Could Northern California’s “Wildfires” Be Directly Related To Geoengineering?
By Dr. Steven Amato, contributing writer for geoengineeringwatch.org Fire personnel are saying the fires destroying tens of thousands of acres in the northern part of the state are like nothing they’ve seen before. They comment in amazement and concern on the ignition metrics, fuel consumption and intense heat being generated by these fires. Could there be a connection between the intentionally sprayed aerosol particulate trails (which contain aluminum and barium) and the intense heat being generated by these fires? A fire truck moves position as flames from the Rocky fire approach near Clearlake, California Aluminum is a powerful conductor of electricity and heat. Because it's lighter than copper, it is often used in aircraft to cut down on weight. Electrical contractors use aluminum wire as a substitute for copper because of its lower cost per foot. Remember, nano-sized particles contained in the aerosols are an infinitesimally fine dust. They are a metal, and they do coat the leaves, the duff below the tree canopy and fuel sources on the ground. When this dust ignites, which it does because it is not in its dense form, an un-natural, tremendous quantity of heat is generated. Coupled with the extreme dryness caused by bad actors engineering our drought, and you have the ingredients for catastrophic destructive forces. One would not be going out on a limb by characterizing the unfolding events as a false flag, having been consciously (or unconsciously) engineered ahead of time. If the pseudoscientific thinking behind the geo-engineering were truly scientific, they would have factored ignition effects of aluminum into the equation before deciding to move forward with their plans to drought the state using aluminum, barium and strontium, known desiccants with powerful drying properties. Dead and dying trees in declining California forest Where is the governor during all this? He’s signing legislation that will force Californian’s into mandatory vaccinations that science has shown can cause autism and death in children and adults. Parents must now decide whether to compromise their children’s health risks, or bear the expense of private or home schooling. Jerry Brown is also preparing to strip private property rights to water on privately owned lands. If you think there’s something wrong with this picture, you’re not a conspiracy theorist, you’re conspiracy analyst. Think for a minute about the possibility of continued aerosol activity leading to fresh produce and grape production cut backs. You can see, regardless of the intentions behind the parties geoengineering pseudoscientific nonsense, the entire program to drought the west has no science to support it; that is unless the science is a military strategy of aggression… in which case it makes perfect sense. The evidence is mounting against the powerful interests behind this epic violation of nature and its balanced forces. There can be no valid argument for what’s been going on in the skies above our heads for the last decade. The point of critical mass has arrived. Pretending it will go away is more than foolish, it's abetting criminal behavior. The public deserves an explanation and it deserves that explanation now.
Published In Sentinel-Tribune, “Geoengineering Puts Poisons In Air”
Anti-geoengineering activist Gretchen Thomas has struck a solid blow against climate engineering denial with her recently published editorial submission to the "Sentinel-Tribune". This kind of citizen involvement can make the difference in this battle. This is the kind of effort that we must all engage in at every available opportunity. The constant spraying of highly toxic particulates into our breathable air column is having a catastrophic effect on human health and the environment as a whole. Gretchen's letter below is an excellent example of how we can all help in the battle to bring climate engineering to light. Once fully exposed, a shockwave of outrage will travel through populations around the globe. Only then can the climate engineering be brought to a halt. A sample letter from geoengineeringwatch.org titled "Flaming Arrow" can be very useful for helping activists to follow Gretchen's example. Dane Wigington geoengineeringwatch.org Geoengineering Puts Poisons In Air Source: Sentinel-Tribune, letter by Gretchen Thomas To the Editor My awareness of Climate engineering, aka: Geoengineering began about three years ago. Concerned about the persistent haze in the air, I called the county Environmental Protection Agency; we talked about geoengineering, he told me aircraft-related emissions are regulated by Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA dismissed me as misinformed; and directed me to Department of Defense when I used the word, "chemtrail". Geoengineering creates climate changes by definition. Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering, (SAG) or Solar Radiation Management, (SRM) describes the dispersal of nano-particulates at high altitudes by jet aircraft; this is visible in the sky if you just look up. Persistent sprayed particulate trails criss-crossing the sky from horizon to horizon, slowly dispersing, are textbook geoengineering flight patterns, not condensation trails as disinformers claim. Many experts conclude that ongoing geoengineering programs are wreaking havoc with our weather and the earth's ecosystems and cycles. Saturating the atmosphere with geoengineering particulates "diminishes and disperses rainfall." Devastating deluges are also connected to climate engineering as moisture that was migrated over one region comes down in a torrent somewhere else. Torrential rains sound familiar? The protective layers of the atmosphere, specifically, the ozone layer and the ionosphere, are being shredded by the aircraft sprayed aerosol clouds. People who claim insufficient proof of ongoing geoengineering should seek their information elsewhere; there is a mountain of evidence: government and military documents, congressional hearings and committee reports, geoengineering patents, and climate modification corporations. International legislation is being drafted to legalize geoengineering. Look up, you can see the evidence with your own eyes. Why are we not being told about the biggest environmental nightmare of our lifetime, which threatens the earth's ability to sustain life and likely a main catalyst of global warming? Geoengineering is not acknowledged in climate change dialogue, or included in key environmental studies, except as potential mitigation for climate change. An Indiana park ranger admitted to me he was ordered not to initiate a conversation on the topic, and the public's not being told because they would panic. I have one thing to say to civil servants suppressing information from those they're paid to protect and serve – you're being sprayed, too. Every breath we take is contaminated with toxic nano-particulate fallout, that persistent haze in the air. Geoengineering must stop. Climate engineering to light. Once fully exposed, a shockwave of outrage will travel through populations around the globe. Only then can the climate engineering be brought to a halt. Gretchen Thomas Northwood
Trees Are Dying Everywhere, We’re Next
Geoengineering And The Most Dangerous False Dichotomy
By Penny Teal, PhD, contributing writer for geoengineeringwatch.org We all know despair. We all know joy. We all have been told to believe that these two states of mind are mutually exclusive. This is a lie. Unfortunately, it's one of the most prevalent and malignant of the many lies we get fed on a daily basis. Of all the false dichotomies that we confront, and they are legion, the one that opposes hope and happiness to doom and despair is the most damaging to the vigour and longevity of a movement like this, the vital effort to stop geoengineering. Nowhere is burnout such a constant threat, as in a situation where one knows that even if one prevails, the outcome will still be negative. Because, as we all know, even after we have put an end to the toxic spraying and ionospheric heating and all, we will be left with ongoing catastrophic warming and ecosystem collapse and the Sixth Great Extinction. For starters. Some people (Guy McPherson being the most prominent example I know of) seem to believe that if, or since, we're all going to die, die, die! we should turn our back on everything, and focus entirely on immediate pleasures. They call this "living well." They have decided beforehand that the struggle is for naught, and therefore not worth wasting energy on. They don't, of course, know what may happen to the planet in the long run, any more than we do. Rather than risking burnout, they have chosen to cop out. Contrarily, we who are gathered here all know that the fight is "worth it" – but what is it worth? The answer to that question isn't as obvious or as univocal as it may seem. Of course it is worth fighting to spare any life forms hardy and adaptive enough to survive the changes Earth is undergoing, whether humans number among those or not. Of course it is worth doing the right thing, always, regardless of guaranteed – or even possible – success. Just knowing that one is doing the right thing is uplifting, restorative to the spirit (however one defines that vague concept), and thus its own reward. The fact that many people miss, in the meantime, is that one doesn't have to live in utter despair just because the situation is desperate. As Dane Wigington so frequently exhorts us to remember, the one thing we truly own, the one thing no one else can touch, is our free will. If others control us, it's because we gave them permission; it was an act of volition on our part. Unless one has been genuinely hypnotized, one's will is intact – and people with a strong will cannot be hypnotized. One of my favorite comic strips, from my long-ago childhood, shows the 5 members of the same family each thinking his or her thoughts at the start of a new day. The first four are drooping, depressed, grousing about another day of having to face traffic, another day sitting through work or school, another day of chores and meaningless, soul-numbing activities. The youngest is sitting in her crib smiling like a sunbeam, thinking to herself simply, "Another day!" The salient point is that all five have awakened to the very same day. The attitude they adopt is their own choice, despite the difference in their circumstances (how many adults would be delighted at the prospect of sitting in a crib for hours, being utterly dependent on others for food, clean diapers, and mobility?) When I first learned about the geoengineering threat to the planet's future, I was hit pretty hard by a temporary depression. At first all I could do was cry; shortly after, I was tempted to adopt the Guy response: what the hell? We're all going to die. But let's face it: we are all going to die. With or without geoengineering, with or without global warming, or Fukushimas, or wars. Whether those realities loom large before us or not, we still awaken to each new day with the attitude of our choice. How does this relate to burnout? I would argue that by adopting the attitude of the young child, we can enjoy life, in spite of conditions around us. By doing so, even though we are aware of our despair, anger, frustration, and worries, we can maintain the strength to keep going. Even if humans are facing extinction (as we are, whether in the near term or not), does that mean we have no choice but to succumb to total despair? Does it mean we have to ignore the many reasons to appreciate life? Those billions of humans facing extinction were all born subject to the condition that they would one day die – that's the harsh reality for all living things. Immortality, at least in the corporal, earth-bound form, is unattainable. For my part, I am unconvinced that there is an afterlife, and to me that makes the life I have all the more magical, wonderful, and fulfilling. But that's just my personal belief. Regardless of what happens after death, while alive we have free will, and we can use it to make every day meaningful. Instead of bemoaning the fact that "I'm going to die," one can choose to acknowledge that "I'm still alive." Because any of us could have died long ago; it's in the cards for everyone, period. Against the odds, perhaps, we're not dead yet (to steal the best line ever from Monty Python). We are still alive to carry on the fight, and still alive to love, laugh, and appreciate the beauty around us. As Max Ehrmann wrote in the brilliantly insightful prose poem Desiderata, "With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world." How did any of us get so lucky as to be born? We didn't earn that right; it was a gift. Whatever the source, be it God or Spirit or the Void, we
David Suzuki Confronted On Climate Engineering Issue
Many people hold David Suzuki in such high esteem, but is such respect truly warranted and deserved? Is Suzuki really an oracle of truth and wisdom, or is he a power structure owned public relations prop that will speak only as much truth as he is allowed to tell? Is Suzuki also being used by the power structure to publicly deny critical issues like climate engineering that they absolutely do not want the public to become aware of? In the 1 minute video below, Suzuki clearly denies the subject of climate engineering before walking away from the camera and those who simply wanted to ask him legitimate questions. There is absolutely no excuse for Suzuki's attempt to cloud the truth. There are only two possibilities regarding his behavior, he is either completely blind and ignorant to the natural world around him which he claims to be an expert on, or he is paid and/or pressured to lie about the dire climate engineering issue. If David Suzuki was truly committed to telling the truth in regard to the environment, and fighting for the common good, why would he lie about the geoengineering issue? Why would he lie about his corporate donations? The entire climate science community is built on a foundation of lies and cover-up. The state of the climate is not as bad as we are being told, it is exponentially worse. Global climate engineering is helping to fuel the fire overall. My most sincere gratitude to Irene Parousis and Christina Parousis for this video and for their exceptional efforts to expose David Suzuki's dishonesty and denial. Dane Wigington geoengineeringwatch.org
A New Song Protesting Geoengineering
Bluer Than Blue By Kate Magdalena Willens Kate Magdalena Willens, environmental activist and singer-songwriter, releases her second song about geoengineering. "Bluer Than Blue" looks with longing and nostalgia to the deep blue skies of yesteryear, comparing them to the ‘gummy, crummy’ skies that we see today. ‘Bluer Than Blue’ sings out the sky as the fragile shell of our earth, not a military zone, but rather "the amniotic sac of our earthly home", which we breathe "with every breath we take". This new song joins Kate’s first song about geoengineering, "Up Up in the Sky", both of which are songs of awakening, and calls to save the earth. Kate hopes that you will embed the song on your web site, and share it widely through your blogs and social networks. The song features Kate Magdalena on vocals and guitar, Jeff Martin on 12 string guitar and moog bass, and Kim Atkinson on rebolo tan tan drums, triangle, and shaker. It was recorded at "Studio E", Sebastopol, CA.
Veteran Health Department Official Speaks Out On Climate Engineering Dangers, Again
Only a few State and Federal agency officials have shown any courage whatsoever in regard to speaking truth to power, especially on the subject of climate engineering. One shining exception is environmental health specialist Gary Attalla. I have had the honor of communicating with Gary for several years. During this time he has tried diligently and consistently to force the critical geoengineering issue to light with his peers and within his agency, the New Jersey Department of Health. In spite of constant resistance from other agency officials and politicians, Gary has pressed on in his battle to raise awareness. The letter below is Gary's latest update report on what the ongoing geoengineering contamination is doing to our health. My most sincere gratitude to him for his ongoing efforts, if there were more in the "system" with Gary's courage, we would not be in such a dark place today. Dane Wigington geoengineeringwatch.org
“Anonymous” Covers Climate Engineering Threat
The group "Anonymous" is constantly and actively working toward exposing tyranny in countless arenas around the globe. The video below addresses the most critical issue of global climate engineering, it was assembled by Anonymous and just forwarded to me. The gravity and immediacy of the total destruction being inflicted on our planet and our health from the ongoing geoengineering programs is immense. The threat posed by the constant toxic atmospheric spraying and radio frequency bombardments cannot be overstated. My most sincere gratitude to Anonymous for their help with sounding the alarm on the climate engineering insanity. Dane Wigington geoengineeringwatch.org
In Plane Sight
The Most Serious Threat? Or Climate Science 101?
The short article below was authored by Penny Teal, a UC Berkeley trained PhD (chemistry). Dr. Teal has outlined straightforward facts on which sound conclusions can and should be formed in regard to the current state of the climate. Penny has also spoken out about the first hand experiences she has had with universities and their power structure paid for agenda to program their students and thus society. Dane Wigington geoengineeringwatch.org The Most Serious Threat? Or Climate Science 101? By Penny Teal, PhD, contributing writer for geoengineeringwatch.org The POTUS (President of the United States, or perhaps Puppet of same) has made it clear, most recently in an address to the cadets at the Coast Guard base in New London, CT, that climate change (more appropriately called global heating, or global meltdown) poses a serious threat to the planet's security. He did not clarify, however, what he meant by "the planet's security". From this citizen's perspective it is very clear that global warming poses an existential threat to every living thing on the planet; the planet itself, however, seems likely to remain on course around its star for millennia to come. How do we know that global warming is a problem? It's in the data, all of which is available on this website already. Just one example: fourteen of the fifteen hottest years on record are to be found in the new century (that is, somewhat shockingly, in the last 15 years); the fifteenth is 1998. Already 2015 is on track to be the hottest year ever. Okay, that was two examples. Obviously, if we care about the planet, we need to reverse global warming. And since we humans have caused it, we can, at the very least, stop doing whatever led to the problem in the first place. There is no doubt that human activity, primarily the wanton burning of fossil fuels, is causing global temperatures to rise. If you meet a skeptic, here is a simple defense of that statement – that is to say, that fact. A Tale of Three Planets One need only look over the planet's shoulders, toward Venus and toward Mars, then to our own blue Earth, to see a perfect model of the Greenhouse Effect (GE) that keeps life thriving on the planet in the middle, while making it impossible for life to develop (life as we know it, at any rate) on the other two. The GE is quite simple to explain to the skeptic. Sunlight, in the form of… well, light (electromagnetic radiation, if you want to be more precise, because there are non-visible wavelengths in addition to the light) arrives at a planet, warms its surface, and is radiated back upward as heat (or thermal energy – you have to choose the terms based on the look of understanding or confusion on the sceptic's face here). This radiant heat energy (because it involves only long wavelengths) interacts differently with chemical gases in the atmosphere differently than does the full spectrum of electromagnetic radiation from the sun. Specifically, gases like carbon dioxide, water, and methane will reflect some of the heat, sending it back downward like the roof of a greenhouse (hence the name for the… you get it). Just as in a greenhouse, the area under the atmospheric "roof" gets warmer. Mars, for starters, has no atmosphere to speak of. No atmosphere means no gases, hence, no GE. Hence, a very cold and barren (but nicely red) planet. Venus, over the other shoulder, has a planet thick with greenhouse gases, thus is extremely hot; and Venus is incapable of sustaining life as well (and Venus would not be significantly warmer than Earth without those gases, even though it is closer to the sun). In the middle is our Earth, with its mix of gases wherein CO2 used to be present at under 300 parts per million (ppm). However, our industrial age burning of fossil fuels has filled the atmosphere with increasing levels of CO2, up to and now over 400 ppm – and done so inevitably. This is a fact that cannot be wished or hand-waved away. Increasing the greenhouse gases increases the heat- retaining capacity of a planet – again, this happens inevitably. These two facts alone are proof that human activity has caused the planet to warm, regardless of what may have been happening with sunspots, regardless of whatever trend (warming or cooling) the planet has otherwise been on. The planet has means of adapting, within limits, but it also has a need to maintain a balance. Increasing a greenhouse gas by over 33% is utterly disrespectful of that balance. Putting more red dye in a pool will make make it redder; you can dilute the pool water all you want, or add to it from other sources, but the dye still has the effect of making the water redder than it was. That is all that need be said to refute the claim that humans have not contributed to global warming. It may not satisfy all sceptics, but some people think there is virtue in claiming to keep an open mind (an attitude they would drop in a heartbeat if you told them they were about to be run over from behind by a buffalo, when they finally heard it snorting a half-foot away from them… but alas, too late. Same story with global warming, unfortunately.) At present, the warming caused by increasing CO2 is intense enough that it is causing the tundra in Arctic regions to melt, and ocean waters to warm dramatically, both of which are causing methane (an extremely potent greenhouse gas – more than 100 times as heat-trapping as CO2 in the short term) to be released into Earth's atmosphere. The level of CO2 is now well above 400 ppm, although several years ago we were warned that 350 ppm represented a point of no return. The methane level could soon begin to rise exponentially (it could, in fact, be doing that now). Again, all the data and all the sordid truth is to be found, fully documented, on this website, including a discussion