witchy1
12th December 2010, 07:25
If you are following the chemtrails here are 2 reads for you. I have cut and pasted from both articles as a teaser. Looks like everyone is on the bandwagon under fixing climate change! Apologies in advance - its a bit all over the place:
http://blacklistednews.com/UN-Climate-Concern-Morphs-into-Chemtrail-Glee-Club-/11833/0/6/6/Y/M.html
This one as well: Case Orange.
DOWNLOAD the “CASE ORANGE” Report (PDF without appendices (http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/case_orange-5-10-2010-belfort-chemtrails.pdf))
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/case-orange-60-years-of-geoengineering-goes-into-hyperdrive-as-%e2%80%98plan-b%e2%80%99/
“Weather manipulation through contrail formation … is in place and fully operational.”
Case Orange cites publicly available material that shows geoengineering has been ongoing for “at least 60 years.” Used as a weapon of war in Hamburg by the UK during World War II, it was also used in the Vietnam Conflict by the US. Controversy over its use, revealed by investigative reporter Jack Anderson, spurred Senate hearings in 1972. During those hearings, military officials denied the use of cloud seeding technology. Later, a private letter from Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird surfaced, admitting that his testimony was false. He, again unbelievably, claimed he didn’t know what was happening. [9]
Case Orange suggests that geoengineering found new life in the global warming scare. Old patents are being dusted off and private interests stand to make substantial sums now that Cap and Trade has been exposed as ineffective in reducing greenhouse gases. (Although, lawmakers are still considering it since much can be earned on the scheme, to wit: Al Gore reportedly achieved billionaire status from it.)
Since 2007, billionaire Bill Gates has spent at least $4.5 million on geoengineering research. [16] Since reducing emissions is not popular with industry, ‘Plan B’ – geoengineering – is being touted as the answer to climate change and water shortage. A longer description of Plan B is: Add more pollution to the sky and water to offset the deleterious effects of industrial pollution, without reducing industrial pollution.
Human rights and environmental watchdog, ETC Group, describes the momentum [17]:
“The roll-out of geoengineering as Plan B is being skillfully executed: prominent high-level panels sponsored by prestigious groups, a spate of peer-reviewed articles this January in science journals, and a line-up of panicked politicians in northern countries, nodding nervously in agreement as scientists testify about the ‘need to research Plan B.’”
ETC reports that Gates’ top geoengineering advisor unveiled a plan to grow solar radiation management research “one-hundred-fold, from $10 million to $1 billion over ten years.”
__________________________________
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) opened the Cancun conference last week by discussing geoengineering options (http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_16/media/application/pdf/101129_cop16_oc_rpac.pdf) that will be further explored in Peru later this year. Such environmental modification (ENMOD) programs include putting mirrors in space, iron seeding the oceans, planting genetically modified forests, and chemtrailing the skies. Of course, all of these activities are already well underway (http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/case-orange-60-years-of-geoengineering-goes-into-hyperdrive-as-%e2%80%98plan-b%e2%80%99/).
In CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies (http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/case_orange-5-10-2010-belfort-chemtrails.pdf),” researchers revealed that “the proposed scenario by the IPCC in 2001 is identical to the claims” in Hughes Aircraft’s 1991 patent. Hughes was acquired by Raytheon, a major defense contractor, in 1997.
Delivery systems aren’t the only types of patents related to chemtrails. Aluminum is part of the various metal-chemical cocktails (http://www.rense.com/general30/deby.htm) sprayed and is highly toxic to plants (http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/05/monsanto-develops-aluminum-resistant-biotech-seeds), therefore representing a serious threat to normal agriculture. For over thirteen years, biotech scientists have researched aluminum resistant genes (http://cornellsun.com/node/23945) in plants, finally isolating one in 2007. Today, a “new generation of genetically engineered crop research” seeks to develop aluminum-resistance (http://www.ifpri.org/publication/delivering-genetically-engineered-crops-poor-farmers) in commercial crops.
Blogger Cassandra Anderson recently noted (http://morphcity.com/home/87-geoengineering-climate-ghous-plan-b) that the ETC Group is partly funded (http://www.etcgroup.org/en/about/annual_reports) by the Ford Foundation, “known for supporting depopulation (http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.329/pub_detail.asp).” So far, ETC has adamantly opposed geoengineering, as well as genetic engineering, both suspected depopulation tools. However, ETC also denies current ENMOD activities, saying “there is no actual deployment to govern"
In “Confronting the ‘futuristic’ branding of geoengineering (http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/rebranding-geoengineering/),” mass perception management and the ETC Group are explored in more detail.
Environmental watchdog ETC Group* notes in its 56-page report, “Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering (http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/pdf_file/ETC_geopiracy2010_0.pdf),” that, “there is a complex web of connections between big capital and the global technofixers, comprised of researchers, multinational corporations and small start-ups, the military establishment and respected think tanks, policy makers and politicians. The non-profit institutions that promote geoengineering are well connected with the private sector.”
However, with widespread reporting of rising global temperatures, increasing population, and degradation of water supplies, renewed interest in EnMod is now becoming broadly supported. (See, e.g., Top economists recommend climate engineering, 4 Sep 2009 [11] and similarly, Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, 1 Sep 2009.[12])
\
http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/euro-spraying-scheme-january-5-2010.jpg?w=367&h=282 (http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/euro-spraying-scheme-january-5-2010.jpg)
The secretary of defense may conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological agents on civilian populations.
Public law of the United States, Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977.
Codified as 50 USC 1520, under Chapter 32 Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, Public Law 95-79 was repealed in 1997 by Public Law 105-85. In its place, 15 USC 1520a provides restrictions (such as informed consent). 50 USC 1512, however, allows open air testing of chemicals and biologicals and allows presidential override of notices and of public health considerations for national security reasons. [25]
Case Orange authors are thus correct, it seems, in asserting that such programs are legal, if reprehensible, in the U.S.
http://blacklistednews.com/UN-Climate-Concern-Morphs-into-Chemtrail-Glee-Club-/11833/0/6/6/Y/M.html
This one as well: Case Orange.
DOWNLOAD the “CASE ORANGE” Report (PDF without appendices (http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/case_orange-5-10-2010-belfort-chemtrails.pdf))
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/case-orange-60-years-of-geoengineering-goes-into-hyperdrive-as-%e2%80%98plan-b%e2%80%99/
“Weather manipulation through contrail formation … is in place and fully operational.”
Case Orange cites publicly available material that shows geoengineering has been ongoing for “at least 60 years.” Used as a weapon of war in Hamburg by the UK during World War II, it was also used in the Vietnam Conflict by the US. Controversy over its use, revealed by investigative reporter Jack Anderson, spurred Senate hearings in 1972. During those hearings, military officials denied the use of cloud seeding technology. Later, a private letter from Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird surfaced, admitting that his testimony was false. He, again unbelievably, claimed he didn’t know what was happening. [9]
Case Orange suggests that geoengineering found new life in the global warming scare. Old patents are being dusted off and private interests stand to make substantial sums now that Cap and Trade has been exposed as ineffective in reducing greenhouse gases. (Although, lawmakers are still considering it since much can be earned on the scheme, to wit: Al Gore reportedly achieved billionaire status from it.)
Since 2007, billionaire Bill Gates has spent at least $4.5 million on geoengineering research. [16] Since reducing emissions is not popular with industry, ‘Plan B’ – geoengineering – is being touted as the answer to climate change and water shortage. A longer description of Plan B is: Add more pollution to the sky and water to offset the deleterious effects of industrial pollution, without reducing industrial pollution.
Human rights and environmental watchdog, ETC Group, describes the momentum [17]:
“The roll-out of geoengineering as Plan B is being skillfully executed: prominent high-level panels sponsored by prestigious groups, a spate of peer-reviewed articles this January in science journals, and a line-up of panicked politicians in northern countries, nodding nervously in agreement as scientists testify about the ‘need to research Plan B.’”
ETC reports that Gates’ top geoengineering advisor unveiled a plan to grow solar radiation management research “one-hundred-fold, from $10 million to $1 billion over ten years.”
__________________________________
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) opened the Cancun conference last week by discussing geoengineering options (http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_16/media/application/pdf/101129_cop16_oc_rpac.pdf) that will be further explored in Peru later this year. Such environmental modification (ENMOD) programs include putting mirrors in space, iron seeding the oceans, planting genetically modified forests, and chemtrailing the skies. Of course, all of these activities are already well underway (http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/case-orange-60-years-of-geoengineering-goes-into-hyperdrive-as-%e2%80%98plan-b%e2%80%99/).
In CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies (http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/case_orange-5-10-2010-belfort-chemtrails.pdf),” researchers revealed that “the proposed scenario by the IPCC in 2001 is identical to the claims” in Hughes Aircraft’s 1991 patent. Hughes was acquired by Raytheon, a major defense contractor, in 1997.
Delivery systems aren’t the only types of patents related to chemtrails. Aluminum is part of the various metal-chemical cocktails (http://www.rense.com/general30/deby.htm) sprayed and is highly toxic to plants (http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/05/monsanto-develops-aluminum-resistant-biotech-seeds), therefore representing a serious threat to normal agriculture. For over thirteen years, biotech scientists have researched aluminum resistant genes (http://cornellsun.com/node/23945) in plants, finally isolating one in 2007. Today, a “new generation of genetically engineered crop research” seeks to develop aluminum-resistance (http://www.ifpri.org/publication/delivering-genetically-engineered-crops-poor-farmers) in commercial crops.
Blogger Cassandra Anderson recently noted (http://morphcity.com/home/87-geoengineering-climate-ghous-plan-b) that the ETC Group is partly funded (http://www.etcgroup.org/en/about/annual_reports) by the Ford Foundation, “known for supporting depopulation (http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.329/pub_detail.asp).” So far, ETC has adamantly opposed geoengineering, as well as genetic engineering, both suspected depopulation tools. However, ETC also denies current ENMOD activities, saying “there is no actual deployment to govern"
In “Confronting the ‘futuristic’ branding of geoengineering (http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/rebranding-geoengineering/),” mass perception management and the ETC Group are explored in more detail.
Environmental watchdog ETC Group* notes in its 56-page report, “Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering (http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/pdf_file/ETC_geopiracy2010_0.pdf),” that, “there is a complex web of connections between big capital and the global technofixers, comprised of researchers, multinational corporations and small start-ups, the military establishment and respected think tanks, policy makers and politicians. The non-profit institutions that promote geoengineering are well connected with the private sector.”
However, with widespread reporting of rising global temperatures, increasing population, and degradation of water supplies, renewed interest in EnMod is now becoming broadly supported. (See, e.g., Top economists recommend climate engineering, 4 Sep 2009 [11] and similarly, Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, 1 Sep 2009.[12])
\
http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/euro-spraying-scheme-january-5-2010.jpg?w=367&h=282 (http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/euro-spraying-scheme-january-5-2010.jpg)
The secretary of defense may conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological agents on civilian populations.
Public law of the United States, Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977.
Codified as 50 USC 1520, under Chapter 32 Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, Public Law 95-79 was repealed in 1997 by Public Law 105-85. In its place, 15 USC 1520a provides restrictions (such as informed consent). 50 USC 1512, however, allows open air testing of chemicals and biologicals and allows presidential override of notices and of public health considerations for national security reasons. [25]
Case Orange authors are thus correct, it seems, in asserting that such programs are legal, if reprehensible, in the U.S.