Archive for September 30th, 2010
The Royal Society Is Forced To Admit Doubts On ‘Global Warming’
September 30, 2010: Steve Watson / Infowars.net - September 30, 2010
Ultra elitist environmental group The Royal Society has conceded that it has “uncertainties” over the science behind global warming, and admits that the planet is currently no longer heating up – a development that constitutes another significant blow to the idea that there is a scientific consensus on the matter.
The Royal Society’s guide, now titled ‘Climate change: a summary of the science’, has been altered following complaints from 43 of its own members that “knowledgeable people” were seeing through brazenly alarmist rhetoric. The previous Royal Society guides, called Climate Change Controversies and A Guide To Facts And Fictions About Climate Change produced in 2007 and 2005 respectively, were extremely frightening, yet completely unfounded future climate projections that called for governments to implement radical measures to prevent them from becoming reality.
The revised Royal Society guide (PDF here) refrains from pushing scare mongering scenarios of significantly rising sea levels and soaring temperatures, as it previously did. Instead it now reads, “It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential changes and associated uncertainties have been made.”…“Scientists continue to work to narrow these areas of uncertainty. Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected.” the guide continues.
“The previous guidance was discouraging debate rather than encouraging it among knowledgeable people. The new guidance is clearer and a very much better document.” Royal Society member Professor Anthony Kelly told the Daily Mail in an interview.
The guide also notes: “There is currently insufficient understanding of the enhanced melting and retreat of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica to predict exactly how much the rate of sea level rise will increase above that observed in the past century for a given temperature increase.”…“Similarly, the possibility of large changes in the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean cannot be assessed with confidence. The latter limits the ability to predict with confidence what changes in climate will occur in Western Europe.” it concludes.
The guide also states that the warming trend observed predominantly throughout the 1980s and 1990s stopped over a decade ago, an admission that has been forced following repeated exposure by warming skeptics, and that was also recently noted by Professor Phil Jones, the figure at the head of the Climategate scandal.
“The former publication gave the misleading impression that the ‘science is settled,’” Benny Peiser, Director of The Global Warming Policy Foundation sais, a group skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. “The new guide accepts that important questions remain open and uncertainties unresolved.” Peiser added.
However, The Royal Society clearly still wholeheartedly embraces the notion that human activity is altering the climate, even if it does couch it in less brazen rhetoric: “There is very strong evidence to indicate that climate change has occurred on a wide range of different timescales from decades to many millions of years; human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of potential causes of climate change,” the guide states.
The development is still a very significant one however, given that The Royal Society, a 350 year old establishment outfit, has traditionally been the most vocal proponent for the hypothesis of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). It was the former president of The Royal Society, Lord May, who made the infamous statement, “The debate on climate change is over.” When he was head of The Royal Society, May told government advisors: “On one hand, you have the entire scientific community and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots.”
The Royal Society has thrown its full weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and drastically reduce living standards everywhere. It has been even more vehement than national governments have in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term before the usual target date of 2050. Not surprising then that The Royal Society was also intimately tied to efforts to whitewash the Climategate emails scandal.
The Royal Society has also conducted extensive research into geoengineering the planet, and continually lobbies the government to divert funding into it. A recently published and lengthy UK Government report drew heavily upon the Society’s research and concluded that a global body such as the UN should be appointed to exclusively regulate world-wide geoengineering of the planet in order to stave off man made global warming. This information becomes even more disturbing when you consider the mindset of those who make up the membership of The Royal Society, as it is riddled with renowned eco-fascists, open eugenicists and depopulation fanatics.
One notable member is James Lovelock, an eco-fascist who advocates ending democracy and instituting an authoritative elite to oversee global climate management and a radical stemming of the human population in order to combat climate change. He is also a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population - which it refers to as “primates” or “animals” - to what it sees as a “sustainable” level.
Lovelock is also an ardent advocate of geoengineering. In 2007 Lovelock proposed laying vast swathes of pipes under the world’s oceans in order to pump water from the bottom of the seas – rich in nutrients, but mostly dead – to the top. The idea being that the action would encourage algae to breed, absorb more carbon and release more dimethyl sulphide into the atmosphere, a chemical known to seed sunlight reflecting clouds. Such methods are also covered in the Commons report.
Another member is Jonathon Porritt, former chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, one of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, who has stated that Britain’s population must be cut in half from around 60 million to 30 million if it is to build a sustainable society. Porritt is also a member of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), a connection that caused raised eyebrows when it was announced that Porritt was to be a part of a forthcoming Royal Society “Objective” Global Population Study.
Also on the Royal Society’s working group for their global population study is another of their patrons, and another OPT member, BBC darling, wildlife broadcaster and film-maker Sir David Attenborough. Attenborough has called for a one child policy like that of Communist China to be implemented in Britain. The proposal is one of the OPT’s main initiatives. Again, how is this man’s influence going to result in an “objective” study on population?
Another member of that working group is Cambridge economist Sir Partha Dasgupta, also a fellow of the OPT. Professor Malcolm Potts, another member of the working group was the first male doctor at the Marie Stopes Abortion Clinic in London. He also advised on the UK’s 1967 Abortion Act.
Marie Stopes was a prominent campaigner for the implementation of eugenics policies. In Radiant Motherhood (1920) she called for the “sterilisation of those totally unfit for parenthood [to] be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.” That group, according to her, included non-whites and the poor. Stopes, an anti-Semite Nazi sympathizer, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.
Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes. Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.
Perhaps most notably, is the head of The Royal Society’s new study, John Sulston, who most famously played a leading role in the Human Genome Project, the effort to identify and map the thousands of genes of the human genome. Sulston worked under James D. Watson, a notorious eugenicist who has previously argued that black people are inherently less intelligent than whites and has advocated the creation of a “super-race” of humans, where the attractive and physically strong are genetically manufactured under laboratory conditions.
Watson is also affiliated with The Royal Society, indeed, in 1993 he received the Society’s Copley Medal of honour for “outstanding achievements in research in any branch of science, and alternates between the physical sciences and the biological sciences”. Sulston is also a leading advocate of the renowned atheist group, The British Humanist Association.
It is clear that this organisation and these people are immersed in the science of eugenics, and that they have continued the science under the guise of environmentalism. They hate humanity and any notion that their studies will represent anything other than an establishment avocation of mass depopulation is farcical. It is imperative that the media, places of education, government representatives and the wider public are made aware of these facts.
The fact that The Royal Society has been forced to backtrack and tone down it’s rhetoric on global warming highlights that their agenda is being successfully exposed…
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Global Warming Or Global Governance?
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: This is indeed another victory for truth. I have spent the better part of ten years exposing the fraud of man-made global warming (AGW) while simultaneously bringing public attention to the geo-engineering of the atmosphere - aka chemtrails – being sprayed relentlessly across the globe. And finally, we are winning this war for the minds of humanity by revealing the truth and exposing the lies! – SJH
Link to original article below…
Biblical Clues In Stuxnet Computer Worm Implicates US And Israel
September 30, 2010: John Markoff & David E. Sanger / New York Times – September 29, 2010
Deep inside the computer worm that some specialists suspect is aimed at slowing Iran’s race for a nuclear weapon lies what could be a fleeting reference to the Book of Esther, the Old Testament tale in which the Jews pre-empt a Persian plot to destroy them.
That use of the word “Myrtus” — which can be read as an allusion to Esther — to name a file inside the code is one of several murky clues that have emerged as computer experts try to trace the origin and purpose of the rogue Stuxnet program, which seeks out a specific kind of command module for industrial equipment. Not surprisingly, the Israelis are not saying whether Stuxnet has any connection to the secretive cyberwar unit it has built inside Israel’s intelligence service.
Nor is the Obama administration, which while talking about cyber-defenses has also rapidly ramped up a broad covert program, inherited from the Bush administration, to undermine Iran’s nuclear program. In interviews in several countries, experts in both cyberwar and nuclear enrichment technology say the Stuxnet mystery may never be solved.
There are many competing explanations for myrtus, which could simply signify myrtle, a plant important to many cultures in the region. But some security experts see the reference as a signature allusion to Esther, a clear warning in a mounting technological and psychological battle as Israel and its allies try to breach Tehran’s most heavily guarded project. Others doubt the Israelis were involved and say the word could have been inserted as deliberate misinformation to implicate Israel.
“The Iranians are already paranoid about the fact that some of their scientists have defected and several of their secret nuclear sites have been revealed,” one former intelligence official who still works on Iran issues said recently. “Whatever the origin and purpose of Stuxnet, it ramps up the psychological pressure.” So a calling card in the code could be part of a mind game, or sloppiness, or whimsy from the coders.
The malicious code has appeared in many countries, notably China, India, Indonesia and Iran. But there are tantalizing hints that Iran’s nuclear program was the primary target. Officials in both the United States and Israel have made no secret of the fact that undermining the computer systems that control Iran’s huge enrichment plant at Natanz is a high priority. (The Iranians know it, too: They have never let international inspectors into the control room of the plant, the inspectors report, presumably to keep secret what kind of equipment they are using.)
The fact that Stuxnet appears designed to attack a certain type of Siemens industrial control computer, used widely to manage oil pipelines, electrical power grids and many kinds of nuclear plants, may be telling. Just last year officials in Dubai seized a large shipment of those controllers — known as the Simatic S-7 — after Western intelligence agencies warned that the shipment was bound for Iran and would likely be used in its nuclear program.
“What we were told by many sources,” said Olli Heinonen, who retired last month as the head of inspections at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, “was that the Iranian nuclear program was acquiring this kind of equipment.”
Also, starting in the summer of 2009, the Iranians began having tremendous difficulty running their centrifuges - the tall, silvery machines that spin at supersonic speed to enrich uranium - and which can explode spectacularly if they become unstable. In New York last week, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, shrugged off suggestions that the country was having trouble keeping its enrichment plants going.
Yet something — perhaps the worm or some other form of sabotage, bad parts or a dearth of skilled technicians — is indeed slowing Iran’s advance.
The reports on Iran show a fairly steady drop in the number of centrifuges used to enrich uranium at the main Natanz plant. After reaching a peak of 4,920 machines in May 2009, the numbers declined to 3,772 centrifuges this past August, the most recent reporting period. That is a decline of 23 percent. At the same time, production of low-enriched uranium has remained fairly constant, indicating the Iranians have learned how to make better use of fewer working machines.
Computer experts say the first versions of the worm appeared as early as 2009 and that the sophisticated version contained an internal time stamp from January of this year. These events add up to a mass of suspicions, not proof. Moreover, the difficulty experts have had in figuring out the origin of Stuxnet points to both the appeal and the danger of computer attacks in a new age of cyberwar.
For intelligence agencies they are an almost irresistible weapon, free of fingerprints. Israel has poured huge resources into Unit 8200, its secretive cyberwar operation, and the United States has built its capacity inside the National Security Agency and inside the military, which just opened a Cyber Command.
But the near impossibility of figuring out where they came from makes deterrence a huge problem — and explains why many have warned against the use of cyberweapons. No country, President Obama was warned even before he took office, is more vulnerable to cyberattack than the United States.
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: If there is one thing that I have learned in the course of over a decade of researching the global elite, it is that they always leave a clue or calling card to reveal the truth. It is a flawed creed they must adhere to in the teachings of their secret societies. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Israel and/or the US are responsible for this attack as the spin cycle begins to whirl… - SJH
London Telegraph: Computer Virus Forces Iran To Delay Production Of Nuclear Energy
Breitbart: Stuxnet ‘Cyber Superweapon’ Moves To China
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.f6fba55ad8f5e329c0c25bad9aa7b8d3.651&show_article=1
Daily Tech: Stuxnet Hits US Plants As Israel Suspected Of Sabotage
Link to original article below…
Chemtrails In The Sky: Atmospheric And Oceanic Geo-Engineering
September 30, 2010: Rosalind Peterson / Agriculture Defense Coalition – September 30, 2010
The Congressional Research Service released its new report on Geoengineering for members of the U.S. Congress on August 16, 2010. The U.S. House Science & Technology Committee will release their interim and final reports on their Geoengineering Hearings in September 2010. The U.S. House Science and Technology Committee on Geoengineering is working with the UK Parliament on Global Geoengineering Governance and has released its 5th Report (printed by the House of Commons) on March 10, 2010. All of these published reports are located below in the pdf file section.
SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT: ATMOSPHERIC & OCEAN GEOENGINEERING
Geoengineering is defined as planetary-scale environmental engineering of our atmosphere, our weather, the oceans, and the Earth itself. The methods, or schemes, that may be used now without public oversight or debate, prior public notification, U.S. Congress or State oversight, are staggering in number and scope.
(Update: We should all remember that volcanoes erupt each year negating the need for any geoengineering schemes to be deployed. In March 2010, a volcano in Iceland erupted and sent an ash cloud spreading over Europe which may last for months and may create global cooling along with acid rains which will have negative impacts on trees, water supplies, oceans, and soils. Earth’s natural systems are still working…and we can’t afford for man to add to these problems or exacerbate them by deploying more toxic chemicals and particles into the atmosphere to reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the Earth. Each unpredictable volcanic eruption on Earth has the same effect.
A few geoengineers have been on the news in recent days stating that the Iceland volcano will not cause any cooling…in order to keep promoting geoengineering as an option. It should be noted that other scientists have been stating for the news media that these volcanic plumes will change the weather and also that there are acid rains and human health problems which could be associated with this and other periodic eruptions.
Geoengineers had no advance notice of this eruption nor will they know when future eruptions will take place. Thus, we have to consider these natural events and measure their synergistic and cumulative effects before considering artificial geoengineering schemes. In addition, the synergistic and cumulative effects of their proposed geoengineering schemes, when natural volcanoes serve the same function, is unknown. It is now time to shelve man-made geoengineering schemes… – RP)
Many private corporations, universities, government agencies, private individuals, states, counties, and cities, have deployed, or will participate in deploying, a vast array of geoengineering experiments in the near future without public oversight or consent. Currently no government agency, or the U.S. Congress at this time, will have any idea what the cumulative or synergistic effects may be when these experiments are deployed. In addition, no one, not even the U.S. Congress or the public, will have any oversight of these programs, the chemicals or particles that will be used or how they will be implemented. Thus, action is needed today to prevent these questionable experiments.
The U.S. House Science & Technology Committee held their first Geoengineering Hearing on November 5, 2009. Two more were held in February and March 2010. The public, the Environmental Protection Agency, at either Federal or State levels, state agencies, agriculture representation, medical doctors, and ocean scientists were not asked to testify at this hearing or in the two subsequent hearings held in 2010. (C-SPAN did not tape or broadcast these hearings and the major media ignored them.)
The U.S. House Science & Technology Committee and the UK Parliament have engaged in an agreement to participate in geoengineering discussions and the possible implementation of global geoengineering governance proposed by the Royal Society and several climate scientists. Private and public meetings of climate scientists, with little media coverage, were initiated in February and March 2010, in California, in order to elaborate on possible geoengineering schemes and to discuss global geoengineering governance guidelines.
The purpose of one set of schemes are to initiate “Solar Radiation Management (SRM)” experiments. SRM is designed to reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the Earth. The consequences of these SRM schemes are unknown since planetary-scale engineering involves so many different geoengineering schemes with unknown cumulative and synergistic effects.
A key AAAS February 2010, geoengineering write-up states: “…Studies show, however, that people make judgments based primarily on their values, belief systems, world views, and emotions. Facts play a much more minor role. This gap cannot be bridged by loading the public with facts, or trying to make the public more science literate…” Thus, a whole series of presentations were made to advise geoengineers and others on how to manipulate the public so that they would support these schemes.
In a Press Release dated December of 2002 titled: “GEOENGINEERING TOO RISKY” A Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Press release warns, “…There are many reasons why geoengineering is not a preferred option for climate stabilization…” These prescriptions include risks of global “system failure” and the “unpredictable responses” of Earth’s climate system to large-scale human intervention…”
On March 22-26, 2010, the Climate Respond Fund (note the partners listing in the document section below), sponsored the Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies in Monterey, California. The conference was designed to develop (global geoengineering governance) guidelines for “…research and testing of proposed climate intervention and geoengineering technologies…”
What are the consequences of deploying Solar Radiation Management geoengineering experiments?
1) Some of these experiments are designed to reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the Earth thus reducing the power output and the effectiveness of solar panels and solar cars.
2) Many proposed chemicals or particles used in these geoengineering schemes (i.e., U.S. Navy/NASA/C.A.R.E. experiments deployed September 19, 2009), are likely to be toxic to humans, marine mammals, oceans, fish, wildlife, food pollinators, and birds. Many of these toxic chemicals, like sulfur, have the potential to contaminate drinking water, soil, cause acid rain or air pollution, and may impair human health from lack of Vitamin D, by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth.
3) NASA research studies show that increasingly persistent jet contrails may turn into “man-made clouds” (or white haze), and are “…trapping warmth in the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming…Any change in global cloud cover may contribute to long-term changes in the Earth’s climate…” No current U.S. legislation addresses water vapor and aviation impacts on the global atmosphere. In addition, our scientists do not appear to be funding or working toward reducing or eliminating this problem. What happens when additional programs are put in place to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth when we already have man-made clouds dimming the sun and exacerbating global warming?
4) SRM may limit Honey Bee food pollination because the bee navigates and communicates through the use of ultraviolet light. And we have no idea what the cumulative impacts of toxic chemicals, particles, and reduced sunlight will have on all of our pollinators, endangering food production.
5) Photosynthesis is required for the majority of life on Earth to exist, along with healthy trees, and food crop production. When cloud cover and reduced sunlight is present, crop production drops. When direct sunlight and normal rainfall is present, crop production increases. What happens when geoengineers deliberately reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the Earth? What are the consequences of multiple uncontrolled experiments?
The climate scientists and geoengineers all have one repeated mantra: “…Geoengineering is not a solution to climate change and global warming…” They are instead enlisting support to spend enormous sums to buy time to do something later. Just what research, project funding, and development are they now engaging in to fix our current pollution problems now? Nothing! They are not promoting research into benefits that will be long-lasting or make a difference now.
The “temporary fix” theory with “unknown consequences” seems to be their only contribution to the disaster they predict. Should the public be willing to accept this temporary fix with unknown consequences? This attitude is unacceptable because those conducting the geoengineering experiments will be unaccountable if their experiments go awry or create profound negative consequences.
Professor Benford wrote the following regarding the public in a Reason.com article in 1997: “…But perhaps the greatest unknown is social: How will the politically aware public react–those who vote, anyway? If geoengineers are painted early and often as Dr. Strangeloves of the air, they will fail. Properly portrayed as allies of science–and true environmentalism–they could become heroes… A major factor here will be whether mitigation looks like yet another top-down contrivance, another set of orders from the elite. Draconian policing of fuel burning will certainly look that way, a frowning Aunt Bessie elbowing into daily details…In contrast, mitigation does not have to push a new camel’s nose into our tents… Technical solutions can play out far from people’s lives, on the sea or high in the air…Once we become caretakers, we cannot stop…(they) must be carried forward in the shadow of our stewardship…”
Instead of questionable geoengineering experiments, all reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants, at their source, should be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency and all funding should go to the EPA for developing alternative energy and transportation. Scientists and researchers should be funded to invent ways to use waste energy from currently operating energy plants to produce clean, green power, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is where funding should be directed…not to those programs and experiments that will not reduce our impact on Earth from various types of pollution sources. The energy of the geoengineers should be redirected to solve pollution problems, not add to them.
On June 10, 2010 the U.S. Senate voted to uphold a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court Decision, that allows the EPA to regulate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
EPA regulation of greenhouse gases is the ideal solution because they can start today and the U.S. can lead the world in taking immediate action instead of waiting until 2017, under U.S. Senate Bill 1733, or 2020 under the United Nations Copenhagen Accord. The hitch in both U.S. Senate Bill 1733 (or the new one to be introduced by Senators Kerry & Lieberman), and the U.N. Accord on Climate Change is that no reductions are planned until either 2017 or 2020, and then only a 10-20% reduction in greenhouse gas emission is on the table at this time – nothing that starts today…which means, due to the long delay and limited reductions, that there must be no greenhouse crisis?
Our local, county, state and federal representatives should take immediate action to stop these geoengineering scheme deployments until scientists from every field, agriculture interests, ocean scientists, marine biologists, and the public have had time to thoroughly investigate these schemes and their effects on the Earth’s environment. No one has the right to use the Earth, or Earth’s atmosphere, as a giant experimental physics laboratory due to the unknown consequences of such actions.
State and U.S. Congressional Hearings should be immediately held in order to completely investigate the consequences of proposed and ongoing geoengineering experiments by any individual, state, county, private corporation, the U.S. military, university or U.S. government agencies on agriculture, crop production, human health, and our oceans. There is a lot at stake and all of us should make our voices heard in this debate. End
Note: Professor Gregory Benford of U.C. Irving stated in his article on Arctic Geoengineering on November 20, 2006: “…This idea is only the first step in making climate science…into an active science… This is not a new transition in scientific style…We will live inside the experiment …The main thrust of all this is to carefully use our ability to attack warming at its roots – incoming sunlight now, carbon dioxide later… Costs seem readily attainable – perhaps a few hundred of millions of dollars for an Arctic experiment. High altitude trials over the open ocean are little constrained by law or treaty, so show-stopper politics may be avoided…”
Funding: January 28, 2010 Wired Science: Bill Gates has sunk at least $4.5 million of his personal wealth into geoengineering research. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/bill-gates-paying-for-climate-hacking-resear
“…While it’s a small chunk of Gates’ vast personal fortune, it’s a sign that the founder of Microsoft thinks we should at least be looking into the controversial practice of intentionally altering the Earth’s climate on a global scale. “[Gates] views geoengineering as a way to buy time, but it’s not a solution to the problem” of climate change, Gates’ spokesperson John Pinette told Science Insider. “Bill views this as an important avenue for research — among many others, including new forms of clean energy.”
The money will be directed by two high-level scientists at the forefront of geoengineering research: climate scientist Ken Caldeira, of Stanford’s Carnegie Department of Global Ecology, and physicist David Keith of the University of Calgary. They will decide which technologies should receive the cash in order to alter the stratosphere to reflect solar energy, filter carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere and brighten ocean clouds…”
“…In a related development Keith, one of the scientists directing Gates’ money, co-authored a Nature editorial this week calling for an international fund for “solar-radiation management” in addition to traditional carbon emissions cuts. “Solar-radiation management may be the only human response that can fend off rapid and high-consequence climate change impacts,” Keith said in a press release Wednesday… He and his co-authors, Edward Parson at the University of Michigan and Granger Morgan at Carnegie Mellon University, propose a budget for solar-radiation management (aka geoengineering), beginning with $10 million a year now and growing to $1 billion annually by the end of 2020. The organization that manages the funds would also develop the governance structures to provide transparent risk analysis and manage feedback from the world’s countries…” Thus, there would be no Congressional or public oversight…complete freedom to use the oceans and the atmosphere as a private physics laboratory… [read more below]
How Do You Like Your Skies…Natural or Man-Made?
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: This article contains a veritable motherload of information concerning Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering, aka Chemtrails. Continue reading and researching below… - SJH
Link to entire article below with PDF archives…
