Truth Offering

Even a UK Parliament study states that, "If [stratospheric aerosol] injection were suspended due to unforeseen consequences, the effects would dissipate over 2-3 years. It is, however, known that increased sulphate aerosol concentrations in the stratosphere would catalyse ozone destruction, and an increase in levels of acid rain would occur (emphasis added). The greatest harm, however, is thought to be the effect on precipitation levels. There is considerable debate on the extent of this effect, with different simulations producing outcomes varying from a minimal effect to a significant drop-off in rainfall(emphasis added...again)."

Doesn't that alone make geoengineering too risky to proceed with? Don't forget, this is the official UK Parliament word on stratospheric aerosols, aka, chemtrails, aka scars in the sky. And if you think that somehow this doesn't mean it's also the official US government word, think again: we're partnered in this effort, not just with the UK, but with the entire UN. This spraying is happening all over the world!

Another UK Parliament document entitled "The Regulation of Geoengineering," states that "[Future] research will have to address how to measure and attribute any changes and how to value their impacts including, for example, effects on health, crops and economic well-being. This research will help inform judgements about impact and whether geographical areas or social groups merit compensation."

Future research!? This is a 2009/2010 document...and they've been spraying for years! Wouldn't this have been something to get done prior to actually executing the program!?

But there's more...much more.

A treaty known as "The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD)" was adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1976. ENMOD prohibits using the environment as a weapon in conflicts. But "The Regulation of Geoengineering" states the following:

The treaty is clear on what it forbids: widespread, long-lasting, or severe environmental modification. It is thus quite revealing to consider what the treaty allows. It does permit cloud seeding (or other actions) that may adversely affect a neighbour so long it is undertaken without a military or hostile intent. Further, military personnel could carry out a non-hostile action as long as it was without military intent. The treaty permits weather modification by the military even with a hostile intent when it is localized, short-term, and produces positive outcomes. These exceptions obviously can lead to ambiguity in real situations.

First, widespread refers to the geographic scope covered by the treaty. Treaty violations occur when impacts exceed 300 square kilometers (or 186.4 miles), so a square of roughly 17.3 kilometers (or 10.7 miles) in length and width. Washington, DC (a partial square city) is 177 square kilometers in comparison, so these are not extremely large areas but they could be home to millions of people.

The second concept is long-lasting, denoting time duration. One season corresponds to about three months. The chosen months however would produce differing impacts. If cloud seeding occurred during a planting season, it would mean the loss of an entire year of production (emphasis added). If cloud seeding occurred in the winter, to build snow pack for example, the impact may be benign or even positive.

The third premise focuses on a severe disruption to the environment and may be the most diffcult concept to pinpoint. Specific indictors might use socio-economic indicators (such as income) or human health markers (such as infant mortality) (emphasis added). A violation might significantly reduce ecological, economic or health indicators. A full understanding of impacts may not occur until long after the act occurred (emphasis added...again)."

This is insanity! Military personnel can carry out hostile actions when those actions are localized, short-term andhave a positive effect!? Um, how exactly can hostile military actions have a "positive effect"!? And from whose perspective!? Furthermore, there may be a severe disruption to the environment that could lead to infant mortality!?

Are you reading this!? Why is everyone not outraged!?

Another UK organization -- their national academy of science, better known as The Royal Society -- seems to be at the forefront of the geoengineering debate. It also seems that our own government here in the US is looking to the Royal Society for insight into engineering the climate. According to a March 18, 2010 GAO report entitled "Climate Change: Preliminary Observations on Geoengineering Science, Federal Efforts, and Governance Issues,":

"According to the Royal Society study, while both approaches are ultimately designed to decrease temperatures, the discussed solar radiation management (SRM) approaches, once deployed, would only take a few years to reduce temperatures, but would create an artificial and approximate balance between increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and reduced sunlight that would introduce additional environmental risks and require long-term maintenance. In contrast, the discussed carbon dioxide removal (CDR) approaches would take many decades to reduce global temperatures but, with some exceptions, involve fewer potential environmental risks because they would return the climate closer to its pre-industrial state.

"Additionally, certain SRM approaches, such as atmospheric aerosol injection, are considered to be relatively inexpensive to implement and generally hold greater potential for causing uneven environmental impacts beyond national or regional boundaries, thus risking undesirable social, ethical, legal, and political implications that would need to be addressed before any of these technologies are implemented (emphasis added). For example, the European Union has initiated a research program to study the scientific issues, as well as the policy implications of SRM geoengineering approaches.

"Domestically, NAS will be including geoengineering as part of its pending report on America’s Climate Choices for Congress, and some nongovernmental organizations, such as the American Physical Society, have also undertaken studies to examine these issues in further detail.

"Within this context, our testimony today is based on our preliminary observations for the committee addressing (1) the general state of the science regarding geoengineering approaches and their potential effects, (2) the extent to which the federal government has sponsored or participated in geoengineering research or deployment (emphasis added), and (3) the views of legal experts and federal officials concerning the extent to which federal laws and international agreements apply to geoengineering activities."

Now think about that for a moment: this testimony unequivocally states that our government has "participated in geoengineering .... deployment" even though "certain SRM approaches, such as atmospheric aerosol injection (chemtrails).... generally hold greater potential for causing uneven environmental impacts beyond national or regional boundaries, thus risking undesirable social, ethical, legal, and political implications that would need to be addressed before any of these technologies are implemented."

In other words, as I stated before, we are a globe full of guinea pigs. The UN and its member countries are carrying out this geoengineering plan without knowing what the impact will be. I don't know about you, but don't you think THAT is more dangerous than if the globe were to warm or cool as it has naturally done for billions of years!?

The Royal Society's report concludes:

"Due to the limited amount of geoengineering research conducted to date, the experts we interviewed stated that a sustained program of additional research would be needed to address the significant uncertainties regarding the effectiveness and potential impacts of geoengineering approaches .... Specifically, recent studies highlight the limitations of current models to accurately predict the environmental impact of SRM technologies at a regional scale—which would be necessary to accurately gauge potential impacts that might interfere with agricultural production for certain regions. Furthermore, studies indicate that, even for the most tested methods applicable to geoengineering .... uncertainties remain surrounding the potential cost, effectiveness, and impacts of pursuing these approaches at a scale sufficient to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, government is running rough-shod over our liberty, and no one is asking the tough questions. Like what? Well, for example:

1. Who has approved the spraying of chemicals in the skies above us? I know we never voted for such a thing...and I'm pretty sure congress never openly voted on it. By whose authority was this plan implemented?

2. What are the biological effects of these chemicals on humans, wildlife and the environment? Because those concerned with chemtrails cite the effects of aluminum, barium and the other harmful heavy metals and chemicals in chemtrails...and it ain't pretty.

3. How can we trust the government to experiment with geoengineering when it will likely cause biological and environmental harm, especially where the government has a proven track record of total disregard for human life in their pursuits? A recent Reuters article, entitled "U.N. urged to freeze climate geo-engineering projects," cites Francois Simard from the conservation group, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), who had this to say on the subject:

"We are certainly in favor of more (geo-engineering) research, as in all fields, but not any implementation for the time being because it's too dangerous. We don't know what the effects can be. Improving nature conservation is what we should do in order to fight climate change, not trying to change nature."

4. What are the chemicals and other compounds found in stratospheric aerosols, aka, chemtrails? In Phoenix, a2008 air quality study found all kinds of harmful toxins, all of which are attributable to geoengineering. Click the below chart to enlarge it; the findings are shocking. And there are plenty of other similar studies (see here, here and here) to support the claims of this one.

CLICK TO ENLARGE - Fig 1 In this chart we see that barium is 278x the toxic limit, copper is 98x the toxic limit, manganese is a staggering 5,820x the toxic limit and zinc is 593x the toxic limit. Fig 2 Here we see that cadmium is 126x the toxic limit, chromium is 282x the toxic limit and nickel is 169x the toxic limit. Note that the permissible amount of Cadmium in the environment is equivalent to a tiny ten parts per billion. Fig. 3 Here aluminum is a staggering 6,400x the toxic limit, iron is 28,000x the toxic limit, magnesium is 5.3x the toxic limit, potassium is 793x the toxic limit and sodium is 15.9x the toxic limit.

Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri -- author of "The Uterine Crisis" -- in her article, "Heavy Metal Poisoning, Brain Injury, and Clandestine Weather Modification Programs," reports that "For more than 10 years, researcher Clifford Carnicom has been valiantly and systematically reporting on the various detrimental aspects of these aerosols and what they are doing to our entire environment, as well as our blood.”

Make no mistake, these international governmental geoengineering efforts are harming us. They know it, but their clear sentiment is that it's part of the cost associated with their agenda. The loss of human lives has been factored into the equation. Why else would they be experimenting with technologies and processes that will produce outcomes they admit they cannot possibly predict?

But the good news is that people are beginning to awaken. People are starting to take notice. Chemtrails are even popping up in the news. Check out this report:

5. Why aren't we being informed of what's going on? Typically, when the public isn't informed, it leads to abuse. When our government keeps us in the dark, there is tyranny. Only when government's actions are brought to light and they are truly held accountable for their actions can there be liberty.

There are many more questions, but these are fundamentally relevant and should be answered by our government immediately. Unfortunately, that isn't likely to happen because our government doesn't need to answer our questions. No one is holding their feet to the fire. After all, we're no longer a Constitutional Republic, but a nation held under the tyranny of an all-powerful state. Whether or not chemtrails harm us is not relevant to the powers-that-be. What is relevant is their goal, but what that is isn't factually known.

Is it to halt climate change? Is it to clandestinely reduce the planet's population? We simply don't know. 

However, a documentary was recently released called "What In the World Are They Spraying?" One of its producers is G. Edward Griffin, author of "The Creature from Jekyll Island," an amazing exposé on the true nature of the Federal Reserve banking system, and many other investigative books. This documentary aims to figure out who is responsible for geoengineering and what the impacts might be. Here it is in its entirety.

If you'd like to support this worthy cause, please drop by RealityZone.com and purchase a copy. Maybe even hold your own viewings of the documentary to enlighten others.

After watching this documentary, even I wasn't aware of one scary connection: BioChem companies, like Monsanto and DuPont, are creating GMO crop seeds that are specifically designed to be resistant to harmful elements like Aluminum, which is the main element that is raining down from above as government douses us with chemtrail contaminants. Turns out, the contaminants in chemtrails are making it more and more difficult to grow normal, healthy, natural crops. So more and more, farmers are turning to Big Agra monsters like Monsanto in order to get seeds that will grow.

Our air is being polluted with chemicals and heavy metals and our crops are being altered so that they're more virulent. We're now breathing in poisonous air and eating poisonous foods; specifically the very foods we need to remain healthy. How do you suspect this will end for human kind?

Could Dr. Rima Laibow be right? Is this all part of the WHO/FAO's Codex Alimentarius plan? Will billions of the world's inhabitants be quietly murdered through the air they breath and the food they eat? Seems like a brilliant way to rid the planet of people, if that's your agenda. The problem is that until people look up and ask, "what in the world are they spraying!?" no questions will ever be answered.

Once I asked myself that question, my quest for more knowledge on the subject led to even more shocking information. I found out governments have also been manipulating the weather...for decades!

China took part in what's known as "cloud seeding" -- also part of the geoengineering agenda -- in order to keep it from raining during the Olympics a couple years back (see here, here and here). Russia is already planning to seed the clouds prior to and during the 2014 winter olympics there in order to keep it from raining and ensure ideal snow conditions (see here and here).

Is that okay? Are there no side-effects from that? Of course...we know there are, because the oficial government documents I reference above say so. Hence the reason for the international UN treaty, ENMOD. There are clear implications here; if one country manipulates their weather, how will it affect the rest of the world's weather? Will it cause drought? Flooding? No one knows. To quote the documentary, "There will be winners and losers."

Geoengineering is little known by the overwhelming majority of the planet's population...yet we're all affected. We need to spread the word and force government to cease this reckless endeavor before we ruin our soil, our bodies and the rest of the environment. I think you'd agree that swapping global warming for a ruined environment and damaged DNA is not a smart plan. What we need is less chemicals in the air, not more of them!

The lack of respect for Mother Nature and human life is unbelievable. Without clean air and soil, we can't lead healthy, happy lives. And chemtrails leave residue all over the trees, plants and soil that ruins their viability. Trees and plants are dying, and farmers are discovering more and more that the only crops that can survive are the genetically modified ones.