforts and security of your sweet little abode.

But outside your little world are wars being fought for many reasons, one of which is to protect your little freedom so you can go to work, go to school, go to Raves, do drugs, have sex with your lover, watch MTV, travel to other countries all under the skirts of your mothers!

How many of you would even dare to enlist in an Army to protect your Homeland?

Did I see hands raised?

It’s too easy to let the other one go! Have you ever sat in a room surrounded by men who plot to cut your head off? Not knowing when but knowing! I wonder how that feels, I wonder what level of fear that recalls?

So sit and mock me if you dare, make fun of the Chinese and pretend to be their friends when in fact you just found another free forum to play on!
When WAR comes knocking at your door, I wonder what you will post on the Internet if you can or maybe we will see your video on the net!

Pray that the wars fought and the politics played globally will never come home to your house and hope that you can slip thru the cracks this lifetime.
There are people dying for your freedoms in every country and most of them are not even enlisted in any Armies.

So enjoy your freedom of speech while you can!

[gaiacomm]

Watch what happens at the Ozone Symposium on the island of Kos.

Yes I will!

[gaiacomm]

The Decline of the Empire!

We all know some centuries ago there were great fighters for freedom and great fighters for tyrannical rule over subjects. The British lied to William Wallace as they always do thru time and for that little spec of an island they sure raise hell. They lied to India, Africa and of course got caught in a lie with early America. They lied to the Chinese and just
about everyone else. The British are really cowardly clowns that worship an old lady called the queen who saw to the murder of Diana. Now lets see…donkeys run The United States of America. Need we say more?

Again do we need a history lesson in arrogance and pride? How about stupidly and ego!

The Chinese are supposed to learn from the west? Learn what? What not to do?
Australia was built by convicts and outcasts all inner breading like dogs!
Oh yes, America was built on the blood of the Chinese and other enslaved peoples!
But we white wash history to serve our own purpose don’t we.

There are some of us that know the truth and we wait in the shadows for the right moment to open the curtain and let the show begin!

Lets see, who killed Jesus? Was it the Jews or the Romans? Jesus was not even a Christian when he died. He was still a Jew. Paul made a deal with the failing Romans to start the Catholic Church long after Jesus had died. So Christians or Catholics is another failed attempt to get into heaven without first passing GO!

Oh we could go on and rant and rave but we all know the truth! The United States of America is a terrorist country forcing its will on others without their consent!

Why does not the United Nations impose economic sanctions against the USA? Because the UN has no BACKBONE! Nuclear and Biological weapons are not just in the hands of the free world anymore. Do you think that Russia does not wish to make money?
The poor Dutch just wanted to make a buck and the African slaves spoiled it when the White Man realized that the African slaves were humans and not monkeys. The pacifist Portuguese were just trying to help. The Spaniards with their disease and ignorance destroyed empires without regard!

And the poor Japanese were not even given a chance to negotiate before the A-Bomb was dropped! Who lied?

We know the truth but we never kiss and tell.

God Bless America?

For what?

[halva]

[QUOTE=gaiacomm]
And the poor Japanese were not even given a chance to negotiate before the A-Bomb was dropped! Who lied?
/QUOTE]

Not only were they not given a chance, they were told they had to surrender unconditionally, which meant not having the right to keep their emperor, which was the only condition they were insisting on.

No politician would agree to this, so that after the dropping of the bombs it was finally the emperor who surrendered, violating the constitution. This was the reason why Japanese political leaders then committed suicide: they had been forced to accept violation of basic principles of constitutional monarchy.

Of course the Japanese were allowed to keep their emperor after the institution had been voided of its content in this manner.

This is another example of domination through imposition of double binds. Prevent the enemy from surrendering by imposing a dilemma. If the political leadership surrenders without insisting on retention of the emperor, the constitution is violated. If the political leadership doesn't surrender, insisting on retention of the emperor, and finally it is the emperor who surrenders, once again the constitution is violated.

[halva]

For those who read Greek, Periklis Korovessis' review of 'The Day after Tomorrow' in today's 'Epohi' is worth reading. It focuses on the fear-mongering aspects of the Hollywood treatment of climate change, analysing some key features of the Hollywood consciousness-moulding machine. I will post a link to it as soon as it comes on-line.
http://www.epohi.gr/korovesis_columns_2062004.htm

[halva]

Gabriel Stetter's "White Skies" article:

http://radarmatrix.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=Chemtrails&action=display&num=1087501879

Anyone wanting the German text can e-mail me.

[gaiacomm]

I find that religious ignorance plays an important role in most wars and conflicts. If people can accept difference and realize that we all live in the same house, just in different rooms, then maybe we all can become the Human Race!

[foot_soldier]

"gaiacomm" wrote:

"I find that religious ignorance plays an important role in most wars and conflicts."

I couldn't agree more.

What a waste of human potential - at least to those of us who still believe we could do so much better in the Live & Let Live Department if the common will existed.

I've always felt that the apparently endless tension and hostility in the middle east will never be resolved unless and until it is no longer in the vested interest of ANY of those involved to keep on provoking and perpetuating that miserable situation.

I.e. don't hold your breath.

[foot_soldier]

"halva" wrote:

"For those who read Greek, Periklis Korovessis' review of 'The Day after Tomorrow' in today's 'Epohi' is worth reading. It focuses on the fear-mongering aspects of the Hollywood treatment of climate change, analysing some key features of the Hollywood consciousness-moulding machine."

More waste - this time of an excellent opportunity to encourage the general public to do a little research into some of the underlying factors currently driving regional climate change. I didn't bother to see this movie. As far as I'm concerned it turned out to be just another variant on the Saturday Night Gladiating genre of entertainment for the puling masses.

[gaiacomm]

America is falling from within:

With the looming elections of another terrorist President in the wings, America is positioning itself for another 4 years of corruption. America’s greatest assets are its uninformed citizens that think that clouds are still made of cotton candy and Mickey Mouse is real!
The more in the dark you are the more you can be manipulated into submission.

Europe is run by the same “Bad Boys� and will suffer the same fate if they do not distance themselves from America! I am sure that someone somewhere is plotting the next suicide bomb to kill those innocent people who just wish to have natural fun and live a life with dignity and respect and not have their heads cut off on national TV for all to see and gasp in horror!

America is behind most of the terror in many countries and now they will sow what they reap!

China is learning fast not to trust the west, but be original in your tactics!

Saudi Arabia all along cannot stand Americans and will not rest until America falls!
They are double dipping in the pot by selling oil, employing Americans and others, and using the profits from oil sells to finance terrorist groups worldwide. They even kill their own to make a point.
But the Middle East needs water more than oil and just maybe someone will turn their water off!

America has murdered and destroyed nations of people, while the UN just stood by. Politics is weak and has no strength; all run by fat little men that need Viagra to stay up with the pack!

The Americans are weak, Aids infested people that believe that excess is a normal way of life.

They will suck the blood from a vampire to get what they want!

And yes they are getting just revenge against America for their crimes against humanity all in the name of their God! God has forsaken America and has turned his favor away so that means that its like a lamb all alone on the plains with no shepherd to lead the flock and hungry lions waiting for the cover of darkness to fall!

[gaiacomm]

America is Lost!

When Jesus was being led to the cross he was thinking all along how wonderful it was that he made his point known and that it would take thousands of years for mankind to realize that Jesus is not the only Savior of the world. We all have choices to make one of which is our freedom to choose which we all seem to do quite well considering the state of affairs of this planet.
Now America took a concept taken from the Greeks and attempted to master its secrets called Democracy. The problem is it doesn’t work with corrupt minds.

Now the British with their warped sense of humor banished their outcasts to the New World not knowing that they would soon lose their British Sunshine Colonies.
The poor American Indians had to suffer like the Iraq’s of today with the invasion and lies from the bearers of truth written on a piece of paper called the Constitution. That paper was only and is only good for those who have the gold!

Europe is fighting over who will be the next Prime Minister of what? It’s difficult to elect an official to rule over the land when they are all corrupt and ignorant. Lets see, a Belgium, a Swiss, a French, Spaniard, a Brit? Well we all know that those fat little men will decide amongst themselves after they measure themselves when they take their Viagra.
The Japanese have lost their way and need to throw off the western rule and gain their dignity back. Its time for the Samurai! The USA seems to hold the big stick for now and can dictate to Japan what to do and when to do it and that goes for every other country as well.
Now for a little secret to tell: America has a weakness among many within her borders one of which is exposing the truth to the masses and turning off the power to the land of OZ thus forcing the frail little man to come out from his hiding place and beg for forgiveness.
America has destroyed families without regard to consequence and so America must be stripped of rank and placed on notice!

Who among you will dare slay the Dragon? Will it be Hollywood? Will it be the Terminator? Oh I forgot he has California now.

Generally speaking Americans are weak and have no Backbone because of years of ignorance and blissful stupidity. Vampires and Werewolves rule this planet and only a silver bullet or a silver stake thru the heart can destroy them.
God will not bless America anymore; she is ruled by outcasts without hope.
But please do not harm the innocent ones they are unaware of why they are, use the energy and look for the head of the snakes and do what you must do!

There is plenty of time because we all have become used to being slaves and we are afraid of the light and freedom, we love to be told what to do and suffer each day so we can suffer again the next to make someone else rich and powerful and humiliate our families and ancestors.

[jayreynolds]

Gabriel Stetter's "White Skies" article:

http://radarmatrix.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=Chemtrails&action=display&num=1087501879

Anyone wanting the German text can e-mail me.

Oh, my!
This Stetter fellow seems to be another Slick Willie Thomas clone.
You need to push this guy as hard as you can, Wayne.
He is most certainly "The One".

Have him drop by here and see how he stands up under pressure.

It'll be a blast.

[halva]

Oh, my!
This Stetter fellow seems to be another Slick Willie Thomas clone.
You need to push this guy as hard as you can, Wayne.
He is most certainly "The One".

Have him drop by here and see how he stands up under pressure.

It'll be a blast.

I'm afraid I can't see any way for you to get back into the debate Raynolds. I'm not going to help you to do so.

[jayreynolds]

I'm afraid I can't see any way for you to get back into the debate Raynolds. I'm not going to help you to do so.
So you're afraid, eh?
Bunk fears debunk, doesn't it, Wayne?
That's why you ran away, and keep on running.
Well, you can run from it, but you can't hide from the truth.
Wherever you turn, it's always there.
Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent.

[halva]

It's already been made perfectly clear that Tyndall and other environmental scientists need no help from you in telling us that chemtrails don't exist, so there is literally no place for you in the discussion.

[gaiacomm]

Halva:

You cannot convince a blind man to see if he has no faith!
JR and his merry men have no faith and will never see!

Chemtrails are REAL!

Keep up the good work, help is on the way!

[gaiacomm]

The Time Machine:


Let us board our newly developed time machine and transport us to the distant past and view the results of our progress as humans on this tiny little planet!

We see that man has always kept women his most trusted partner as his slave and has disrespected her thru the ages when in fact they both are equals and need each other always. Man has come from the slime of the earth and has lied and cheated and murdered his way to the top of the food chain only to be destroyed by his own will and cast back to the bottom of the food chain!

Mans intelligence is measured by the size of his phallic symbol. He has trampled thru nature and murdered innocent animals, destroyed plant life, and poisoned the water and the air that is so precious to us all. He has murdered millions of his own kind without any regard or remorse. He has striped the earth of its treasures, built empires that always crumble to dust. Man is afraid of TRUTH because of the fear of sharing with others and living in peace. His technology is built with obsolescence, his religions has always been at the root of the problem, his politics confuse and control others, he has separated the human race into colors like a child’s coloring book and has suppressed those that wish to KNOW!
Man has learned not to learn. His FAITH is limited to the tip of his nose. He uses GOD as an excuse to wage war against others only to be left behind. He calls for a Jihad but GOD does not murder without reason. Mans love has turned to hate. He controls with violence and deceit of things he cannot get willingly.

Now lets take our time machine to the distant future and observe the results of mans past!

Europe has become the whore of the west and will have to decide which side she should be one before she once again becomes a battlefield. Africa is being poisoned by the west and its corruption with its people is destroying its infrastructure. The west always uses Africa as a dumpster and still believes that Africans are monkeys in trees!

South America is almost a wasteland and is the direct result of western influence to conquer the spirit and destroy its foundations. India needs to get its regions and religions in order to focus and remember its past. China also has a past with great thinkers and inventors that must help put this broken china plate back together.
The Middle East has been forsaken and will be trampled into dust by donkeys! It will be the igniter of the war of wars. See it coming?
And yes, America the Babylon of the planet! The whore of the earth. The destroyer of many! Her years are numbered like the seasons of the sun. As the ice moves south so will her reign diminish. Her enemies are her people who have suffered so many years. Watch for the seasons of the birds as they move south then from the waters they will come and smite the nation of the free. Then the air will become infested with spores and chock the ones that are still above ground. Then the fire will clean the land for the next crew to rule! Only this time we will come out of our rooms and realize that we all are Humans and have lived in our house all of these millions of years without knowing that our house had a kitchen and living room and neighbors. Our doors to our rooms are closed we need to open them and come into the hallway. It’s ok to be human!

Now we take our time machine and we push forward into time never to be seen again or will we?

[gaiacomm]

I find that religious ignorance plays an important role in most wars and conflicts. If people can accept difference and realize that we all live in the same house, just in different rooms, then maybe we all can become the Human Race!
(Gaiacomm)

[jayreynolds]

It's already been made perfectly clear that Tyndall and other environmental scientists need no help from you in telling us that chemtrails don't exist, so there is literally no place for you in the discussion.

Well, at least you are finally being honest. First, at the CICDD you admitted you were promoting a hoax, now you admit that chemtrails don't exist.

This is good news.

[gaiacomm]

Halva:

Σας ευχαριστούμε πάρα πολύ για στην άδεια σε με για να είναι
μέρος αυτού του φόρουμ. Παρακαλώ συνεχίστε την πάλη σας για την έκθεση Chemtrails! Πάντα θα παλεύω εκεί με σας. Ο Θεός ευλογεί σας και την οικογένειά σας! Αντίο, Θ*Ωαυνε.

[gaiacomm]

Επιθυμώ να ευχαριστήσω κάθε έναν και καθέναν από σας ότι
διαβασμένος και ή σχολιασμένος του γραψίματός μου, όποιος καταδεικνύει άλλη μια φορά ότι υπάρχουν ανθρώπινα οντα
σε αυτόν τον πλανήτη!

Αναμένεται ότι κάθε ένας από σας θα βοηθήσει ο ένας τον άλλον
να αυξηθεί και να καταλάβει τις διαφορές και να ψάξει τους
τρόπους να προσαρμόσει εκείνων που είναι αργοί στην κατανόηση.
Με θεωρήστε έναν νέο φίλο σε όλοι σας. Εάν εσείς κάθε ανάγκη η βοήθειά μου εσείς ξέρει πού να με
βρεθεί.
Μάιος ο Θεός σας ευλογεί σας και τις οικογένειες και τους
φίλους σας και φέρνει τη χαρά και την αγάπη τις σε όλες ζωές σας
για πάντα!

(Gaiacomm)

[gaiacomm]

Desidero ringraziarvi ogni che colto ed o commentato la mia
scrittura, quale dimostra ancora una volta che ci sono esseri umani su questo
pianeta!

Si spera che ciascuno di voi si aiuti a svilupparsi e capire le
differenze e cercare i sensi accomodare quelli che sono lenti nel
capire.
Considerilo un nuovo amico a tutti voi. Se ogni bisogno il mio aiuto voi conoscerete dove trovarlo.
Maggio il vostro dio li benedice e le vostri famiglie ed amici ed
introduce la gioia e l'amore in tutte le vostre vite per sempre!

(Gaiacomm)

[gaiacomm]

Je souhaite remercier chaque de vous que lu et ou présenté ses
observations sur mon écriture, ce qui démontre de nouveau qu'il y a les êtres humains sur cette
planète !

On l'espère que chacun de vous s'aidera Ã* se développer et Ã*
comprendre des différences et Ã* rechercher des manières d'adapter
Ã* ceux qui sont lents dans l'arrangement.
Considérez-moi un nouvel ami Ã* tout le vous. Si vous chaque besoin mon aide vous saurez où me trouver.
Mai votre Dieu bénissent vous et vos familles et amis et introduisent
la joie et l'amour dans toutes vos vies pour toujours !

(Gaiacomm)

[gaiacomm]

Ik wens om elke en elke één van u te danken dat gelezen en of
commentaar gegeven op mijn het schrijven, welke nogmaals aantoont dat er mensen op deze planeet zijn!

Men hoopt dat elk van u elkaar verschillen kweken en begrijpen zal
helpen en manieren zoeken om die aan te passen die in begrip langzaam
zijn.
Beschouw als me een nieuwe vriend aan iedereen. Als u zal elke behoefte mijn hulp u het weten waar te om me te vinden.
Mei uw God zegent u en uw families en vrienden en brengt vreugde en
liefde voor altijd in elk van uw leven!

(Gaiacomm)

[gaiacomm]

Deseo agradecer cada de usted que leÃ*do y o comentado respecto a mi
escritura, ¡cuál demuestra de nuevo que hay seres humanos en este planeta!

Se espera que cada uno de usted se ayudará a crecer y a entender
diferencias y a buscar maneras de acomodar los que sean lentos en
entender.
Considéreme un nuevo amigo a usted. Si usted cada necesidad mi ayuda usted sabe dónde encontrarme.
¡Mayo su dios bendice le y sus familias y amigos y trae alegrÃ*a y
amor en todas sus vidas por siempre!

(Gaiacomm)

[gaiacomm]

Ich möchte jedes von Ihnen danken, daß gelesen und oder mein
Schreiben kommentiert, welches noch einmal zeigt, daß es Menschen auf diesem Planeten gibt!

Es wird gehofft, daß jedes von Ihnen zu wachsen und Unterschiede zu
verstehen sich hilft und nach Weisen zu suchen, die unterzubringen,
die beim Verstehen langsam sind.
Halten Sie mich für einen neuen Freund zu den ganzen Sie. Wenn Sie jede Notwendigkeit meine Hilfe Sie wissen, wo man mich
findet.
Mai segnen Ihr Gott Sie und Ihre Familien und Freunde und holen Freude
und Liebe in alle Ihre Leben für immer!

(Gaiacomm)

[gaiacomm]

Я желаю возблагодарить каждое и каждое один из вас что после того как
я прочитан и или после того как я прокомментирован на моем
сочинительстве, демонстрирует еще раз что будут людские существования на этой планете!

Понадеяно что каждый из вас поможет вырасти и понять разницы и
look for дороги приспособить те медленно в понимать.
Учитывайте меня новым другом к вам. Если вы каждая потребность моя помощь вы знаете где найти меня.
Май ваш бог благословляет вас и ваши семей и друзей и приносит утеху и
влюбленность в всю из ваших жизней forever!

(Gaiacomm)

[halva]

Well, at least you are finally being honest. First, at the CICDD you admitted you were promoting a hoax, now you admit that chemtrails don't exist.

This is good news.

Since with this highly intelligent response it seems that Raynolds may have driven away more or less the last active participants in this thread, I would remind other readers that discussion continues by private e-mail and at a closed forum.

[jayreynolds]

Hey wayne, yer boy giacon has picked up your technique of spamming in foreign languages.
This doesn't speak well for you, considering your recent admissions and cowardice.

Your people had better get some new material, the cult is flagging on every front.
Big blow-ups at CTTUSA between the cloudbuster crowd and the founders.
Thermit's house of nuts has turned into bash-bushcentral.com or else rantings by luminaries such as 'marksky' bilder and julian penrod.
Carnicom's cult is only interested in sending out the most boring film ever produced.
Chem11 is down to complaining about sulphur in jet fuel, big woop!

The whole "chemtrail" hoax is losing the plot, dude.

[halva]

Nonsense.

[jayreynolds]

Wayne, I agree that what lance is posting is nonsense, but the facts are clear
that your cult hasn't come up with anything new for over a year.
Don't believe me about CTTUSA falling apart? read it for yourself:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/message/113000
Go ahead and let the odd-wads of your cult run the asylum while you run away and
pretend to conduct 'major dude' discussions on a forum no one can see.
Sounds great to me!

Oh, and while you're at it, remember that I answered YOUR questions, while
mine are left hanging here after 217 pages:

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

WHY ARE YOU CHEMMIES SO AFRAID OF THESE SIMPLE QUESTIONS?

[halva]

Wayne Hall wrote:
"1. Why do you play the self-appointed intermediary between "chemmies" and environmental scientists, given your claim that scientists are anyway perfectly capable of protecting themselves from the contagion of what you identify as "chemmie" viewpoints?"

[b]Well, Wayne, I do it because I damn well feel like doing it, and there isn't a hell of a lot you can do about it, so bugger off.


That is what you call 'answering my questions'.

[halva]

Wayne, I agree that what lance is posting is nonsense, but the facts are clear
that your cult hasn't come up with anything new for over a year.
Don't believe me about CTTUSA falling apart? read it for yourself:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/message/113000
Go ahead and let the odd-wads of your cult run the asylum while you run away and
pretend to conduct 'major dude' discussions on a forum no one can see.


The purpose of having the discussions closed is that in this way you and your associates will become increasingly ill-informed about them and so unable to comment on them. This will be a step in the right direction, for there is no place for climate change sceptics in the "chemmie" vs environmental-scientist debates. In any case you you have openly admitted that your intentions are malicious.

[halva]

See http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=50939

The Rumor Mill News Reading Room
http://www.rumormillnews.com

ADMITTED! DOE, EPA, NOAA, NASA AND NSF LIED!

Posted By: buzzard <Send E-Mail>
Date: Tuesday, 22 June 2004, 9:35 a.m.

The beginning of the chemtrails explanation is finally brought to us by jackblood.com. Alledgedly used for BOTH weather and health modification, this website lists the various programs and agencies utilizing them, along with photos of the aircraft and their spraying technics.

snip

The Department of Energy’s TAP Program Plan was launched in March of 2001 based on previous research and assessments carried out by the National Research Council, the National Science and Technology Council, and the North American Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone or NARSTO, which happens to be a hybrid organization that includes researchers from both government and the private sector. Furthermore, NARSTO has recently begun studying the effects of spraying aerosols in the atmosphere and the environment.

The TAP program was also formed in part by the DOE Office of Biological and Environmental Research. Also according to the DOE’s own TAP website, many other federal government agencies are involved in the program, such as EPA, NOAA, NASA, and the NSF. So, for anyone to say that the government wouldn’t be involved in spraying chemicals into the atmosphere would be absolutely inaccurate. According to the Department of Energy’s own admission, the research conducted by programs such as TAP is “driven primarily by health effects but also to some extent by visibility and climate change considerations.� Does this mean that the government has been experimenting on the population without the American people knowing about it?

[Bonehead9]

Damn, Wayne, could you be any stupider?

Aerosols are a normal part of the atmosphere. Some are anthropogenic in origin, emissions from planes, trains and automobiles, factories, etc.

Most are natural in origin. The Great Smoky mountains are so named because of the semi permanent haze that surrounds them. Haze that has it origins in terpenes released from trees. Volcanoes, dust storms, and other natural phenomena also contribute to aerosols in the troposphere.

TAP is just another of MANY scientific programs designed to research EXISTING aerosols.

Do yourself a favor google a few atmospheric science journal web sites. There are a number of research programs along these lines.

Prve to me that TAP is anything other than what it claims to be. I want real proof, not your paranoid fantasies.

[jayreynolds]

Sorry for you, Wayne. This is what happens when you remain intentionally ignorant of the discipline with which men understand the atmosphere. Blinded by your intentional ignorance you've bought into yet another element of the hoax. This pitfall was set by one not unlike yourself, another intentionally ignorant clod, "Jackblood", who makes dubious claims and guess what, REMAINS ANONYMOUS.

Just like so many of your other MISLEADERS, such as "Chem 11", "Deepsky/shield", 'Sore Throat", Marksky, radarmatrix, giacon, etc.,.

Who the hell knows what these sorts have in mind when they fabricate their lies?

One thing is for sure, however, whomever these people are, they certainly aren't hiding their identities from some all seeing all-knowing government able to maintain a vast conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of planes flying day-in-day-out for years. No, such a cabal would have no problem finding a whistleblower making a website and posting all over the internet. Hell, the government OWNS the freaking internet, it's part and parcel of the industrial military complex if it's anything at all.

No, Wayne, these misleaders who hide their identities hide them FROM YOU and their fellow cultists, because they know that what they do is wrong, and they fear being held accountable.

That's one thing I CAN RESPECT about you, Wayne. When you set out to make a complete and totally miserable asshole out of yourself, you do it right there in plain view.

HA!

[halva]

The only reason I am staying at this thread is to monitor what climate change and chemtrail debunkers put up here. Probably everyone else has left. I hope so.

[jayreynolds]

The only reason I am staying at this thread is to monitor what climate change and chemtrail debunkers put up here. Probably everyone else has left. I hope so.

Wrong. You stay here because I won't let you leave, Wayne. You are being forced to stay because I wish it to be so, and for no other reason. You have absolutely no other option.

[halva]

Of course I have an option. If I stay here it's purely a question of personal stubbornness, and it is absolutely without interest or significance for anyone else. Moreover I could equally well claim that it is I who am keeping you here.

[gaiacomm]

I would like to give my deepest condolences to all of those people that will lose their lives after June 30, 2004 in Iraq. God, can you find it in your heart to forgive Bush and his underlings for causing all of this pain to the world. And forgive all of the other corrupt people that gain pleasure from others misfortunes. America is lost once again!
Also God can you give the United Nations a backbone and allow it to serve as was intended?

[gaiacomm]

Wrong. You stay here because I won't let you leave, Wayne. You are being forced to stay because I wish it to be so, and for no other reason. You have absolutely no other option.


JR, leave Wayne alone, you have my warning!

[halva]

So not everyone has left.

[halva]

Gaiacomm, does foreknowledge imply complicity, if something bad happens on June 30th?

[jayreynolds]

Events have proven Giacon wrong again. The 30th has come and gone, a free Iraqi government is being created.

Just imagine, our own civil war cost 500,000 lives to free 4 million slaves.
The war in iraq has cost nearly 1000 lives to free twenty-five million.

I was proven correct, no chemmies made an attempt to present their hoax at the Kos convention in Greece.

The chemtrail cult has built themselves a house of cards built on sand.

Carnicom has only three followers, Mark Sky and the two willing to ask for a copy of his 'epic' video, LOL!!
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002127.html

Dr. Claire Gilbert, a genuine anti-contrails advocate, comes down hard on jackblood:
"It's a huge load of horsefeathers"
http://www.blazingtattles.com/index.shtml

I like this one, Wayne.
There seems to be less chemtrail presence in the summer in Greece anyway. Their effects are obviously there, and spraying continues, but not with the intensity you see at times in winter.
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=technosphere&num=1073367108&start=75


Ever figured out what temperatures ordinary contrails require to form?
If one were trying to counteract 'gobal warming', wouldn't it be imperative to do so in summertime, even gretaer than in wintertime?

First, Wayne admitted he knows he is promoting a hoax, he later admitted he knows they don't exist, and now he completes his own debunking!
You stupid fools debunk yourselves.

[halva]

I was proven correct, no chemmies made an attempt to present their hoax at the Kos convention in Greece.

The method we have followed in relation to Professor Christos Zerefos and his collaborators is not the method recommended by Reynolds, but that recommended by me, which yields better results. Gaiacomm's not keeping his word is for him to explain. It hasn't mattered at all, anyway.

Dr. Claire Gilbert is clearly no an ally of yours and her critique of Jack Blood has to do with his style as much as anything else.

I note with satisfaction that you are acquiring proportionally less and less relevant material to feed on.

[jayreynolds]

I note with satisfaction that you are acquiring proportionally less and less relevant material to feed on.

That's because your cult is falling apart, Wayne.
The ass-whuppin you got through the Spring has resulted in your faction of the cult becoming insular to the extreme. You simply aren't relevant anymore since you have run away and hidden.

One day there will be no relevant material at all for anyone to write about the "chemtrail" hoax because there will no longer be one.
Get used to it.
Get over it.
Get out of it.

[halva]

Bull.

[jayreynolds]

Wayne, you know it's true. The hoax has worked itself into a dead-end. Encumbered by so many lies, with the process of elimination working to eliminate all those save the lunatic fringe, it works itself into a smaller and smaller corner every day. Look at how well you have done here, all the massive support you have garnered from arianna and chums!

[halva]

You are speculating and bluffing. You don't know.

In any case the first step for us who challenge the hegemonial project you identify with is refusal to discuss anything at all on your terms.

The social movements did not discuss anything with the Communists past a certain point in the demolition process of the Eastern bloc, and we have now reached the same point in the demolition process of the Western bloc.

[jayreynolds]

Wayne, don't try to blow smoke up the people's ass.
You are too blind to see it, but Mark the lunatic has taken over the chemtrails activist forum.
His best friend throatee is mired in 'accelerating climate change' postings and will never come out of the rut. Carnicom is universally rejected. CTTUSA is taken over by cloudbuster salesmen and multiple personality posters. Chem11's house of nuts is one long boring green infomercial from big bunny.

Where is your savior to come from, Wayne?
Poland?

[halva]

Raynolds, you are the one who is losing the script.

You are failing in all your objectives.

You are no longer able to stick your red neck into the middle of every discussion that goes on among climate change/geoengineering/weather modification activists, setting the parameters.

And you are no longer able to monitor the debate.

[gaiacomm]

JR you were warned!

[gaiacomm]

To Readers:

I don’t expect all of you to agree with me entirely but that is your right as a Human Being.
The Internet is a wonderful place for people to play and because it has limited monitoring capabilities for now it is a playground of deceit and corruption. It also serves those who wish to know the truth about everything. Knowledge is power as we all know and that power in the wrong hands can be counterproductive to those that wish to only live a life of dignity and respect.
How many of you have gotten in more trouble when you told the truth? Wouldn’t it be nice if you could always tell the truth? To be able to not have the fear of what someone might think of you if you tell the truth. It’s so stressful to lie and side step the point is it not? We all have been taught here in America that we have Freedom! A Government by the people! Then look at the Constitution and why does it exclude women? I could go on and on.

I am a Physicist that got tired of hiding the truth, the repressive technologies that have been kept from us all for so many years. The course of life that I picked to protect and eventually decided to now fly into the radar rather than under it is my second chance and the path I take.

The years I spent of living on this planet and watching how others including myself have treated others sometimes with no regard has allowed me the freedom to do what I do. The access to information that others kill for, the hiding of facts that would cause insurrection if gone public and other atrocities is what I am exposing now. The purposeful lies that have been levied on so many people is what I tire of. The innocence of the children that grow up without purpose. Now I will do what I can to right the wrongs.

Who do we blame? Our neighbors or people like me who truly wish for the rights of all humans male and female to live a life to the fullest and be able to worship your religion in peace without the fear of reprisal, to be able to foster intelligence in all peoples to bring together a oneness of all so we can share with each other the goodness that is inherit in all of us. Nothing is impossible if you have Faith!

I have chosen this life I live and I take full accountability and responsibility of all of my actions rather they be perceived as good or bad or right or wrong. There is only one judge and jury that has jurisdiction over me which is God and only God. There is no court of any land that can supercede that authority.

I wish no harm to anyone unless my life is threatened!

You can read all you wish on what I have written about on the Internet. I encourage you to read everything you can before you draw your opinion. But I am here to help where I can even if it means great sacrifice. It has nothing to do with America; it’s the whole world that cries for help. America is lost its people have been scattered to the wind.

I am not alone and I do not need your help so do not ask.

[jayreynolds]

And you are no longer able to monitor the debate.

Sorry, Wayne, there is no debate, and for your religion there is no savior, not from Poland, not from anywhere. You are in full retreat and in hiding. The truth won already, whether you like it or not..

[jayreynolds]

This 'Billder' is a great one for destroying chemtrailcentral.com's so-called "science forum".
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum17/HTML/000132.html

He has found WWII contrail photos and is saying they are a German secret weapon!

"Pix of circular chemtrail low altitude, left by the germans August 1940 over London....
This is a pix from a book of memoirs and is undoubtably one of the earliest examples of german secret tech being used against England. Pix about halfway down page. SAVE IT!"
http://www.thamesweb.co.uk/books/billings.html

1.So, what is shown in the picture, Wayne, a contrail or a "chemtrail"?

2.Was geoengineering already a fashionable thing to do sixty years ago?

3.Why do you chemmies allow absolute bullshit to be promoted amongst your group?

Don't try and pretend you are any better than 'Billder' though, Wayne.

You claimed that ordinary skywriting at an olympic event was "chemtrails"!

"Look at those smoke rings in the sky. That's not traditional skywriting. Look at the mare's tails hanging down from them. They're chemtrails. In your face. The associations are with health, fitness and sport, not Alzheimer's, respiratory diseases and premature death. The image is what matters, and don't ask questions, like what they are and why they are being projected in this way."- WAYNE HALL, CHEM-KOOK

[halva]

Raynolds, you are the one who is losing the script.

You are failing in all your objectives.

You are no longer able to stick your red neck into the middle of every discussion that goes on among climate change/geoengineering/weather modification activists, setting the parameters.

And you are no longer able to monitor the debate.

Reiterated.

[Bonehead9]

What debate?

There is no public debate. not any that the public is aware of, at tleast.

:D

[halva]

Is there anyone at all reading any of these postings apart from Gaiacomm, Raynolds and the one or two idle losers who follow him around?

[jayreynolds]

Is there anyone at all reading any of these postings apart from Gaiacomm, Raynolds and the one or two idle losers who follow him around?
This thread is the most viewed "chemtrail" messageboard thread of all time.

At this time, the thread has been viewed 21,201 times.

[gaiacomm]

JR is right on this point! This thread has at least been viewed as for being read well leave that to the historians!

Very soon JR and company will be apologizing for all of their rants!

[gaiacomm]

Wayne: Keep it up, JR and company will wear down very soon!

[jayreynolds]

In just a few hours, this thread has been viewed 18 times, so it's very clear that many
people are watching the pitiful sight of Wayne Hall & co. dissembling and running away from debate as fast as they can.

New readers should take note that in the 219 pages of this thread, I have asked the following questions scores of times, questions which strike to the very heart of the "chemtrails" hoax, questions which remain unanswered by all chem-cult members because they show the poverty of their belief, they show that they know full well that what they see are ordinary contrails, and that they know full well they are involved in deep deception.

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

WHY ARE YOU CHEMMIES SO AFRAID OF THESE SIMPLE QUESTIONS?

[jayreynolds]

Hey, Wayne, contrail or "chemtrail"?

Ask St. Chem11, he claims to know about such things.

thanks to Bill-
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/606470/L/

[gaiacomm]

Readers: Do you think that JR and company could answer these few questions themseleves?

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?


Let the record show that it would seem that JR and company either have the answers or they do not which would indicate that they too are fishing for the truth!

There should be no problem for JR and company to answer these questions or will they side step the issue and deflect once again their ignorance and shame!

The readers are waiting JR!!!!

[jayreynolds]

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?
"Chemtrails" are a hoax in which people claim ordinary contrails are a substance being intentionally "sprayed".

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/normalcon.html

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?
There is no difference. All documentable attributes of putative "chemtrails" meet known characteristics of ordinary contrails.

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?
There is no such proof in existence, and never will be.

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?
There are none.

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

Thomas is an abject liar. This is most certainly a deliberate misquote of NOAA meteorologist Thomas Schlatter, who actually said, "At temperatures lower than about -76 degrees F, contrails almost always form, regardless of relative humidity. The higher the ambient temperature, the less likely that contrails will form. At temperatures above -40 degrees F, contrails are not expected."
http://www.weatherwise.org/qr/qry.chemtrail.html
In other words, Schlatter is well aware of the fact that normal contrails require temperatures of less than -40 degrees F, and will almost always form at temperatures below -76F. Considering that William Thomas has studied contrails for over three years, I can only conclude his misquote was deliberate.

As a result of Thomas' lame attempt at misrepresenting Schlatter's statement, he wrote a scathing rebuttal. Needless to say, Schllater set the record straight.
http://www.weatherwise.org/qr/qry.02chemagain.html

I have not found a chemmie website which points out Thomas' deception, nor has he made an attempt at making a correction on this important point. They know, and are helpless to avoid cooperation in their own destruction. Evil, being unable to even afford itself succor, grabs it's own tail and is itself consumed.

Wayne Hall and the other chemmies are aware of this, and quite embarrassed about it. That is his problem, and the reason he and the rest have been unwilling to answer the question.

Let the record show that on 7/4/2004 I formally answered the questions which so bedevil the chemmies. Let Wayne Hall or any chemmie present his case for or against my answers.
Bring it on.

[jayreynolds]

Eighty page views today, Wayne. Plenty of people can see how lame you are when you can't answer even simple basic questions central to your claims. Lots of witnesses to your inability to respond in free and open debate. You can run, but you can't hide from the truth, it will always be right here staring you in the face and read tens of thousands of times.

Wake up.
Ask yourself if you want to stare at yourself in the mirror months or years from nowand wonder how you ever bought into such a ridiculous hoax as "chemtrails".
Stop the hoax.
Get real.
Get out.
Get over it.

[halva]

The first point that I’d like to make is that it is not quite accurate to say that it is mere personal stubbornness that keeps me posting here.

It is true that at some point earlier in the “debate”, when Sore Throat dropped out and it was more or less only Foot Soldier and Show Me Truth that were still making worthwhile postings I did start telling people to leave the thread and leave me to merely spam in foreign languages and so on, as I proposed.

For a long time Foot Soldier appeared unwilling to take this advice and continued making some very worthwhile postings, mostly references and links but nevertheless valuable.

From the beginning I have been unwilling to answer Raynolds’ questions and I did not ask him to answer them either. Gaiacomm did that. In fact I am not interested either in his questions or in his answers.

I did ask him three questions of my own. This was his response to the first of them:


Wayne Hall wrote:
"1. Why do you play the self-appointed intermediary between "chemmies" and environmental scientists, given your claim that scientists are anyway perfectly capable of protecting themselves from the contagion of what you identify as "chemmie" viewpoints?"

[b]Well, Wayne, I do it because I damn well feel like doing it, and there isn't a hell of a lot you can do about it, so bugger off and eat this, slag-boy. :lol:


Raynolds then attached extracts from a letter he wrote to the Tyndall Centre, making it clear that his intentions were to disrupt the dialogue we had initiated with them and frighten climate scientists away from talking to us, on any subject, those they were already debating, those that only we had expressed interest in, or those of mutual interest.

He failed in this.

Raynolds' whole stance on this thread resembles that of the Defense Department official rubbing it in to the Gulf War veteran that he cannot prove his cancer was caused by exposure to depleted uranium munitions. Sadism, in other words. The veteran in such an instance, being a petitioner, has to continue the dialogue with the official if he wants to keep petitioning.

But we are not in any such relation to Raynolds. We are asking nothing of him. He has nothing he can give us our deny us. Why the hell should any of us be interested in giving him even the time of day? Answer that, Raynolds. Why on earth should anyone WANT to talk to you? Anything that you have to say, true or false, can be told us by someone else who is less of a sadist and psychopath than you and has more institutional power and influence.

I am as free to tell Raynolds to bugger off as he is to tell me to bugger off when I ask him a question he can't, or doesn't want to, answer.

Of course, people telling each other to bugger off makes for a monotonous discussion, but there it is.

Coming back to what I said at the beginning that it is not mere stubbornness that keeps me posting here: This thread is on the Arianna Huffington forum, Arianna Huffington being a politician who operates on the basis of the ground rules of liberal democracy, which attaches great importance to freedom of speech, privileging it over other values. It is arguably a matter of principle for a politican working within such a framework that public debate leave itself open to disruption and disorganization by people such as Raynolds.

Personally I do not think it is right that liberal democracy should enjoy a monopoly, that it should be the only kind of politics that people have the right to choose as a system by which they are governed. If one does not believe that freedom of speech is a supreme value that may override all other values, it should be possible to make a political choice that reflects this belief.

I acknowledge that Arianna Huffington has not been won over to conceptions of this kind. Therefore, apart from stubbornness, I remain here as a reminder of the conceptions, and the demand.

[halva]

Costas Simitis would have made a better president of the European Commission than Duro Barosso, in my opinion.

Still, winning the European Cup, with a Greek team coached by the German Otto Rehhagel sends a good message too.

[halva]

Apparently the Greeks of Astoria in New York City were banned on security grounds from celebrating their European Cup victory.

[halva]

7-9 January 2004

TYNDALL: Space Control: Essential Capabilities
Active Climate Stabilization: Presently-Feasible Approaches to Both Types of Climate Change
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/events/past_events/active.pdf


Powerpoint Version
www.agci.org/energyPPT/Wood_Final.ppt

[halva]

Anyone interested in studying the intimate correlations between liberal-democratic parliamentarism and the Raynolds line on chemtrails, see:

http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/correspondence.html

[halva]

"O is for Oil"
(from the Boston Globe)

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/07/04/o_is_for_oil?mode=PF

[jayreynolds]

"O is for Oil"
(from the Boston Globe)

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/07/04/o_is_for_oil?mode=PF

Did anyone else notice the word nuclear doesn't appear in Robert's article?
That's because he is not necessarily merely against energy use due to climate concerns, he is against energy use on a religious'gaia' type basis. Such a piece is sheer propaganda, 'fearmongering', as Wayne puts it. Roberts in fact is a fear-monger and has written a book just for that purpose, called "The End of Oil"
==================================================


Anyone interested in studying the intimate correlations between liberal-democratic parliamentarism and the Raynolds line on chemtrails, see:

http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/correspondence.html


On the webpage, chemmie moron Brian Holmes wrote the Minister of National Defense the following:

"In fact, NASA and meteorologists acknowledge that, for even short-lived condensation trails to form, temperatures must be lower than about minus 60 degrees Celsius at the aircraft altitude."

IS IT ANY WONDER CHEMMIES GET IGNORED WHEN THEY CAN'T GET EVEN THE MOST BASIC ELEMENTS OF THEIR HOAX STRAIGHT?

[halva]

Just another reminder to anyone interested in the links and commentary posted here and not interested in the Raynolds input, there is a closed forum to which some have come and others can also come.

[gaiacomm]

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?
"Chemtrails" are a hoax in which people claim ordinary contrails are a substance being intentionally "sprayed".

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/normalcon.html

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?
There is no difference. All documentable attributes of putative "chemtrails" meet known characteristics of ordinary contrails.

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?
There is no such proof in existence, and never will be.

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?
There are none.

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

Thomas is an abject liar. This is most certainly a deliberate misquote of NOAA meteorologist Thomas Schlatter, who actually said, "At temperatures lower than about -76 degrees F, contrails almost always form, regardless of relative humidity. The higher the ambient temperature, the less likely that contrails will form. At temperatures above -40 degrees F, contrails are not expected."
http://www.weatherwise.org/qr/qry.chemtrail.html
In other words, Schlatter is well aware of the fact that normal contrails require temperatures of less than -40 degrees F, and will almost always form at temperatures below -76F. Considering that William Thomas has studied contrails for over three years, I can only conclude his misquote was deliberate.

As a result of Thomas' lame attempt at misrepresenting Schlatter's statement, he wrote a scathing rebuttal. Needless to say, Schllater set the record straight.
http://www.weatherwise.org/qr/qry.02chemagain.html

I have not found a chemmie website which points out Thomas' deception, nor has he made an attempt at making a correction on this important point. They know, and are helpless to avoid cooperation in their own destruction. Evil, being unable to even afford itself succor, grabs it's own tail and is itself consumed.

Wayne Hall and the other chemmies are aware of this, and quite embarrassed about it. That is his problem, and the reason he and the rest have been unwilling to answer the question.

Let the record show that on 7/4/2004 I formally answered the questions which so bedevil the chemmies. Let Wayne Hall or any chemmie present his case for or against my answers.
Bring it on.


JR:

I knew you could do it! Thank you for answering your questions. Readers as you can see JR and Gaiacomm can communicate in a civil manner. The the record show the first step in cooperation with rivals. We may have our differences but we can still work together and share our resources to help us both understand our differences. Karen has a good man!

Now Wayne I answered the questions to the best of my knowledge now in your own words just answer what you can and if you cannot then refer to someone else or admit that there is no evidence at this time.

You know JR and company with their network of resources can also help to uncover the truth of chemtrails as well. They do ask the right questions and have a network of data. What you do is to direct their questions and statements to the right sources for answers. You have to direct them to the source of the agency involved and not to a scientist with no authority to talk. It must be done under the cover of darkness for now.

[gaiacomm]

7-9 January 2004

TYNDALL: Space Control: Essential Capabilities
Active Climate Stabilization: Presently-Feasible Approaches to Both Types of Climate Change
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/events/past_events/active.pdf


Powerpoint Version
www.agci.org/energyPPT/Wood_Final.ppt


I do not agree with Teller and company with their proposal to inject metal reflective objects into the air to control the global warming problem. They are not fixing the problem but adding to it.

They do not understand the dynamics of the planet and how it works and repairs itself. It is living matter and must be treated as such!

[gaiacomm]

"O is for Oil"
(from the Boston Globe)

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/07/04/o_is_for_oil?mode=PF

It looks like Putin is bringing russia back to socialist rule and controlling democracy. Say goodbye to free oil trade in Russia. Putin now controls the oil now! Russia will strike again!

Payback for the Regan years!

[letxa2000]

Giaconn: It looks like Putin is bringing russia back to socialist rule and controlling democracy. Say goodbye to free oil trade in Russia. Putin now controls the oil now! Russia will strike again! Payback for the Regan years!

Is this kind of like when you were predicting some kind of bad things regarding the June 30th transfer of sovereignty in Iraq which went without a hitch? You seem to know very little about science, very little about politics, and are definitely not a prophet. :)

[halva]

6/7/2004
War x 4
Filed under: climate change
Any government concerned about global security and climate change should be banning 4×4s


By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 6th July 2004

Financial Times, 3rd July, main section: “French road tax rattles gas guzzlers�. The French government is hoping to impose a tax of up to 3200 euros on new 4-wheel drive cars (4×4s), which are wrecking its cities and cooking the planet.

Financial Times, 3rd July, How to Spend It supplement: “Wet this baby’s head�. A new amphibious vehicle “will be the beefiest 4×4 on road or water�. It has a top speed of over 100mph on the road, and 30 on the water. The developer is holding down the price to “teach people to recognise it as the way forward�.

Now we can bugger up our rivers as well as our roads. This is what we mean by progress.

Neither the Financial Times nor the company’s website reveals how many miles per gallon, or gallons per mile, the Gibbs Aquada does, and the woman at the sales department told me she didn’t understand what I meant by “mpg�. (Perhaps I am asking too much of these people: the spokeswoman at the government’s Department for Transport hadn’t heard of carbon dioxide). But, in case you were wondering, the FT explains why you might need one: “This will take you on the school run and up the Amazon�. If your children go to school up the Amazon, in other words, it’s indispensable.

Or perhaps the inventor has developed the perfect business model. If the Gibbs Aquada takes off, global warming will accelarate. If global warming accelarates, floods will become more frequent. If floods become more frequent, you will need the Gibbs Aquada to get to school.

Tony Blair now identifies climate change as “the single most important issue we face as a global community�.(1) The main cause of climate change is the production of carbon dioxide. The fastest-growing source of carbon dioxide in Britain is transport: its emissions increased by 50% between 1990 and 2002.(2) Flying accounts for most of this, but another reason is that the market for large 4×4s more than doubled in this period. Every year, 150,000 British people now buy one of these monsters, mostly to drive around our cities.(3)

Officially, the biggest 4×4s can manage 12 or 13 miles to the gallon in urban areas. Unofficially, US journalists found that the Ford Excursion was doing 3.7.(4) Switching from an average car to a big 4×4, the Sierra Club calculates, uses as much extra energy in twelve months as leaving your television on for 28 years.(5)

Arguably, the war with Iraq was a war for 4×4s. As the former environment minister Michael Meacher pointed out in the Guardian on Saturday, the US could do without its oil imports from the Persian Gulf if the fuel efficiency of its cars was improved by an average of 2.7 miles per gallon.(6) Special tax breaks make 4×4s effectively free to US businesses,(7) with the result that they now comprise 46% of the private fleet.(8) Abandoning those tax breaks would remove a major incentive for war.

Our fashion accessories, then, are mowing down the people of Iraq, Bangladesh and the Sahel. They are also slaughtering our own. Because big 4×4s are higher and heavier, the occupants of a vehicle hit by one are 27 times more likely to be killed (according to the US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) than the occupants of a vehicle hit by a normal car.(9) For the same reasons they kill between two and three times as many of the pedestrians and cyclists they hit as smaller cars.(10)

Obviously, therefore, as Blair now cares so much about global warming, the British government is about to follow the French by discouraging them. I’m joking, of course. “Industrial civilization,� Mustapha Mond, the controller of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, observed, “is only possible when there’s no self-denial. Self-indulgence up to the very limits imposed by hygiene and economics. Otherwise the wheels stop turning�. This government intends to keep the wheels turning as we drive over the abyss. This is why the woman in the transport department’s press office used precisely the same words as the man from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. “It is up to people to drive whatever car they choose�. Taxing or banning 4×4s, she told me, would restrict people’s “freedom of choice�. The same argument, of course, could be made about the laws preventing citizens from carrying rocket-propelled grenades to work.

Given that just one in eight 4×4 drivers has ever driven his car off-road, and only two out of five have even taken their cars out of town, why do people drive these things? Why roll anything up to 7.6 tons of metal (the Hummer H1) onto the road, when a bicycle will do just as well?

Well, it’s partly because people are terrified of being mown down by 7.6 tonnes of metal. If giant 4×4s mangle ordinary cars, you’d better buy a giant 4×4, just as civilians in Mogadishu must buy an AK47 to protect themselves from civilians with AK47s. It’s partly too because we lead such humdrum lives. When you’re driving a “Defender� or “Explorer� or “Pathfinder� or “Cherokee�, you can place yourself, just like the adverts, on the wild frontier, without having to travel beyond Ealing Broadway. During the Iraq war, the New York Times reported that men in the US were buying Hummers (the biggest 4×4s) for “patriotic reasons�: the troops in Iraq were using the same vehicles.(11) (Logically, they should also have been demonstrating their love for their country by machine-gunning passers-by.)

And if the dullness of your life, or the size of your genitals, continues to trouble you, you can always take your truck to a green lane (until recently the tranquil preserve of ramblers and horse riders) to tear up some turf and find out what you’re made of. “In theory�, Auden wrote, “they were sound on Expectation/ Had there been situations to be in;/ Unluckily they were their situation�.(12)

But perhaps there’s more to it than ennui and insecurity. George Marshall, of the climate change network Rising Tide, suggests that the people who buy these cars in the face of both a developing global climate crisis and an impending global oil crisis are engaging in “reactive denial�. By showing that it’s possible to consume vast quantities of fossil fuel without an immediately discernable adverse effect, 4×4 drivers prove to themselves that there cannot be a problem.

If this is the case, then the only sensible response is to demonstrate that there are immediately discernable adverse effects, by stinging these people with a vast tax bill, or simply by banning their anti-social behaviour. It isn’t hard to do: the government could set a minimum average mpg for all new cars: say 30 to begin with, rising by a couple every year. This would shut the big 4×4s out of the market immediately (there could be a temporary exemption for farmers).

The alternative is to do as the government is doing now: leave the world to be destroyed, in the name of that marvellous excuse for an absence of leadership: freedom of choice. There’s a simple and cost-effective means for Tony Blair to prove that he’s serious about climate change: drive these dangerous baubles off the road.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. Tony Blair, May 2004. Article in Parliamentary Monitor, cited by Paul Brown, 27th May 2004. Officials try to hide rise in transport pollution. The Guardian.

2. Paul Brown, 27th May 2004. Officials try to hide rise in transport pollution. The Guardian.

3. Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, 29th June 2004. The 4×4 is here to stay – on and off-road.
http://www.smmt.co.uk/home.cfm?CFID=921333&CFTOKEN=59481958

4. Paul Roberts, 1st April 2001. Bad Sports. Harper’s Magazine.

5. The Sierra Club, 2004. Driving Up the Heat: SUVs and Global Warming. http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/SUVreport/

6. Michael Meacher 3rd July 2004. Time to cut down. The Guardian.

7. Anil Ananthaswamy, 8th March 2003. Crunch Time for the SUV. New Scientist.

8. Associated Press, 20th December 20, 2000. Big vehicles guzzle as mileage too low.

9. Cited by Iain S Bruce, 8th June 2003. Revealed: the true cost of our love affair with 4×4s. The Sunday Herald.

10. Rob Edwards, 13th June 2004. Plan to ‘punish’ 4×4 drivers. The Sunday Herald.

11. D. Hakim, 5th April 2003. In their Hummers, Right Beside Uncle Sam. The New York Times.

12. WH Auden, 1940. The Quest. Published in WH Auden, Selected Poems, Faber and Faber, London.

[halva]

From: Angus Malcolm

4x4s are a prime example of short term local economic interests riding
rough-shod over the long-term interests of us all. As I understand it,
the boom in 4x4s in the US was initially down to the US import tariff
on trucks (as distinct from cars) favouring beleaguered US
manufacturers over manufacturers in Europe and Asia. Since 4x4s are
classified as trucks, it was in the interests of Ford, GM and Chrysler
to develop this new market, having essentially lost the battle to build
competitive cars.

Now we have the French response. It all appears to be very laudable,
but how many of these vehicles are French-produced? None. I suspect
that economic interests, rather than environmental ones, lie at the
heart of this decision. So I do not see the French government's plans
as marking some sort of vanguard of real ecological concern among
Western governments, but rather a simple variant on the economic
protectionism which created the 4x4 market in the first place.

Business as usual, then! And I suspect the transparency of French
interests, along with the economic interests of the US, UK and Germany
(all of whom produce these high-profit-margin vehicles), mean the
French initiative will have very little knock-on effect.

Far better, I think, to attack the misplaced sense of status that
attract purchasers to these cars, for example through direct action
stickers which could be posted on them, as I think is already happening
in the US. One of the funniest ones I've come across is "I'm changing
the climate - ask me how!"

--------------------------

From: "Mark Porthouse"

Not sure why I didn't get a message stating that there was a new article on
Monbiot's web site. Here it is for those as unfortunate as I:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/07/06/war-x-4/

At least the French are doing something - even if it costs their industry
nothing as they don't make 4x4s.

Car purchase tax should be much higher in this country (the UK). A good
proportion of the environmental damage of a vehicle is in it's manufacture.
Higher purchase price would reduce such damage by reducing sales. We have
just about the lowest car purchase taxation in Europe. Judging by this page
http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/eepi/policy_evaluat
ion/fiscal.asp
(for those of you who suffered wrap on that link here is the tinyurl:
http://tinyurl.com/3b3sz)
Denmark must have new car purchase taxes of between 30 and 40%! That's more
like it.
This will encourage reuse of cars rather than scrapping and purchase of new
ones. New cars will have prices so high that people don't want to buy them
and old cars will in turn have values so high that no one wants to scrap
them (because there aren't cheap new cars flooding the market).

The main reason for low car purchase taxes is to encourage domestic
industry - well, we don't have a great deal of motor industry anymore and to
be honest I'm not interested in protecting our own wealth at the cost of
others less fortunate than ourselves who will suffer more from global
warming.

I've got LPG on my vehicle. LPG, if not used is otherwise burnt off during
the production stage, leading to global warming with no benefit to anyone!
So LPG is almost carbon neutral in that respect!

------------------------------

From: Pete Philips

Angus Malcolm wrote:
> Far better, I think, to attack the misplaced sense of status that
> attract purchasers to these cars

I agree. My theory is that the 4x4 is just the latest in a
long line of pointless fads adopted by the well heeled to flaunt
their wealth at any cost. The 4x4 is completely impractical; unsuited
to both Britains congested city streets and it's narrow country lanes.
A small car costing half the price will comfortably out perform
most 4x4s. The killer feature, as far as the owner is concerned,
is that it only does 15mpg. While this may sound counter intuitive,
it is this very pointless display of wealth that the owner seeks.
The message is "I am wealthy enough to squander a scarce resource".

This trend has many precedents in history. Think of a time when
sugar was a scarce resource only available to the rich. It's
consumption an obvious status symbol. But how to flaunt that
wealth? Blackened teeth of course. Dumb but true.

More recently in times of famine the obvious status symbol is
food. This would be displayed in the copious bellies of the
monied classes of the day. Really stupid but it happened.

In this context, driving a completely impractical, slow,
difficult to park, polluting, mini-bus cum tractor, petrol
monster is entirely rational ;-)

----------------------------------------------

From: "David.R.SanDiego"

Malcolm,

I live in San Diego, California and sit on my porch in the evenings and watch the parade of HUGE useless SUV's stream by, none of which will likely ever see an off-road situation. It's all for status and show here. BUT, I hail from South West Texas and all my relatives are cattle ranchers. This is really poor land and takes an average of 30 acres to support ONE cow. So many, many acres are required which are crossed by narrow dirt roads. When it rains, these become bogs. Now here's my point: the vehicle of choice there is a 2 wheel drive pickup truck, but NOT 4X4. These cattlemen have learned that 2 wheel drive is better because 4X4's simply worsen the roads, tearing them up, deepening the ruts and perpetuating the need for MORE 4X4's.....a 'Catch 22', if you will. They frown on the assumption that 4X4's are necessary under normal ranching conditions and resort to them for only the most extreme situations. I find this very interesting. Any similar view points out there?

[gaiacomm]

Is this kind of like when you were predicting some kind of bad things regarding the June 30th transfer of sovereignty in Iraq which went without a hitch? You seem to know very little about science, very little about politics, and are definitely not a prophet. :)


The bad thing that happened on the 30th of June already happened. The USA got another puppet to ad to their collection. Bad does not mean death and destruction. You are the one that sees in black and white!

[foot_soldier]

http://www.changingtheclimate.com/

[gaiacomm]

People of Russia;

You all have suffered for many years with corruption and death to many people. A man and his underlings that are self-serving and cruel now rule your country. Putin is the man who is a KGB loyalist with motives that only satisfy a few. He has taken the power from the people and working class and has redirected it to a select few.

Look around you and see the sorrow in the streets and the hunger in the children, the mothers that try to feed their families, the fathers that have no work and lose themselves to drugs and alcohol.
Mother Russia needs to take care of its children. Would a good loving mother neglect its children? Would a good mother not feed, and provide all the comforts of a good home?

What has Putin done for his Mother Russia lately? He hides under her skirts and shouts like a spoiled child. He arrests and intimates all who oppose his sham rule.
He thinks he controls the military with false promise and fear when in fact the military is waiting for the right leader to lead another revolution to take back and share with others the riches that Mother Russia can provide.

There are so many people in Russia and the surrounding countries under its rule that are seeking independence and self-rule without the greedy hands of Putin and his showroom dummies.

Putin is a person who by himself is a scared little boy that needs his mother. Alone without his puppets he can be conquered and sent to a camp of hard labor. Or if all the hungry and sick and tired people of Russia get united and march together on the capital and demand Putin to step down then you all will be on a journey to dignity and respect.

You all got here thru turmoil and war so why not change it again. The armies will not fire on you all if you all are united together and show a force that is more powerful than any weapon. Putin is afraid of another revolution because that would mean that he would have to run and hide or be shot on the streets on site.

Find a leader that will guide you all to freedom. Make sure that the leader comes from the rank and file who knows hunger and pain and will be able to satisfy the masses of those who are without. A leader that is not afraid to die or rid the country of those that are destroying it thru corruption.

Mother Russia is calling for its children to fix her home and feed its family and rid itself of that infection that is slowly killing you all.

[jayreynolds]

To these Limey weenies, a Ford Explorer is a "monster truck", LOL....

Had one of this sort over to visit last summer, a Yorkshireman. took him out off-roading and he had a blast. On the way he started braging about his 40 horsepower Morris. He asked how many horsepower my truck had? 300HP

He said, "can you run her up?, So, I romped on it and started doing about 100 mph on some curvy roads and he got all green, gripping the door handles. now I know why they are called limeys.

How the hell you gonna haul loads in a morris mini?
Do you expect Americans to ride around in something looking like "Mr. Bean"?

Get over it.

PS, gotcha good on that Holmestead page. minus 60C minimum contrail formation temp, eh?
Push that Brian Holmes as hard as you can, Wayne! He's a debunker's best friend!

[halva]

Yawn.

[halva]

Why aren't you accepting Gaiacomm's olive branch, Raynolds?

Broaden your alliance. Chemtrail debunking with a socially and environmentally concerned face.

This is the type of PR that's required nowadays.

It may help you gain admission to the milieux from which you are being excluded.

You're not in a position to be turning anybody away. Think about it.

[halva]

By the way, Raynolds, I'm not being entirely ironical. You should think about why Gaiacomm is making his overtures to you. He is not just a crazy man.

You could help each other. He could teach you to be more civilized and you could teach him to be more reliable. You could both make a new start.

[halva]

Blatant ABC
Chemtrail Subliminals
By Marjorie Tietjen
daystar1952@yahoo.com
7-7-4

What is the main purpose of the extensive chemtrail jet aerosol program and is this operation a permanent necessity? I ask myself these puzzling and frustrating questions over and over again but there seems to be no certain answer.

Several days ago, I was speaking with a customer in my store who happened to mention that he was in the Airforce. Needless to say, that peaked my interest. I asked him what he knew about the current jet aerosol operation. I briefly described what I was referring to and I could sense that he knew exactly what I was talking about. I brought up the possibility of the chemtrails being used as some sort of sunscreen. He replied in a very sincere manner...."well, you know that we are having problems with too much of the sun's radiation entering our atmosphere." At that point another customer joined the conversation, changed the subject and dominated the whole interchange. Soon the gentleman from the Airforce said that he really had to go and I didn't have an opportunity to ask any further questions. It was very interesting to note his reaction when I was showing him some of my chemtrail photos. He never once said oh... those are only normal contrails. In fact he didn't say anything. He wore a look which said to me that he knew exactly what I was talking about and wished he could say more.

Whatever the purpose is of this covert operation, it seems as if it is intended to last for quite a while, if not indefinitely. The reason I am currently coming to this conclusion has to do with the intense subliminal messages being put forth by the media. If this Jet Aerosol Operation was temporary there would be no need for the extensive mind control or conditioning tactics we are witnessing. I have noticed that ABC seems to be the most obvious offender. I have complained several times to the manager of our local ABC affiliate, that the weather graphics have changed in accordance with the condition of our skies. I brought to her attention the fact that the 8 day weather planner depicts smeary chemtrail like backgrounds every single day of the week and that this had been taking place for at least half a year. I mentioned to her that the message these graphics are portraying is that we never have any more normal blue sky days. She seemed sincerely ignorant of the whole ruse and I also think that she thought that I might be a little bit "off balance".

I asked who helped their station decide what graphics to use. I believe the correct initials were AWS...( Associated Weather Service?). I contacted them but could only get connected with a branch that educates school children about the weather. It's been perhaps half a year now since I've spoken to ABC concerning this matter. The weather graphics have since changed back to the original blue sky background with clouds, rain or sun superimposed on a dark blue background.

However, the chemtrail subliminals have now become much more pervasive and are being displayed on the news and even on the evening game shows. Last night and every night the ABC evening news shows blatant chemtrails on a blue background directly behind the anchor people. After the news I thought I was going to enjoy Jeopardy but I was so distracted by the chemtrails and smeary cloudlike formations in the blue squares behind the contestants that I couldn't concentrate on the show. Wheel of Fortune followed Jeopardy. At least this show used some imagination and portrayed the chemtrail streaks as moving around in a kind of spotlight fashion. At this point I had had enough. Other T.V. programs may also be involved in this deceptive conditioning technique but I don't watch enough T.V. anymore to be able to say.

I think we need to ask ourselves which chemtrail scenerios would require an indefinite application and as a result benefit from this type of subliminal conditioning?

When I try to inform friends and strangers about the chemtrail issue and how it's purpose is being kept secret from us...most respond with the comment that if the chemtrail operation is for real...it is most likely for our own good and the government must be keeping it's purpose secret so as not to alarm or panic the people. That explanation doesn't quite make sense to me either. In fact the media's/government's specialty seems to be aimed at creating constant panic and a sense of insecurity for the purpose of manipulating the masses.

So, what's the answer to all this? Is it better to live in ignorance especially if it seems as though there is nothing we can do to change the situation? If the Aerosol Program is soley for our benefit, with no other recourse, then I would think that informing the public would be the most productive path to take. The answers which will benefit us all are out there but in order to access them we need to work together, pool our resources and share our insights. How can we do this if most of the population is kept in the dark? The only reason that I can see for keeping us from the Truth of this issue is if there are nefarious purposes behind this massive program.

Those of you who are perhaps innocently involved in certain factions of this program need to question the explanations you may be recieving. No one wants to contribute towards something that may go against their deeply held principles.

[gaiacomm]

To Readers:

I wish to extend my hand to JR to work together and iron out our differences and misunderstandings so we can pool our resources and find solutions to our questions of Chemtrails. I am willing to listen and learn if it is done in friendship and respect.

JR what is your decision? Are you willing to work with us and help us prove right or wrong the claims made? I am extending an olive branch to you JR!

[jayreynolds]

'giacomm' AKA 'Dr.Judah Ben-hur' is a fraud and a liar. His real name is Lance Haubrick.
One look at his face will easily show that he is mentally unstable.


Though he graduated from Oregon State University with a master's degree in environmental engineering, his career has been a failure. Sensing this, before graduation, he fabvricated a grandiose delusion in which he was employed by Giacomm, a fictional corporation whose business has nothing whatsoever to do with environmental engineering.
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2002/Jan02/water.htm

He has, since then fabricated ever-more grandiose proclamations which have been posted on free 'press release websites-
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22gaiacomm+corporation%22&btnG=Google+Search

Haubrick suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, which is usually produced as a result of violent childhood sexual trauma so horrible that it has to be dissociated from the host consciousness and lodged in an alternate personality. His main 'public mouthpiece'
alternate personality is "Dr, Judah Ben-hur", supposedly a physicist, who however, is inept at making any physics sense.

The reality is that Haubrick never has risen past being a sewer inspector on an Indian Reservation employed by Indian Health Services in Martin, South Dakota.
http://engr.oregonstate.edu/mailman/archives/public/jobs/2003-December/000553.html

After receiving continued threats from Lance Haubrick, many of which were made during working hours on a government owned computer, I contacted his supervisor, Albert Berreth, who was interested to read the threats made, and agreed that Haubrick was indeed a very disturbed individual. Berreth agreed to monitor Haubrick's antics and had his computer security manager contact me, who stated that they would cooperate fully with law enforcement officials if I wished to have him charged criminally.

The threats were stopped.

The fact is that Hubrick has been, and currently is, a very sick person in desperate need of psychiatric help. The most friendly gesture I could make is to tell him to immediately commit himself to a psychiatric hospital for diagnosis and treatment. He might find sanity and justice for the homosexual abuse he suffered as a child, but not by submerging his own distorted personality beneath a fake one. Get help now, Lance.

There are no misunderstandings between us but there is also no possibility of myself or anyone else ever "working together" with Haubrick until he is able to become sane again.

[gaiacomm]

JR:

You are the one that will be charged with slander and other defaming remarks against Lance Haubrick. By claiming that I am he was wrong on your part. I challenge you to contact Gaiacomm International Corporation and verify the differences in people. And when the truth is known then I personally will find a law that I can use to stop you in your tracks. Lance and I both will file whatever charges that can be discovered against you for the damages you have caused against the young man Lance. I request that anyone email any of the Execuitve team of Gaiacomm International to get a clear judgement.

JR, after the truth that I am The Dr. is exposed then all the readers will know that you have lied and your reputation will be tainted and the claims by Wayne and others will be resolved.

I offered you peace and you threw it back back in my face. So JR now you will see!

Dr. Judah Ben-Hur
CTO
Gaiacomm International Corporation
www.gaiacomminternational.com
310.213.1997

I will be waiting! Come and get it!

[halva]

Lance Haubrick still works for the Indian Health Services in Martin. I spoke to him on the telephone, and I doubt very much that what Raynolds is claiming about him (i.e. that he is, or claims to be, Dr. Judah Ben-Hur) is true.

Why are you doing this, Raynolds? It seems to me that if anyone should be in a psychiatric clinic, it is you. These claims you make can be so easily checked.

[gaiacomm]

JR I have provided you a means to contact me. So verify it. How can I be at three places at once. Jacksonville, Florida in Los Angeles, California, and New Mexico. You have a phone number now call it!

Of course you will not, it would make you a liar now woudn't it.

You have finally stepped into a bucket of poop!

Readers: I have provided JR the means to verify who I am which will also prove to you all that JR has been barking up the wrong tree and that most of his rantings should be questioned. With that JR should be strongly considered for explusion from the internet for his blatent behavior and false claims and that a public apology to Lance Haubrick is in order. I do not need one because I already know.

JR, Its not nice to fool with Mother Nature!

[jayreynolds]

JR: Yer th' one thet will be charged wif slan'er an' other defamin' remarks aginst Lance Haubrick. Shet mah mouth! By claimin' thet ah's he was wrong on yer part. ah challenge yo' t'contack Gaiacomm Internashunal Co'po'ashun an' vahify th' differences in varmints. An' when th' truth is known then ah varmintally will find a law thet ah can use t'stop yo' in yer tracks. Lance an' ah both will file whutevah charges thet kin be discovahed aginst yo' fo' th' damages yo' haf cuzd aginst th' yo'ng man Lance. ah requess thet ennyone email enny of th' Execuitve team of Gaiacomm Internashunal t'git a clear judgement. JR, af'er th' truth thet ah's Th' Dr. is exposed then all th' readers will knows thet yo' haf lied an' yer repeetayshun will be tainted an' th' claims by Wayne an' others will be resolved, cuss it all t' tarnation. ah offered yo' peace an' yo' threw it back back in mah face. So JR now yo' will see! Dr. Judah Ben-Hur CTO Gaiacomm Internashunal Co'po'ashun www.gaiacomminternashunal, ah reckon.com 310.213.1997 ah will be waitin'! Fry mah hide! Come an' git it! Fry mah hide!

Bring it on, tarbaby.

[halva]

Quite apart from legal action and so on, this Lance Haubrick story really is the end of the line.

Letxa and the rest of the sorry lot tagging along with this Reynolds, do you have anything to say for yourselves and for this absurd joke of an individual you have cast in your lot with?

Gaiacomm, possibly Lance Haubrick might like to ask Arianna or the moderators to remove Raynolds from this forum. Unlike me, you apparently know Haubrick, so it might be worth sounding him out.

Of course he may not care what is said about him by individuals no normal people give a second thought to.

This really is the pits.

[jayreynolds]

Speaking of grandoise delusions, get a load of how 'Dr. Judah Ben-hur' was e-mailing Saddam Hussein in violation of US laws :
Page 1 of 'Wired' news article:
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,55967,00.html
Page 2:
"In a press release dated Sept. 13, the company said it has developed "4G" wireless technology capable of being used "as a weapon to ignite large sections of the atmosphere and incinerate all living creatures within its pre-selected coordinates." The press release also called for the resignation of President Bush."
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,55967-2,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1

[halva]

Raynolds do you reiterate your assertion about Gaiacomm being Lance Haubrick? Get the record straight on that before moving on.

[jayreynolds]

Gaiacomm, possibly Lance Haubrick might like to ask Arianna or the moderators to remove Raynolds from this forum. Unlike me, you apparently know Haubrick, so it might be worth sounding him out. This really is the pits.

Back to calling for banning again, eh, greaser? How 'democratic' of you!
Bring it on.

[halva]

Raynolds do you reiterate your assertion about Gaiacomm being Lance Haubrick?

An answer to this, please.

[gaiacomm]

Wayne:

JR got caught in a lie. I will make my legal resources avaliable to Lance Haubrick to sue JR for various infraction of law including racial slurring.

Someone contact this reporter who interviewed me recently!

Controversial Scientist Who Calls for a Non-Violent 'Jihad' Makes Many Nervous
By Jeremy Reynalds
Talon News
June 28, 2004

[gaiacomm]

JR, you know sometimes people are who they say they are. And you really should be careful who you threaten and call names to. Slander is big in courts. And RACIAL SLURRING can cause riots. And since you are of the white race you really should be careful of calling names of people of color. Now you involve civil rights leaders...NAACP and the like.

You really screwed up this time. Now its racial! Your racial remarks..will be acted on!

I take offense to your racial bigot remarks and I wish to go on record that I dislike it and I wish to pursue legal recourse! Being of the white race does not give you the right to call names to people of color or even assume!

If there are any readers that dislike racial remarks like JR says contact the associations that deal with civil rights!

Yes I support democracy not BIGGOTs! and racial ignorance!

[gaiacomm]

Bring it on, tarbaby.


Readers this is not acceptable in any forum! I take offense to this racial slur and I wish to file charges against the person who wrote this.

Dr. Judah Ben-Hur

[gaiacomm]

I call on all community leaders to insist on the removal of this person that uses racial slurs as a means to communicate. Does Arianna wish to get into a racial debate of color?

I call for the Ban of JR and company from this forum and to insitgate charges of racial slurring!

I call on all people of color that can relate to this racial comment to support the ban of this person who still lives in the dark ages!


Originally Posted by gaiacomm
JR: Yer th' one thet will be charged wif slan'er an' other defamin' remarks aginst Lance Haubrick. Shet mah mouth! By claimin' thet ah's he was wrong on yer part. ah challenge yo' t'contack Gaiacomm Internashunal Co'po'ashun an' vahify th' differences in varmints. An' when th' truth is known then ah varmintally will find a law thet ah can use t'stop yo' in yer tracks. Lance an' ah both will file whutevah charges thet kin be discovahed aginst yo' fo' th' damages yo' haf cuzd aginst th' yo'ng man Lance. ah requess thet ennyone email enny of th' Execuitve team of Gaiacomm Internashunal t'git a clear judgement. JR, af'er th' truth thet ah's Th' Dr. is exposed then all th' readers will knows thet yo' haf lied an' yer repeetayshun will be tainted an' th' claims by Wayne an' others will be resolved, cuss it all t' tarnation. ah offered yo' peace an' yo' threw it back back in mah face. So JR now yo' will see! Dr. Judah Ben-Hur CTO Gaiacomm Internashunal Co'po'ashun www.gaiacomminternashunal, ah reckon.com 310.213.1997 ah will be waitin'! Fry mah hide! Come an' git it! Fry mah hide!



Bring it on, tarbaby.
__________________
Contrails, or 'Trails-CON?
A website reviewing the facts and the claims about the Contrails/Chemtrails controversy
by Jay Reynolds
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/

[foot_soldier]

June 8, 2004
Center for Science in the Public Interest

For Immediate Release

Contact:
Jeff Cronin, 202-777-8370
Adam Pearson, 202-777-8316

"INTEGRITY IN SCIENCE" CONFERENCE ON MONDAY, JULY 12
Corporate and Political Influence on
Science-Based Policymaking to be Addressed

WASHINGTON - Scientists, journalists, and policymakers will convene in Washington on July 12 to address corporate and political manipulation of science and science-based public policy. The conference is hosted by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

Who: Prominent scientists from academia and government; physicians; journalists; and public policy experts. Speakers include Carol Browner, former Environmental Protection Agency administrator; Richard Clapp, professor of Public Health, Boston University; Mark Seeley, Reed Elsevier; Dave Lewis, research microbiologist and former EPA scientist; former New England Journal of Medicine editor Arnold Relman; Ralph Horwitz, dean of the Case Western University School of Medicine; and Jim J. Tozzi, from the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness.

What: A one-day conference examining how corporations and politicians manipulate science to impact public policy and public opinion. Panel topics include "Misusing Science to Manufacture Doubt and Delay," "Corporate and Government Suppression of Research," and "Science Journals, Science Journalism and Disclosure."

CSPI's Rachel Carson award for Integrity in Science will be presented to Theodora Emily Colborn, for her ground-breaking work on endocrine disruptors. The full agenda and registration materials are available at www.conflictedscience.org.

When: 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. ET on Monday, July 12, 2004

Where: The International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C.

Credentialing: Media may register at: https://www.signmeuponline.com/events/register.asp?eventid=26249&origin=e

=========================

http://www.ems.org/rls/2004/07/08/integrity_in_sci.html#top_release

[halva]

Gaiacomm best of luck with the legal action you say you plan to take against Raynolds.

As for all your other appeals and exhortations, I would truly like to appeal to YOU to draw the lesson on how contaminating and stigmatizing is any attempt to relate to J. Raynolds.

You continually try to ignore the evidence of your own mind and senses on this, and your initiatives always come to grief.

I have long suggested that everyone else should leave this thread. It seems that Footsoldier plans to keep putting her informational postings and ignoring Raynolds and I trust that this doesn't once again become impossible for her to continue.

I would suggest that you quietly pursue your administrative measures and leave off making appeals, to Raynolds or anybody else.

[jayreynolds]

http://www.blackcommentator.org/images/tar_baby_drawing.gif
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG97/remus/tar-baby.html

Wayne, you are more the fool than I ever thought. Hopeless.

[jayreynolds]

[color=red]June 8, 2004
Center for Science in the Public Interest

For Immediate Release

Contact:
Jeff Cronin, 202-777-8370
Adam Pearson, 202-777-8316

"INTEGRITY IN SCIENCE" CONFERENCE ON MONDAY, JULY 12
Corporate and Political Influence on
Science-Based Policymaking to be Addressed

Just who is the "Center for Science in the Public Interest"?
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_connections.cfm/oid/13

Interesting!

[halva]

Raynolds do you reiterate your assertion about Gaiacomm being Lance Haubrick?

[gaiacomm]

Gaiacomm best of luck with the legal action you say you plan to take against Raynolds.

As for all your other appeals and exhortations, I would truly like to appeal to YOU to draw the lesson on how contaminating and stigmatizing is any attempt to relate to J. Raynolds.

You continually try to ignore the evidence of your own mind and senses on this, and your initiatives always come to grief.

I have long suggested that everyone else should leave this thread. It seems that Footsoldier plans to keep putting her informational postings and ignoring Raynolds and I trust that this doesn't once again become impossible for her to continue.

I would suggest that you quietly pursue your administrative measures and leave off making appeals, to Raynolds or anybody else.


Great minds think alike!

[gaiacomm]

Raynolds do you reiterate your assertion about Gaiacomm being Lance Haubrick?

JR knows now that I am not lance. So he will not pursue it any further. If he admits he was wrong then his world will come crashing down.

He got caught in a lie. It proves that people never do their homework before they run their mouths.

Readers: I have invited all to contact me and if you like contact Lance at the same time and see.

JR created the biggest hoax! Chemtrails are real! JR is an IDIOT!

I offered him peace and he chose racial slurs and defamed Lance Haubrick.

Justice is sweet as long a one waits a bit!


Wayne count this one as a win of the war with JR. He lost and should leave on his own. He got caught in his own ego.

[gaiacomm]

Raynolds do you reiterate your assertion about Gaiacomm being Lance Haubrick?


Come on JR prove who I am! Am I Lance or the DR?

It should be so simple! Readers, behold the coward! He cannot even admit he is wrong!

[halva]

As far as I remember, the Lance Haubrick nonsense started off as a piece of gratuitous imbecility from Bonehead or Whitemajikman or someone, a kind of 'in joke'.

What I find mystifying is why Raynolds went along with it.

And even moreso why he dragged it out when he was coming under pressure to say something smart and disarming to explain his attitude to Gaiacomm.

It is as if he judges that we are all on the same level as his dimwit disciples. Or doesn't care if we are not.

This is the behaviour of a man who has been away from normal human society for too long.

[gaiacomm]

As far as I remember, the Lance Haubrick nonsense started off as a piece of gratuitous imbecility from Bonehead or Whitemajikman or someone, a kind of 'in joke'.

What I find mystifying is why Raynolds went along with it.

And even moreso why he dragged it out when he was coming under pressure to say something smart and disarming to explain his attitude to Gaiacomm.

It is as if he judges that we are all on the same level as his dimwit disciples. Or doesn't care if we are not.

This is the behaviour of a man who has been away from normal human society for too long.


Yes I agree! JR got caught in the hoax and now because he believed it with such conviction he has lost. I still feel that a public apology to Lance is in order.

JR and company has no more value here. They got caught in their own trap!

[foot_soldier]

July 9, 2004

Scientists Say White House Questioned Their Politics

In a report released yesterday, a scientific advocacy group cited more instances of what it called the Bush administration's manipulation of science to fit its policy goals, including the questioning of nominees to scientific advisory panels about whether they had voted for President Bush.

Administration officials said that the conclusions of the report, issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, were "wrong and misleading."

Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University and the chairman of the scientists group, said that the administration's actions could cause researchers to leave the government.

"You can destroy that in a matter of years and then it can take another generation or two to get back to where you were in the first place," Dr. Gottfried said during a conference call with reporters yesterday.

Dr. Gerald T. Keusch said that frustration led him to resign last year from the directorship of the Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Keusch said the procedure for appointing members of advisory panels changed markedly with the change of administrations in 2001.

Dr. Keusch, who became director in 1998, said that before Mr. Bush took office, he proposed candidates and if the director of the National Institutes of Heath approved, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services in the Clinton administration invariably signed off on the nomination. But under the Bush administration, he said, Secretary Tommy G. Thompson's office rejected 19 of 26 candidates, including Dr. Torsten Wiesel, a Nobel laureate.

Dr. Keusch said that when he questioned the rejection, he was told that Dr. Wiesel had signed too many statements critical of Mr. Bush.

Bill Pierce, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said that Dr. Keusch was the only institute director to complain about the process and that Mr. Thompson was the one responsible for the appointments.

"That's what we do and that's how we do it," Mr. Pierce said. "This is the responsibility of governance."

The Union of Concerned Scientists, whose views often run counter to those of the administration, issued a 34-page report describing Dr. Keusch's experience and other instances that it said illustrated the administration's injecting politics into science. The scientists issued an earlier report in February, and 62 prominent scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, signed an accompanying statement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/politics/09data.html?pagewanted=all

[foot_soldier]

July 9, 2004

Researchers Accuse Bush of Manipulating Science

WASHINGTON — More than 4,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel Prize winners and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences, accused the Bush administration Thursday of distorting and suppressing science to suit its political goals.

"Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government's outstanding scientific personnel," the scientists said in a letter.

The administration has frequently been accused of misusing and ignoring science to further its policy aims. The list of signatures collected by the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests that the issue has become worrisome throughout the scientific community.

Administration officials rejected the criticism Thursday, as they did when the same letter was released in February bearing the names of 62 prominent scientists.

John Marburger, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, said the letter and a report released simultaneously by the Union of Concerned Scientists "reach conclusions that are wrong and misleading."

"This administration values and supports science, both as a vital necessity for national security and economic strength and as an indispensable source of guidance for national policy," Marburger said.

The scientists cited examples of colleagues denied seats on advisory panels, allegedly because of their political beliefs.

Dr. Gerald T. Keusch, who left his post as associate director for international research and director of the John E. Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health, said the Department of Health and Human Services had rejected 19 of his 26 candidates for the center's board over three years. Among the 19 was a Nobel laureate who, Keusch said he was told, was turned down because his name had appeared in newspaper ads accusing the administration of manipulating science.

His nominations for the board — which advises on which research should receive federal grants — were accepted during the Clinton administration. But once President Bush took office, Keusch said, they "were rejected one after another."

"There are increasing bits of evidence at attempts at control over the business of science," said Keusch, now the assistant provost for global health at Boston University Medical Center.

He said he was motivated to speak out not by "political malice," but a desire to protect the "integrity of science" at the NIH.

Among the Keusch nominees rejected by the HHS was Jane Menken, a population expert at the University of Colorado at Boulder who had served on scientific advisory boards under President Reagan and the first President Bush. "I was being renominated and I was turned down," she said. "No official ever gave me any reason."

Contrary to the Bush administration, Menken supports the availability of legal abortions. She said that given her qualifications and those of two colleagues rejected with her, one a Nobel laureate, "it's very hard not to reach a conclusion that it was based on something different from scientific qualifications."

Department spokesman Bill Pierce said the appointments to many National Institutes of Health panels were made by Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson, not NIH directors such as Keusch.

"I completely reject the notion" that the administration is manipulating government science to bolster its policy aims, he said. "There's no evidence."

But Janet Rowley, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, said she had seen the misuse of science firsthand.

"This administration distorts scientific knowledge on stem cell research, which makes it increasingly difficult to have an honest debate in a field that holds promise for treatment of many serious diseases like Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes," Rowley said. She added that the administration, which opposes research with most embryonic stem cells, had exaggerated the usefulness of adult stem cells.

Richard Myers, director of the Stanford Human Genome Center, said he was rejected for a seat on the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research after he told an administration official that it was inappropriate to ask him his opinion of Bush, according to the report compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists. He later received the post after an NIH director interceded on his behalf.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-science9jul09,1,6944903.story?coll=la-news-a_section

[jayreynolds]

Yes, the person posing as "Dr. Judah Ben-hur" is Lance Haubrick.
Of that, I am certain.