Quote:

Ja det är en upplysande film som ger lite insikt i vad det rör sig om...samtidigt är det lite kul att somliga i den här tråden gör allt för att försvara det som enligt folkrätten är lagvidrigt...mycket intressant då det säger mer om dem än sakinnehållet i filmen..vilket kanske också är deras uppsåt.....

( ursäkta att jag går lite OT här....
Det skulle vara en upplevelse att se Pax och xpz2 som två vittnen till en bilolycka där de står på varsin sida av vägen.
Vittnesförhöret skulle bli en fight om huruvida bilen kom från höger eller vänster...och de kommer absolut att fastna i en mycket lång debatt om vilken som ha rätt utan tanke på att de stod på varsin sida av vägen... )

Quote:
Nämen sedär.
69000 ppb = 69 ppm alltså. Eller 0,0069 %

Det är häpnadsväckande att inte Shen eller Gaston insåg det orimliga i 6,9% aluminiuminnehåll i vatten.

Kan du berätta vad det är för mätning man pratar om? Finns någon källa nånstans?
Quote:
Du och Shen har tydligen svårt att skilja på miljondel och miljarddel, på 69 och 69000. Men det kanske är okej.

Om jag inte hörde fel sa dom tusentals gånger större mängd i filmen.
och nämnde något på 69.
Tyckte jag hörde 69000.

Får väl kolla om filmen då.

Ja oj så häppnadsväckande oj men herra-jumalauta så svårt jag har men ojojoj det är tragedi jag tror jag får en vårta på min vänsta lilltå.

Om jag inte har fel så säger amerikaner ochså biljon till lite allt möjligt.

Isåfall blir det väl ppb.

Men låter iallafall inte som tusentals gånger 2 ppm i mina öron.
Eller om det är tusentals ggr 2 ppb mängden så är det iallfall en väsentlig ökning från 2 ppb till tusentals ggr den mängden oavsett.

22:53 Lailatov på er ochså ZZzzzZZzzZZZzz

Quote:
Ja de nämner och visar siffran 69.000 i filmen var har de fått de andra siffrorna ifrån...?
siffran 61.100 nämns också....
69 gånger gränsvärdet för drickbart vatten nämns
Men här är en annan mätning...
http://i53.tinypic.com/aeti86.jpg

PAX!

Jag vet inte vad du menar med "ny religiöst beteende" ?

Kanske har du inte varit med så länge att du upplevt tiden innan himmeln förmörkades av moln producrade av kondensstrimmor?
jag är född på 60 talet, och har alltid haft ett öga upp i skyn, så att detta har skett är faktum. Ta fram fotoalbumet från tex 70 och 80 talet och försök hitta dessa moln eller brutala kondensstrimmor, nepp nada
SMHI har gått ut med att "en ny typ av moln" helt plötsligt blivit till, samtidigt som man med enkelhet kan konstatera att det är flyget som gör molnen. Så långt finns det inga tvivel.

Sedan kommer vi till punkten: har någon i denna värld orsakat detta med flit?

IPCC NASA NOOA mf har sagt att molnbildning av kondensstrimmor vore önskvärt för att reflektera bort solens instrålning för att förhindra en "global uppvärmningen" (som enligt AGW-religionen ska ske någon gång).

patenten på lösningar är många, likaså antalet geoengineering och weather modification företagen som utveklar tekniken

Vi har bevis för att:
#någon vill att kondensstrimmorna ska skapa moln
#någon har den tekniska lösningen
#något har hänt med kondensstrimmorna.

Det enda som saknas är erkännande, istället får vi förnekelse
av samtliga inblandade trots bevis, vilket bevisar medveten mörkläggning. likaså när någon som vill förhindra att sanningen kommer fram, hänger på forum som detta och ältar utan att ens söka något svar, förlöjliga personer som söker sanningen osv. Detta beteende är inget nytt, det förkommer alltid när den som har något att dölja börjar genomskådas.

likaså bidrar denna mörkläggning till att man börjar misstänka att den egentliga oraken till chemtrailingen är en helt annan än vad jag skrev.

Seså, googla på om du verkligen vill veta, kräv inte att vi ska övertyga dej, det kan du bara göra själv. vill du inte det, så förstår jag inte vad du gör här, (om det inte är av orsaken jag nämnde några rader

Här är lite mer från klimatkyrkans korståg..

Great news: UN Agrees Moratorium on Geoengineering Experiments!!

http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/20 ... oengineering-experiments/


To everyone who has supported the HOME Campaign, uploaded their image to the photo petition, written to CBD delegates and spread the word – congratulations to you! This is a huge and important step forward in protecting our home planet from the threat of geoengineering experiments.

Det här tror jag att några här på sidan sörjer....och kommer att svara med att det inte har med geoengeneering att göra.....

Det här kommer inte Pax och zpz2 att gilla......nu väntar vi bara på deras kommentar....




BREAKING: UN Bans Chemtrails


Geoengineering Moratorium Agreed at UN Ministerial in Japan

By ETC Group

Risky Climate Techno-fixes Blocked

NAGOYA, Japan – In a landmark consensus decision, the 193-member UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will close its tenth biennial meeting with a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments. “Any private or public experimentation or adventurism intended to manipulate the planetary thermostat will be in violation of this carefully crafted UN consensus,” stated Silvia Ribeiro, Latin American Director of ETC Group.

The agreement, reached during the ministerial portion of the two-week meeting which included 110 environment ministers, asks governments to ensure that no geoengineering activities take place until risks to the environmental and biodiversity and associated social, cultural and economic impacts risks have been appropriately considered as well as the socio-economic impacts. The CBD secretariat was also instructed to report back on various geoengineering proposals and potential intergovernmental regulatory measures.

The unusually strong consensus decision builds on the 2008 moratorium on ocean fertilization. That agreement, negotiated at COP 9 in Bonn, put the brakes on a litany of failed “experiments” – both public and private – to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide in the oceans’ depths by spreading nutrients on the sea surface. Since then, attention has turned to a range of futuristic proposals to block a percentage of solar radiation via large-scale interventions in the atmosphere, stratosphere and outer space that would alter global temperatures and precipitation patterns.

“This decision clearly places the governance of geoengineering in the United Nations where it belongs,” said ETC Group Executive Director Pat Mooney.

“This decision is a victory for common sense, and for precaution. It will not inhibit legitimate scientific research. Decisions on geoengineering cannot be made by small groups of scientists from a small group of countries that establish self-serving ‘voluntary guidelines’ on climate hacking. What little credibility such efforts may have had in some policy circles in the global North has been shattered by this decision. The UK Royal Society and its partners should cancel their Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative and respect that the world’s governments have collectively decided that future deliberations on geoengineering should take place in the UN, where all countries have a seat at the table and where civil society can watch and influence what they are doing.”

Delegates in Nagoya have now clearly understood the potential threat that deployment – or even field testing – of geoengineering technologies poses to the protection of biodiversity. The decision was hammered out in long and difficult late night sessions of a “Friends of the chair” group, attended by ETC Group, and adopted by the Working Group 1 Plenary on 27 October 2010. The Chair of the climate and biodiversity negotiations called the final text “a highly delicate compromise.” All that remains to do now is gavel it through in the final plenary at 6 PM Friday (Nagoya time).

“The decision is not perfect,” said Neth Dano of ETC Group Philippines. “Some delegations are understandably concerned that the interim definition of geoengineering is too narrow because it does not include Carbon Capture and Storage technologies. Before the next CBD meeting, there will be ample opportunity to consider these questions in more detail. But climate techno-fixes are now firmly on the UN agenda and will lead to important debates as the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit approaches. A change of course is essential, and geoengineering is clearly not the way forward.”

####

The full texts of the relevant decisions on geoengineering are copied below:

Under Climate Change and Biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.36)

8. Invites Parties and other Governments, according to national circumstance and priorities, as well as relevant organizations and processes, to consider the guidance below on ways to conserve, sustainably use and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services while contributing to climate‑change mitigation and adaptation:
….
(w) Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering activities[1] that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment;

[1] Without prejudice to future deliberations on the definition of geo-engineering activities, understanding that any technologies that deliberately reduce solar insolation or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity (excluding carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels when it captures carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere) should be considered as forms of geo-engineering which are relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity until a more precise definition can be developed. Noting that solar insolation is defined as a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given hour and that carbon sequestration is defined as the process of increasing the carbon content of a reservoir/pool other than the atmosphere.

AND

9 9. Requests the Executive Secretary to:
….
(o) Compile and synthesize available scientific information, and views and experiences of indigenous and local communities and other stakeholders, on the possible impacts of geo‑engineering techniques on biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural considerations, and options on definitions and understandings of climate-related geo-engineering relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity and make it available for consideration at a meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice prior to the eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties;

(p) Taking into account the possible need for science based global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms, subject to the availability of financial resources, undertake a study on gaps in such existing mechanisms for climate-related geo-engineering relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity, bearing in mind that such mechanisms may not be best placed under the Convention on Biological Diversity, for consideration by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific Technical and Technological Advice prior to a future meeting of the Conference of the Parties and to communicate the results to relevant organizations;

Under New and Emerging Issues UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.2 :

4. Invites Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations to submit information on synthetic biology and geo-engineering, for the consideration by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, in accordance with the procedures of decision IX/29, while applying the precautionary approach to the field release of synthetic life, cell or genome into the environment;

Under Marine and Coastal Biodiversity UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.42

13. Reaffirming that the programme of work still corresponds to the global priorities, has been further strengthened through decisions VIII/21, VIII/22, VIII/24, and IX/20, but is not fully implemented, and therefore encourages Parties to continue to implement these programme elements, and endorses the following guidance, where applicable and in accordance with national capacity and circumstances, for enhanced implementation:

(e) Ensuring that no ocean fertilization takes place unless in accordance with decision IX/16 C and taking note of the report (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/14/INF/7) and development noted para 57 – 62;

Impacts of ocean fertilization on marine and coastal biodiversity

57. Welcomes the report on compilation and synthesis of available scientific information on potential impacts of direct human-induced ocean fertilization on marine biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/14/INF/7), which was prepared in collaboration with United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and the International Maritime Organization in pursuance of paragraph 3 of decision IX/20;

58. Recalling the important decision IX/16 C on ocean fertilization, reaffirming the precautionary approach, recognizes that given the scientific uncertainty that exists, significant concern surrounds the potential intended and unintended impacts of large-scale ocean fertilization on marine ecosystem structure and function, including the sensitivity of species and habitats and the physiological changes induced by micro-nutrient and macro-nutrient additions to surface waters as well as the possibility of persistent alteration of an ecosystem, and requests Parties to implement decision IX/16 C;

59. Notes that the governing bodies under the London Convention and Protocol adopted in 2008 resolution LC-LP.1 (2008) on the regulation of ocean fertilization, in which Contracting Parties declared, inter alia, that given the present state of knowledge, ocean fertilization activities other than legitimate scientific research should not be allowed;

60. Recognizes the work under way within the context of the London Convention and London Protocol to contribute to the development of a regulatory mechanism referred to in decision IX/16 C, and invites Parties and other Governments to act in accordance with the Resolution LC-LP.2(2010) of the London Convention and Protocol ;

61. Notes that in order to provide reliable predictions on the potential adverse impacts on marine biodiversity of activities involving ocean fertilization, further work to enhance our knowledge and modelling of ocean biogeochemical processes is required, in accordance with decision IX/16 (c) and taking into account decision IX/20 and LC-LP.2 (2010);

62. Notes also that there is a pressing need for research to advance our understanding of marine ecosystem dynamics and the role of the ocean in the global carbon cycle;

####

Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering is a new publication by ETC Group that provides an overview of the issues involved. See here: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5217

Also see the new film What in the World Are They Spraying? Watch the entire film by G. Edward Griffin, Michael J. Murphy, and Paul Whittenberger. (2010, 98 mins). Go HERE to purchase a DVD, make copies, and spread the word.





http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010 ... -votes-to-ban-chemtrails/

Hahahaha huvudet på spiken.

Pricken över I:et gaston

Global convention delegates consider strict limits on climate engineering


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/post ... vention_considers_ge.html


Global convention delegates consider strict limits on climate engineering

By Juliet Eilperin
Delegates to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, Japan, are considering language to limit research into geo-engineering, the science of manipulating the climate.

According to draft language obtained by The Washington Post, the proposal would declare that "no climate-related geo-engineering activities... that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small-scale scientific research studies" under a controlled setting.

The measure could stifle ongoing research projects in the European Union, Britain, Germany and Finland. The United States is considering whether to start a climate engineering program, but since it has not ratified the convention's global treaty, it would not be bound by any of its prohibitions.

Rafe Pomerance, a senior fellow at the advocacy group and think tank Clean Air Cool Planet, said it would be a serious mistake to adopt the new restrictions.

Potential geoengineering strategies. (Lawrence-Livermore National Laboratory, Department of Energy)
See enlarged image here.

"Rather than encourage research, the decision throws a cloud over the whole enterprise," he wrote in an e-mail. "A potential tool that may be necessary to save the world biodiversity is being constrained."

But advocates of the measure, such as the international grassroots advocacy organization ETC Group, suggest it will rein in uncontrolled attempts to alter the earth's climate.

"It is a consensual, common sense and precautionary decision that was carefully negotiated by 193 governments," wrote ETC Group program manager Diana Bronson in an e-mail. "The decision is intended to bring the Climate engineering cowboys into line -- those who are ready to get on with dangerous and high-risk experiments without any international governance or proper examination of side effects. There are many people in the scientific community who agree that this precaution is necessary. Those who are keen on geo-engineering experiments, for understandable reasons do not like it."

The Convention on Biodiversity was created in 1993 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program. The binding treaty requires its parties to develop and implement plans for sustainable use and protection of biodiversity and holds an annual convention on biodiversity issues. The CBD lists 193 nations as "parties," with 168 having signed the treaty.

The draft also instructs the convention's Subsidiary Body on Scientific,Technical and Technological Advice (to examine the issue and report back before the parties meet again two years from now. The proposed ban is likely to come up for a vote Friday, the last day of the two-week meeting.

The full wording of the prohibition follows after the jump:

(w) Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering activities [1] (see below) that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment;

(y) Make sure that ocean fertilization activities are addressed in accordance with decision IX/16 C acknowledging the work of the London Convention/London Protocol;

[1] Without prejudice to future deliberations on the definition of geo-engineering activities, understanding that any technologies which deliberately reduce solar insolation or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity (excluding carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels when it captures carbon dioxide
before it is released into the atmosphere) should be considered as forms of geo-engineering which are relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity until a more precise definition can be developed. Noting that solar insolation is defined as a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given hour and that carbon sequestration is defined as the process of increasing the carbon content of a reservoir/pool other than the atmosphere.

The new instructions to the SBSTTA:

(n) Taking full account of the views and experiences of indigenous and local communities, small farmers, fishers and livestock keepers, compile and synthesize available scientific information on:

(i) The possible impacts of geo-engineering techniques on biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts;

(ii) Governance options for regulating geo-engineering activities; and

(iii) Options on definitions and scopes of geo-engineering, and make this information available for consideration at a meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice prior to the eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties; (n bis) Taking into account the possible need for science based global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms, subject to the availability of financial resources, undertake a study on gaps in existing related mechanisms for climate-related geo-engineering relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity, bearing in mind that such mechanisms may not be best placed under the Convention on Biological Diversity, for consideration by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific technical and Technological Advice prior to a future meeting of the Conference of the Parties and to communicate the results to relevant organizations.

Har tankesmedjornas våta dröm gått om intet? Nya planer på restriktioner mot geoengineering(konsten att manipulera med vädret) under luppen. Delegater vid konventionen om biologisk mångfald i Nagoya, Japan, arbetar nu för bromsa all vidare forskning tills dess man har vetenskapliga bevis ang dess effekter på miljön.

http://www.infowars.se/2010/10/29/nya ... ot-geoengineering-1509099

On September 2, 2010, The Train interviewed Ottawa-based chemtrails information activist Sylvain Henry. Mr. Henry has a science degree, is part of the "Skies of Blue" network, and authored the Facebook group "Mass Action Demand: Chemtrails".


http://trainradio.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... uth-about-chemtrails.html

Ibland tar de i som .........
http://www.youtube.com/user/QC3C7#p/f/6/8FMV9xzJjn4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaQV4fYzB3U

Tänkte bara fråga om nån vet hur Sverige kommer agera ang. COP10 i Nagoya & FN-förbudet kring Geoengineering (Chemtrails) etc? USA kommer inte följa det men hur gör Sverige?

What the UN ban on geoengineering really means

http://www.newscientist.com/article/d ... neering-really-means.html

What the UN ban on geoengineering really means

* 14:40 01 November 2010 by Fred Pearce

Last week's conference of the UN Convention on Biodiversity appeared to ban any future efforts to "geoengineer" the planet to counter the effects of climate change. But did it? And why was the decision made at the UN's biodiversity meeting in Nagoya, Japan, rather than at next month's climate conference in Mexico?

Campaigners such as the ETC Group said the UN meeting had imposed "a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments". In fact, the resolution was worded in a way that placed a moratorium on geoengineering only if it might affect biodiversity.

The 193 signatories to the convention agreed to outlaw such geoengineering projects "until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts". The agreement exempted "small-scale scientific research studies".
Carbon capture

What this means in practice is far from clear. The convention's definition of geoengineering includes any technology that reduces solar heating of the Earth or increases carbon capture from the atmosphere – though carbon-capture and storage projects can go ahead as long as the carbon comes direct from industrial emissions.

That would, on the face of it, preclude planting of forests to soak up CO2, which attracts carbon credits under the existing Kyoto protocol. The Nagoya negotiators apparently felt carbon sink forests passed the test of having an "adequate scientific basis".

Whether they really do is open to question. Where those forests are monocultures, they probably reduce biodiversity. In any case, if they are exempted, why not also exempt efforts to seed the oceans with iron to encourage algae to grow, which will also absorb CO2 from the air above?
Global sunshades

Almost any activity may affect biodiversity: everything hangs on the degree, and the burden of proof. It might be also be argued that almost all geoengineering options – from putting parasols into space, to making clouds or seeding the air with sulphur to shade the Earth – would benefit biodiversity by stabilising the climate.

Many in the developing world see the whole idea of geoengineering as a ruse by industrialised nations to excuse them from making serious cuts in emissions of the gases causing climate change. On the other hand, advocates of geoengineering argue that they have a duty to prepare for the possibility of rapid warming that requires a quick fix.

In any event, huge questions remain about who would "press the geoengineering button" and on what authority. John Shepherd, who chaired a study on geoengineering by the UK's Royal Society, argues that by raising the issue of geoengineering governance, last week's meeting has done the world a good turn.

Chemtrails Promoted & Taught in 7th Grade Science Textbooks !!!....

CHEMTRAIL SUNSCREEN TAUGHT IN US SCHOOLS



A is for Apple.

B is for Boy.

C is for Chemtrails

At least this is what one American father found while paging through his child's science book. SmT was astonished to find seventh graders being taught about chemtrails. And geoengineeering their home planet.

Anyone with questions about the "spray programs" he now says, "should perhaps just ask their kids."

The chemtrails section is found in the Centre Point Learning Science I Essential Interactions science book. Under "Solutions for Global Warming", section 5.19 features a photo of a big multi-engine jet sporting a familiar orange/red paint scheme.

The caption reads: "Figure 1- Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen".

The logo on the plane says: "Particle Air".

"I kid you not," SmT insists. "Why did I spend all of that time doing research when I could have just asked my kids?"

Helping habituate children to a life under lethal sunshine and "protective" spray planes, this trippy textbook urges young readers to "Use Sun Block". But its authors are referring to a sunscreen spread across the sky.

"Could we deliberately add particles to the atmosphere?" asks the text, before helpfully suggesting that "Burning coal adds soot to the air."

You might be old enough to recoil at such a notion. But in a country where down is up and wrong is right, your kids could be learning that what used to be bad and a bummer is a now good thing!


http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_da ... ils/news.php?q=1215023723

CFR MEETING DISCUSSES "GEO-ENGINEERING" To Fight "Global Warming"

http://mjolkpallen.blogspot.com/2011/ ... sses-geo-engineering.html

Vilket trams. http://www.youtube.com/user/QC3C7#p/f/6/8FMV9xzJjn4

Lyssna på hans slutsatser.Har har en ide och tolkar in det han ser så att det passar hans verklighetsuppfattning. Det är lika tokigt som om att kartan inte stämmer överens med verkligheten så är det verkligheten det är fel på.

Lite lustigt är det allt, att tittar man på religiösa sidor så kommer all information från amerikanska pastorer och förkunnare, exempelvis så är ett stort namn Mark Blitz. Så gott som alla religiösa sidor har Youtube-klipp med amerikanska förkunnare och amerikanska bibeltolkare vilka allmoge ser som sanningssägare.
Går man in på vaken så är så gott som alla Youtube-klipp också från USA, och så gott som alla citat härstammar från USA. Alla hänvisningar är från amerikanska sidor, så gott som alla konspirationer kommer från USA, Oavsett vad man söker efter så kommer informationen från USA. Ingen här som ser ett samband eller kan dra några slutsatser där av? Eller är försvarsställningarna så genomsyrat av förargument att skygglapparna sitter som klistrad på ögonen?
Jag bara undrar.

Quote:
Är det inte dags att DU ger oss en förklaring varför flygets kondensstrimmor numera bildar moln som effektivt slöjar in hela himmeln, istället för att helt utan någon fakta alls förlöjliga alla som verkligen sätter sej in i ämnet och läser de vetenskapliga dokumenten?

Du har ingen förklaring, ingen kunskap, ingen undran varför, bara totalt förnekande.

Är det så man ska hantera en situation där man har massiv vetenskaplig litteratur som beskriver hur moln bildas av flyg, samt hur man på kemisk väg kan skapa/förstärka detta fenomen, politiska påtryckningar att genomföra geoengineering samt massiva observation av fenomenet. Ska man då vända blicken åt ett annat håll och förneka det hela, eller ska man titta närmare på det hela för att finna förklaringen? Du har valt att förneka, varför?


Att planen i detta fall körde 4 i bredd kan säkert ha en helt annan förklaring, för film eller foto kanske, eller en ren tillfällighet som piloterna utnyttjade till att formationsflyga lite? så just detta lägger jag ingen vikt vid.

Shocking: Chemtrails admitted

http://youtu.be/0lKcWtSi-d0

Support Independent Media - http://www.wearechangetv.us

Public Meeting in the San Francisco Bay Area, Geoengineering admitted.

Pax..Sitter man och diskuterar en ickefråga här....?

At U.N. Convention, Groups Push for Geoengineering Moratorium
Amid calls for more research, a United Nations convention on biodiversity considers a proposal to ban geoengineering solutions to global warming.

http://mjolkpallen.blogspot.com/2011/ ... tion-groups-push-for.html

Geoengineering aka chemtrail

www.geoengineering.n.nu

Ännu en sida späckad med youtube-klipp som per automatik är sanna för att de kommer från usa.
Patetiskt är ordet för dagen.

Jo .. Vad ska man säga.

Läste i någon blaska för inte så längesen att vädret kunde påverkadas av planens kondenstrimmor.

Men man kallade det fint för kondenstrimmor bara.

Vart det inte ett tillfälligt stop för geoengineering av Eu?

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/science/t ... jects/geoengineering.html


2) Solar Radiation Management techniques (SRM) would attempt to offset effects of increased greenhouse gas concentrations by reducing the amount of sunlight absorbed by the earth. Proposed techniques are, e.g.:

Increasing the surface reflectivity of the planet by brightening human structures (e.g. by painting them white), planting of crops with a high reflectivity, or covering deserts with reflective material;
Enhancement of marine cloud reflectivity;
Shields or deflectors in space to reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth;
Injections of sulfate aerosols into the lower stratosphere to mimic the effects of volcanic eruptions.