In My Humble Opinion
By Mikael on Tuesday 28 September 2010, 23:37 - Permalink
During the last days, a lot of irritating messages about so called
"chemtrails" have arrived in my mailbox. In my humble opinion, "chemtrails" is
a diversion, because the evidence for the alleged secret global spraying of the
atmosphere is lacking.
There is, however, a general tendency towards "geoengineering" the
Earth's climate. This was recently described in the Slate-article "Can
Space Reflectors Save Us? Why we shouldn't buy into geoengineering
fantasies". Geoengineering is a fatal strategy, to be resisted and
combated like uranium mining and the construction of new nuclear power
plants.
The question is: how to deconstruct the biggest oil burner and polluter of the environment, i.e. the military-industrial-academic complex, in order to achieve the necessary degrowth of production and consumption?
Let 11 September 1906 be our starting point, as it marks the birth of satyagraha in South Africa and India's non-violent liberation movement. And let's find out what really happened on 11 September 2001. The evidence in favor of the hypothesis that WTC in New York was brought down by explosives in the process known as controlled demolition, is already overwhelming. (See The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven Why NIST's Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False, by David Ray Griffin.)
Comments
There is one crucial difference between geoengineering, particularly of the aerosol spraying kind, and uranium mining/construction of nuclear power stations, Mikael, and that is that when a uranium mine or a nuclear power station is built, this is not kept secret, at least as far as I know.
Organizations like "Hands off Mother Earth" oppose most forms of geoengineering, and campaign against it in the international organizations. This activity, as far as it goes, is worthy of support, but it will not in itself do anything to stop activity that is being pursued clandestinely.
Whether more "proof" is needed of the reality of "chemtrails" as some call them, or "long-lasting contrails" as others call them is a matter that is under discussion. I personally do not believe that more proof is required than that already provided in the "Case Orange" report,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index....
notwithstanding the disadvantage of its authors' anonymity, as admitted by Coen Vermeeren.
For me the problem is not one of finding more proof but of understanding the reason for the official secrecy. I make some preliminary attempts at an explanation in my latest article on the subject:
http://www.enouranois.gr/english/sy...
'"Goodell makes it perfectly clear in his book that a key criterion (legally and politically speaking) in the geoengineering discussion is “intentionality”, and that once it is admitted that weather and climate modification is being carried out deliberately, the question of “climate justice” will arise. And because Goodell and the “good cop” geoengineers generally are not willing, or do not feel able, to provide leadership for such a global “climate justice” crusade (for one thing they fear the power of the climate skeptics to whip up public hysteria against them) they feel obliged to persist in their position that no intentional geoengineering programmes are in operation."
Support for campaigns such as "Hands off Mother Earth" should therefore be supplemented, in my opinion, by an expression of willingness to do what governments, politicians, scientists, are NOT prepared to do, i.e. take political responsibility for such forms of geoengineering, if any, that are susceptible of rational defence. This would take the political initiative away from the "climate change deniers", who currently support both denial of the reality of anthropogenic climate change and aggressive promotion of geoengineering as a solution to problem whose reality they deny.
They are currently on the offensive, and the "good" supporters of geoengineering, along with groups like H.O.M.E., are on the defensive and in retreat.
Political responsibility for tolerable forms of geoengineering, if they exist, does not include penal responsibility for illegal forms of engineering. But the point would be to indicate to anyone with complaints about "chemtrails" to come to us, not continue (or not only continue) vainly petitioning governments who simply continue to deny that "anything abnormal" is happening.
For one thing, we have better advisors than the parliamentarians who have sought to raise "chemtrails" as "a problem" in national parliaments or the European parliament. The response to their enquiries has been a string of repetitious and indefensible nonsense. People who petition us rather than parliamentarians will at least not be insulted in this way, even if we currently have even less power than parliamentarians to "do anything".