For friend Josh: the question I asked about whether you as a German would get into the debate over whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified to save the lives of American soldiers is EXTREMELY pertinent.

The Manhattan Project marked the beginning of destruction of what until then had been the assumptions of what proper scientific procedure ia: scientific deontology, the code of behaviour expected of scientists, transparency, honesty. All of that went down the plughole.

The anti-nuclear movement represented an attempt to undo the damage, an attempt very largely started by Manhattan Projecct scientists themselves. They did not succeed in stopping the Cold War nuclear arms race.  They swallowed the illusion that Teller’s Star Wars project had been stopped, rather than simply morphing and turning into HAARP.

They did not take advantage of the end of the Cold War to support Yeltsin in his desire to destroy the Soviet nuclear arsenal, unilaterally. They were not up to the job they had set themselves. As simple as that. 

They altogether missed the way that the nuclear weapons laboratories became fixated on weather and climate, largely for the purpose of militarizing it and then, following privatization, making it into a vehicle for stock exchange speculation.

There is almost no continuity at all between the old anti-nuclear movement and today’s chemtrails movement. The only exceptions I can think of would be the late Rosalie Bertell and Maj Britt Theorin, who raised the subject of HAARP in the European Parliament. 

Given all this you expect people to keep chewing over a third-rate bullshit controversy started as a red herring by the perpetrators of this scenario, over what constitutes a “contrail” and what constitutes a “chemtrail”.  Shame on you and shame on all your peabrain or corrupted friends who engage in the neverending crap that you have amused yourself with for over a decade now. And you continue doing it.

You probably know (but who knows, you are so tunnel visioned that you might not know ANYTHING other than contrails and chemtrails) that Eisenhower, who led the American invasion of Europe, was extremely disturbed about and privately opposed to (though he could not do anything about it) the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which represented a violation of what supposed to be the military code of ethics. 

If the mentality of the people whose camp-follower you have become had prevailed, American nuclear bombs could even have been dropped on Germany at the end of World War II. Would I then be talking to Josh?

You should start thinking about all this. And answer the question please. Would you be prepared to join an argument over whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified to save the lives of American soldiers?  Perhaps you would be prepared to. That’s how much of a German you are, perhaps. 

Of course I am not going to continue in this reactive mode.

https://chemtrailsinourskies.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/danger-chemtrails-rain-killing-trees-and-plants/

This can’t be serious, can it?

Taking pictures of withered plants, in the middle of a drought (according to the dates on the pics), and then claiming the evil chemtrails were doing that? No evidence of any kind for that connection, as usual.

Regarding the days before the July drought, this article mentions an unusually dry spring season as well:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/122145-dry-as-a-bone

Yes, it can be serious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GwwEC-mmOU

There are a number of advantages to the “Financialization of Nature” debate. 

1) It has not, as far as I know, been subjected to any organized debunking, so that anyone wanting to debunk it cannot rely on copy/paste.

2) It may make it possible for chemtrails activists to forget the old row between climate change sceptics and ecologists that has divided, misled and weakened anti-chemtrails activism.

Some structural debunk (debunk by innuendo) from the corporate/commercial media.

Journalists who write like Mariecar Mendoza get paid. Journalists who write like Rady Ananda
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20369
don’t get paid.

Contrary to what Mendoza implies, the USAF and NASA chemtrails statements date from very early on. They are not recent or a reaction to large-scale growth in public reaction against chemtrails.

See http://www.dailynews.com/ci_21344909/believers-chemtrails-gather-at-l-conference

Believers in chemtrails gather at L.A. conference
By Mariecar Mendoza, Staff Writerdailynews.com

Believers in chemtrails - and there appear to be thousands of them - assert that visible vapor trails left by aircraft are intentionally filled with chemicals designed to either poison the atmosphere, delay global warming, control population growth, experiment with military weapons, and/or manipulate the weather. 

It may sound like something out of the “The X-Files,” and it’s been dubbed a fringe conspiracy theory by most scientists, but, thanks to the Internet, it’s gotten popular enough that it attracted more than 1,000 followers to Los Angeles this weekend for a three-day conference.

The Consciousness Beyond Chemtails Conference at the Wilshire Ebell Theater featured a host of speakers addressing topics like “Exposing a Spiritual, Mass Mind-control, and Planetary Assault” and “The Evolution of Chemtrails to `Chem-bombs’: Aerial Aerosol Explosions as a New Dispersion Method Worldwide.”

Organizers said it was the largest event of its kind in the country.

“We no longer have natural clouds,” said Ilya Sandra Perlingieri, an environmental writer and herbalist who was the opening speaker on Saturday. “In its place are geo-engineered nightmares that envelope our breathing, our sky.”

Perlingieri added that instead of the blue skies of her childhood, the sky is now “a white spew of poison” filled with grids of chemtrails.

The conference also featured a speech Saturday night from comedian/actress turned presidential candidate Roseanne Barr, who is topping the Peace & Freedom Party’s ticket, with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan as her vice presidential pick. Another speaker was Laura Eisenhower - the great-granddaughter of the 34th president who was described as a “cosmic mythologist” and “global alchemist.”

Saturday’s agenda ended with the first public premiere of “Why in the World are they Spraying?” The film is co-produced by Michael J. Murphy, president of the Coalition Against Geo-Engineering, who also spoke at the event.

The chemtrail theory has been around since at least the mid-1990s and has picked up followers with the growth of the Web (a search on Google for “chemtrails” now yields some 9 million results).

It’s gotten so popular that U.S. government agencies, including NASA and the Air Force have been forced to issue statements explaining that no, they are not controlling the weather or poisoning the population.

A paper issued by the U.S. Air Force a few years ago explains that what are termed chemtrails are more accurately described as “contrails” - short for condensation trails formed by ice crystals that are simply the result of normal exhaust issued by aircraft interacting with various environmental conditions.

“The Air Force’s policy is to observe and forecast the weather,” the paper declared. “The Air Force is focused on observing and forecasting the weather so the information can be used to support military operations. The Air Force is not conducting any weather modification experiments or programs and has no plans to do so in the future.”

“The `Chemtrail’ hoax has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications,” the paper added.

Still, photographer Margo Jim, a retired teacher who lives in Mount Washington in northeastern Los Angeles, believes “normal planes don’t fly like that.”

Jim said she didn’t initially buy into the chemtrails theory until nearly two years ago when she noticed the prevalence of sky tracks.

“I watched those things,” she said pointing to her photo exhibit, collectively titled “Aerosol on High,” that was on display Saturday at the conference. “By noon, it had formed this milky cover all over the sky, and I was outraged.”

Perlingieri and other speakers discussed other environmental pollutants and urged attendees to “do your homework if you don’t believe.”

Enouranois is back on line.

Here is the dialogue with Tim Ball about geoengineering:

http://www.enouranois.gr/english/political/Dialogue_with_a_Climate_Change_Contrarian.doc

Dr. Ball says finally: “Please do not communicate with me anymore for any reason” when I say “You have not responded to my previous message. Is this evidence of my having pinpointed an element of dishonesty in your position?” 

Conclusion, the reaction of refusing dialogue is a typical human response to the experience of having one’s self-image challenged, in particular one’s position in a subjectively imagined hierarchy.

Conclusion, the reaction of refusing dialogue is a typical human response to “wild unfounded accusations” by Wayne Hall, along with his refusal to back up these accusations in a discussion.

He just doesn’t seem to get it.

Josh do you agree with Tim Ball’s suggestion that Crutzen should have his Nobel Prize taken away from him because of his “stupid proposals”, i.e. advocacy of spraying of the upper or lower atmosphere with toxic substances?

There are some climate change sceptics who think that because global warming is a myth you can fight the “geoengineers” by proving that global warming is a myth.

It seems that Josh doesn’t know whether or not he thinks the idea of massive spraying sullphur particulates in thev upper atmosphere is a good one.

Recent exchange with the anti-nuclear movement, which has had an ostrich posture on these subjects at least since the “end of the Cold War”.

http://www.enouranois.gr/english/anti-nuclear-geoengineering.htm

In particular see :http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/09/at-war-over-geoengineering

Few in the civil sector fully understand that geoengineering is primarily a military science and has nothing to do with either cooling the planet or lowering carbon emissions (Report, 6 February).

While seemingly fantastical, weather has been weaponised. At least four countries – the US, Russia, China and Israel – possess the technology and organisation to regularly alter weather and geologic events for various military and black operations, which are tied to secondary objectives, including demographic, energy and agricultural resource management.

Indeed, warfare now includes the technological ability to induce, enhance or direct cyclonic events, earthquakes, draught and flooding, including the use of polymerised aerosol viral agents and radioactive particulates carried through global weather systems. Various themes in public debate, including global warming, have unfortunately been subsumed into much larger military and commercial objectives that have nothing to do with broad public environmental concerns. These include the gradual warming of polar regions to facilitate naval navigation and resource extraction.

Matt Andersson
Former executive adviser, aerospace & defence, Booz Allen Hamilton, Chicago

Before taking that reader’s letter from Matt Andersson too seriously, you may want to read more of that person’s comments.

There is a whole list online at “The Economist”:
https://www.economist.com/user/3726484/comments

He must have fallen into a rabbit hole and never recovered full sanity.

Trayvon Martin? “Agency work”

Breivik in Norway? “Foreign agency DNA all over it. Norway was just invaded.”

Arabian Spring? “A farse”

If you consider his credentials to be of any worth (no one seems to have really checked them), do so at your own peril.
Of course, chemtrail and conspiracy sites fall over themselves to copy and paste the letter from the Guardian website.

Well googled.

But how can anyone google up ammunition against you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh

???????

Now how about answering that question I asked you a few days ago, so that we can get some idea of what you WANT!!!! Given that it isn’t immediately obvious who you ARE!!!

What about some interaction in terms of ideas, rather than just gossip, and one-way demands.

Tim Ball dates the politicisation of climate science to 1988. In fact this “politicisation” was merely extension into climate science of the earlier politicisation of science, namely of physics, noted by the Russian physicist Flerov when in 1940, at the library of the University of Voronezh, he checked up on the latest publications in his speciality and found that all the leading American nuclear physicists had stopped publishing.

If one’s understanding of politics is taken from the assumptions of the post-WWII Cold War, one will not perceive this continuity, or see correctly “who is doing it”.

Of course the communication of information continued, because the game has to be kept going and more than one player is needed.  But instead of free communication between scientists, information was now transmitted via “spies”, (Klaus Fuchs, Ted Hall) hypocritically tolerated and then, at the politically appropriate time, “exposed”.

Freeman Dyson on Klaus Fuchs
http://www.webofstories.com/play/4398

Freeman Dyson on chemtrails
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPeSg_Q89qY

In 1979, physicist Freeman Dyson, a well known theoretical physicist and mathematician, proposed deliberate, large-scale introduction of fine particles into the upper atmosphere to offset global warming. In the 90’s, Edward Teller, a physicist and fellow of the renowned Hoover Institute, expounded on the idea of spreading fine particulates into the atmosphere as a means of reflecting roughly 1% of the sun’s rays back into space.

While the government is reluctant to admit anything, there has been increasing evidence regarding operations that have been carried out within and outside the U.S., based on the recommendations and theories of Dyson and Teller.                                         

If you realized the enormous amount of time and effort that went into these chemical spraying programs, I feel you would support them better. The manpower and money involved with manufacturing and delivering them to the airports around the world is staggering. Keeping the chemical spray tanks full on so many aircraft day and night is a monumental task. The work is thankless and dangerous, a little support would be nice. You need to support your Governments efforts to apply these chemicals.

Annother copy/paste attack? Oh, my ...

Quote from video uploader TheGrandDistraction, pasted by Wayne Hall:

“While the government is reluctant to admit anything, there has been
increasing evidence regarding operations that have been carried out within and outside the U.S.”

Where is that ‘increasing evidence’? He can’t possibly refer to that video. It starts with a report about chaff which is entirely unrelated to contrails or any geoengeneering proposals.

Wouldn’t it actually be better to google facts before posting? Might save quite a bit of embarassement ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)

The above writer is not the only supporter of chemtrails.  The anonymous whistleblower “Deep Shield” also expressed support for them in his interviews with the Californian activist David Stewart prior to committing suicide. His grievance was that the spraying was being kept secret instead of being publicized as a service to humanity.

http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/shieldproject.html

http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/stewart.html

http://www.enouranois.gr/english/sygrafeisenglish/david/indexdeepshield.htm