web analytics

Trying to Persuade the European Greens


“Never underestimate the damage that can be done by just a small number of men, with evil intent and unlimited resources.”

This is a good poster and a good starting point for the discussion. The first question that could be asked is “How do we know the intent of this small number of  men is evil?” The simple – in fact too simple – answer is that virtually everything that comes out of nuclear weapons laboratories is evil, and the clandestine global spraying of toxic aerosols that is being justified, by insinuation, under the title of “geoengineering” is an idea that comes very largely from American nuclear weapons laboratories.  Edward Teller, who popularized the geoengineering proposal in 1997 with a short article entitled “The Planet Needs A Sunscreen”, made his name as the father of the hydrogen bomb and of Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” proposal for an anti-missile shield. He says that he borrowed the idea from the physicist Freeman Dyson, who was likewise one of the team working on the Manhattan Project that gave the world the atom bomb, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and everything that has followed.

The surest way not to understand what is happening with geoengineering is to become involved in the contrails versus chemtrails debate. Rather than debate whether chemtrails are contrails, one should point out the parallel with what happened with genetically modified food production: the corporations and their laboratories and their lobbyists decide to introduce a change, so at the same time they start a public relations campaign to deny that any change has occurred. In the case of genetic modification the key word was “substantial equivalence”. Genetically modified foods are not the same as non-genetically modified foods, chemically, nutritionally or in any other way. Sometimes they look the same. “Substantial equivalence” means that they have to be treated as if they are the same. Soon laws are introduced to make it illegal to make any distinction between them or to say that they are not the same. Something similar has happened with geoengineering: a decision was taken to change aircraft emissions and turn them from being an unwanted side-effect of flying jet aircraft into being a deliberate means for changing the temperature and the chemistry of the atmosphere. So naturally it was denied that any change had occurred. Almost fifteen years after the implementation of a massive increase in the use of climate modification on a planetary scale, people are still conducting the chemtrails versus contrails debate. This is NOT what is happening with genetic modification. Ecologists are mostly not wasting their time arguing with corporation spokespersons over whether there is substantial equivalence between genetically modified and non-genetically modified food. The same should have happened with geoengineering, and if it hasn’t happened it should happen now.

I could mention just in passing that the general strike that took place in Greece last week made it possible for us to make a distinction that is normally concealed. For three hours, between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Wednesday 6th November Greece’s air-traffic controllers staged a work stoppage. All “conventional” air traffic was halted and timetables were altered to take into account the stoppage. Throughout these three hours chemtrail spraying planes continued their activity undisturbed. So they are not being monitored by air-traffic control.

It is worth tracing the different stages of the mainstream debate over aircraft emissions. This is not the debate among chemtrails activists: I am talking about the mainstream debate.  A few years ago, when Stavros Dimas was the EU’s Environmental Commissioner, the European Union introduced a policy of extending the EU’s emissions trading scheme to cover aviation, because aircraft were said to be contributing to a large and increasing extent to global greenhouse gas emissions and so to global warming. Dimas had the support of virtually all ecologists when he introduced these measures, because ecologists are virtually all on one side of the climate change debate, the side that is against the climate change skeptics. Once the scheme was introduced, the political mainstream no longer  had the same need for support from the Greens and we suddenly started hearing about the corruption of climate scientists: the Climategate scandal broke out shortly before the Copenhagen Climate Summit and contributed to the ruining of that summit.  Copenhagen marked a turning point: there was a sudden rapid expansion of open public discussion of geoengineering, including proposals for solar radiation management. Paradoxically the task of promoting geoengineering schemes for dealing with global warming was left  very largely to the climate change skeptics, who in the previous phase had been denying that there was a problem of anthropogenic global warming. Publicity videos began to appear, including one well-known one from the BBC, arguing for the idea that contrail cirrus from aircraft emissions played a valuable role in cooling the planet. So now, by implication, the public was being called simultaneously to support  two contradictory proposals: that there should be financial incentives to encourage airlines to reduce emissions to slow global warming, and also that it would be good for airlines to increase emissions to spread contrail cirrus and slow global warming by having not fewer but MORE aircraft in the sky.

So both sides of the climate change debate have been instrumentalized and exploited, both the skeptics and the ecologists, and the result is that geoengineering is going from strength to strength and acquiring  something like respectability, as a publicly admitted proposal. This is without even going into the question of chemtrails and the evident fact that while deliberate large-scale spraying is not being admitted by any government, it is obviously a well-established planetary reality, even if it is being represented as something that is not deliberate and not any different from the situation in the past, except that more aircraft are now flying.

Ecological organizations which twenty years ago would not have taken the risk of recommending geoengineering or identifying themselves with geoengineering are now beginning to do so.  Look at this publicity poster from the WWF in Switzerland.

(Cooling the Earth with artificial clouds is a solution for tomorrow. Perhaps.                              What if YOU were the solution from today?)

This implicit acceptance of geoengineering by the WWF runs counter to the moratorium on large scale geoengineering projects passed at Nagoya in Japan in 2010 at the Conference on Biodiversity. The moratorium is not being implemented and that is what the WWF should be publicizing. It should not be suggesting that there can be any tolerance by the citizens of this planet of the global spraying of toxic aerosols in the name of dealing with climate change. For a start the climate change skeptics, who deny that there is a problem of anthropogenic global warming, should be challenged on their attitude to geoengineering.  If there is no problem, how can the skeptics accept the so-called “solution” of geoengineering?  The fact that the two sides of the climate change debate have spent the last twenty years arguing with each other about climate change while never talking about geoengineering, and even saying that people who do talk about geoengineering are conspiracy theorists, is something that has to stop.

Last week the meteorologist Scott Stevens created a minor sensation in the alternative media through his accusations that hurricane Sandy had been caused by geoengineering.  In fact anyone who wants to can see the Tesla Tech Array infrasonic undulation from the satellite tracking that show how Sandy was steered out of the mid-ocean to destroy all of the northern part of the USA’s Atlantic seaboard.  The only question is not whether it happened, but why it happened: to influence the Presidential election result, to promote economic revival through reconstruction of destroyed cities, or simply to enrich certain criminal individuals? These are some of the questions that the economist Dimitris Kazakis began to examine on the first of our Enouranois videos.

Chemtrails do not serve a single purpose, of increasing albedo, cooling the planet or whatever. They also serve the purpose of increasing the conductivity of the atmosphere to facilitate the operations of Alaskan ionospheric heater HAARP, and the similar smaller installations that exist in other countries. HAARP was the subject of a report in the European Parliament in 1998, the work of the Swedish anti-nuclear campaigner Maj Britt Theorin.  Mrs Theorin’s report is entitled “On the Environment, Security and Foreign Policy”. It describes HAARP as “weapons system which disrupts the climate” and concludes that “by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment it is a global concern. Its legal, ecological and ethical implications must be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing.”

The European Commission said that it could not act on the report or try to implement it, because the European Commission does not have authority over defence questions, which are the responsibility of NATO. There are two things to say about this: firstly this contradicts the United States’ representation of what HAARP is, because US government says that HAARP is an ionospheric research programme, not a weapons system.  Secondly the European Commission’s acceptance of the status of not having responsibility for the defence of European citizens, and accepting that this should be entrusted to NATO, is  intolerable. A new organization called Skyguards is at present under development, including Green activists from Sweden, Spain and Cyprus, along with other activists, and is planning to continue the work started by Mrs. Maj-Britt Theorin in 1998. When one sees phenomena such as Cyclone Sandy one can understand that Americans, as much as Europeans and the people of the rest of the planet, need this work to be continued, because they are not being defended by their own government. They are being attacked by their own government.

W. Hall
Athens, 10th November 2012

2 Responses to Trying to Persuade the European Greens

  1. Swedcham says:

    I will immediately snatch your rss as I can not in finding your e-mail subscription link or e-newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Please permit me recognize so that I could subscribe. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers