Is the Kyoto Protocol Dead?

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | NOVEMBER 6, 2012

Not likely. Even if the Doha Climate Summit fails to consolidate the validity of the accord signed by countries back in 1997, it is expected that climate alarmists keep the core of the plan with or without the Protocol itself.

The Kyoto Protocol is now in assisted living condition. It is set to expire this month, and with only two days to conclude in Doha climate summit, where the UN sponsored meeting intends to renew its precepts, the disagreements between the countries is making things more difficult than expected for those who promote the centralized regulation of living standards around the planet.

Before the conference ends on Friday, an agreement is needed if globalists behind the fake environmentalist movement want to extend this international convention and set new greenhouse gas reductions for 2017-2020. But the accord is threatened by the current disunity between the developed and developing world and even within the developed nations. Right now the only possible outcome is that in the Kyoto Protocol II there would be only a small group of countries (EU, Australia, Switzerland, Ukraine), but internal divisions in the EU  threaten to bear a not too valued fruit.

The Doha summit follows two negotiating tracks. First, about renewing the Kyoto Protocol, with new targets for greenhouse gas reduction pact for an extension until 2017-2020. The EU is its main supporter, while countries like Canada, Japan and Russia are completely disengaged from it. These and other developed nations such as the US have made it abundantly clear that Kyoto II would not will not have their support, because according to them, developing nations are not making equally significant commitments to cut their emissions. That is a smart choice especially because greenhouse gases are not the cause of global warming or climate change.

Parallel to the Kyoto II negotiations, there seems to be a global negotiation (agreed in Durban last year), aimed at a new global legal agreement or covenant to involve all nations in limiting emissions — U.S., China, but with different goals. The pact should be ready in 2015 and it is expected to be enforced by 2020.

Apparently, the first negotiation (the Kyoto II) was the easiest one, as the only effort to reduce greenhouse gases will be made by the EU. But new minor issues have become important, and there is a strong disagreement about them.

Countries from the former Eastern bloc — such as Poland — want to take advantage in their favor that they have fulfilled their objectives of leftover gas reduction by 2012, which according to experts happened due to the collapse of the global economy and not necessarily because the nations actively pursued such reduction. So, this nations now want their right to sell their emissions credit, which could help them get some cash effortlessly. In the negotiations, other EU countries are pursuing limits on the use of these rights and want to negotiate the cancellation of these rights once Kyoto II is over.

“Poland blocks the progress of the negotiations and wants to drag these rights to the new comprehensive global agreement, but what you have to do is cancel and set the clock to zero in 2013,” says Aida Vila, representative from Greenpeace.

The intention of the countries of the former Eastern bloc is to benefit from the sale of these rights — Spain recently bought 40 million euros in carbon credits from Poland. But if the EU accepts this situation, markets will be flooded with an oversupply of CO2 credits at low prices, which opens the door to buying other  countries’ credits so that some nations continue having a license to pollute. Those who benefit from the carbon credits Ponzi scheme must be loving it, but the pro deindustrialization folks are not too happy about it.

Meanwhile, developing nations and environmental groups continue to call for the EU to raise its gas reduction targets for 2020 (up to 30% less compared to 1990) to regain credibility as a fighter of climate change . “The EU should hold a cabinet meeting here in Doha, to agree to new emissions limit,” says Aida Vila.

The second major issue is conflicting financial assistance to countries most vulnerable to climate change. The UN climate fund created in Copenhagen failed to deliver the cash to its self-entitled members as it was promised. That is because the whole idea of having a centralized entity that dictates climate policy is not really meant to rescue nations may or may not become victims of our changing climate, but to finance the tyrannical operation of the globalist elite that seeks to gain greater control of resources and power.

As expected, developing countries are still wondering where is the money that rich countries announced they would receive in aid. They demand more assurance that aid will continue in the coming years, but their co-negotiators justify the delays with the economic crisis in the EU, U.S. absenteeism and reconstruction costs in Japan.

In Doha, much of the debate is centered on the repeated discussions of principled but differentiated responsibilities and attempt to continue establishing two blocks of countries, rich and poor, to the setting of differentiated commitments limiting greenhouse gases, with China and India in this second group, although this distinction seems increasingly outmoded.

New research presented at the meeting appears to show that even if rich countries cut their emissions to zero, which is near the goal set by the fake environmental movement and its corporate partners, that would not be enough to mitigate the warming, given the high growth rate of the gases in developing nations in the last two decades. Meanwhile, on main stream television, those in favor of taking the world back to the stone age are openly carrying the water for the corporate controllers with ever scarier doomsday stories that attempt to describe what will happen if nothing is done.

Arguments are now circulating that to avoid a temperature increase of two degrees (relative to pre-industrial era), and avoid a ‘climate catastrophe’, it is necessary that global annual emissions, which are estimated to be at 35,600 million tonnes of CO2, go down to less than 35,000 million by 2030. What this means is that the world’s progress will come to a halt and nations will need to go back to pre-industrial standards of living to stave off a catastrophe that is not only not coming, but that cannot be solved by killing the very same engine that can help humanity develop cleaner ways to develop.

As for the rules and regulations contained in the Kyoto Protocol, they will be approved either at the national level through executive decrees, or internationally adopted by technocrats who will then impose those rules and regulation on member nations. The idea to think globally and act locally has never been so useful for the globalists who seek to end one of the brightest eras in the history of humanity. They don’t need Kyoto II because they already have Agenda 21, which is the real blueprint for economic and social enslavement.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Another Climategate? This time from BEST

BEST study confirms global temperature standstill, but the organization’s head climatologist, Professor Richard Muller, says measurements for the last decade were not included in the study’s results.

by Dr. David Whitehouse
The Observatory
November 1, 2011

Contrary to claims being made by the leader of the Best global temperature initiative their data confirms, and places on a firmer statistical basis, the global temperature standstill of the past ten years as seen by other groups.

Many people have now had some time to read the papers issued in preprint form from the Best project. My strong impression is that they are mostly poorly written, badly argued and at this stage unfit for submission to a major journal. Whilst I have made some comments about Best’s PR and data release strategy, I want to now look at some aspects of the data.

When asked by the BBC’s Today programme Professor Richard Muller, leader of the initiative, said that the global temperature standstill of the past decade was not present in their data.

“In our data, which is only on the land we see no evidence of it having slowed down. Now the evidence which shows that it has been stopped is a combination of land and ocean data. The oceans do not heat as much as the land because it absorbs more of the heat and when the data are combined with the land data then the other groups have shown that when it does seem to be leveling off. We have not seen that in the land data.”

My first though would be that it would be remarkable if it was. The global temperature standstill of the past decade is obvious in HadCrut3 data which is a combination of land and sea surface data. Best is only land data from nearly 40,000 weather stations. Professor Muller says they “really get a good coverage of the globe.” The land is expected to have a fast response to the warming of the lower atmosphere caused by greenhouse gas forcing, unlike the oceans with their high thermal capacity and their decadal timescales for heating and cooling, though not forgetting the ENSO and la Nina.

Fig 1 shows the past ten years plotted from the monthly data from Best’s archives. Click on the image to enlarge.

BestMonthly

It is a statistically perfect straight line of zero gradient. Indeed, most of the largest variations in it can be attributed to ENSO and la Nina effects. It is impossible to reconcile this with Professor Muller’s statement. Could it really be the case that Professor Muller has not looked at the data in an appropriate way to see the last ten years clearly?

(Incidently you could extend the graph back a few years before 2001 and it doesn’t make much difference because the ‘super el nino’ of 1998 and the two subsequent cooler years of 1999 and 2000 do not show up as dramatically in the Best land data as they do in HadCrut3. I would also point out that there is now an abundance of peer-reviewed literature that deals with the question of the lack of temperature increase in the past decade, so our graph’s starting point and duration is justifiable. Arguments that the time period we chose was cherry-picked to show a flat line, and that slightly longer periods would not, are incorrect. There are, of course, still those who distort the argument by saying that ten years is too short for climatic conclusions, as if ten years of data is meaningless. Also Professor Muller was asked a specific question about the last ten years, and our graph is a response to his specific answer.)

Indeed Best seems to have worked hard to obscure the past decade. They present data covering more almost 200 years is presented with a short x-axis and a stretched y-axis to accentuate the increase. The data is then smoothed using a ten year average which is ideally suited to removing the past five years of the past decade and mix the earlier standstill years with years when there was an increase. This is an ideal formula for suppressing the past decade’s data.

When examined more objectively Best data confirms the global temperature standstill of the past decade. That the standstill should be present in land only data is remarkable. There have been standstills in land temperature before, but the significance of the past decade is that it is in the era of mankind’s postulated influence on climate through greenhouse gas forcing. Predictions made many times in the past few years suggest that warming should be the strongest and fastest in the land data.

Only a few years ago many scientists and commentators would not acknowledge the global temperature standstill of the past decade. Now that it has become unarguable there has emerged more explanations for it than can possibly be the case.

To explain the combined sea-land temperature hiatus some have suggested that the oceans are sucking up the heat, as professor Muller outlines in his radio interview. This explanation is strained in my view if the land temperature stays constant. Could we really have the very special situation whereby the oceans sequester just enough heat at just the right time to keep the land temperature flat? Aerosols, postulated by some to be coming from China, don’t provide an explanation for the land temperature hiatus either. In fact, the constant land temperature puts a strain on all of the explanations offered for why the land-sea combination hasn’t warmed in the past decade or so.

We make a big deal of the temperature going up. In my view we should make a bigger scientific deal about temperature flatlining for a decade or more in the face of rising CO2 levels. If further scrutiny of the Best dataset confirms this finding we will have new questions about the nature and balance of oceanic and land warming.

The fact that Best confirms the global temperature hiatus and shows that it is apparent in land only data is significant, and in my view its major scientific finding, so far. It is puzzling that they missed it.

The Death Of Global Warming Skepticism, Or The Birth Of Straw Men?

by James Taylor
Forbes
October 26, 2011

The mainstream media has been spiking the football in the proverbial end zone ever since a paper released last Friday claimed two-thirds of global temperature stations show some warming occurred during the past century. The media have been claiming the new paper delivers a death blow to skepticism, but the paper itself brings almost nothing new to the global warming debate and instead shows how far global warming advocates are from presenting credible evidence of a crisis. Rather than delivering a death blow to skepticism, the media has merely invented and shredded an insignificant straw man.

University of California, Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller analyzed land-based temperature readings from temperature stations around the world and found two-thirds indicate warming temperatures and one-third indicate cooling temperatures. As a result, “Global warming is real,” summarized Muller in an editorial he wrote in the October 21 Wall Street Journal .

Muller acknowledged that many of the stations produced incomplete temperature records and had poor quality control. He claimed that he nevertheless included them in the study to avoid “data-selection bias.” Scientists such as Anthony Watts have pointed out several additional flaws in the Muller paper. But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Muller’s paper is flawless in its conclusion that two-thirds of land-based temperature stations report warming rather than cooling. Even under such an assumption, Muller’s paper does nothing to dispel skeptical objections to the theory that humans are causing a global warming crisis.

The case for a human-induced global warming crisis requires the demonstration of several components. These include (1) that global temperatures are rising, (2) that global temperatures will likely continue to rise in the future, (3) that the rise in temperatures is or will be sufficiently rapid and substantial to cause enormous negative consequences that far outweigh the benefits of such warming and (4) that human emissions of greenhouse gases account for all such temperature rise or enough of the temperature rise to elevate the temperature rise to crisis levels.

In order to justify government action against global warming, advocates must also show that the proposed action will substantially reduce the negative impacts of the asserted crisis and that the costs of such action will not outweigh the benefits.

Muller’s paper merely addresses the first component necessary to support the theory of a human-induced global warming crisis. Moreover, this first component hasn’t been in dispute, even before publication of Muller’s paper.

Very few if any skeptics assert that the earth is still in the Little Ice Age. While the Little Ice Age raged from approximately 1300 to 1900 AD, it is pretty well accepted that the Little Ice Age did indeed end by approximately 1900 AD. The mere fact that the Little Ice Age ended a little over 100 years ago, and that temperatures have warmed during the course of recovering from the Little Ice Age, tells us absolutely nothing about the remaining components necessary to support an assertion that humans are creating a global warming crisis.

Muller himself admits, “How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.”

So we have a paper merely claiming that two out of three global temperature stations report the Little Ice Age is over. This supports the media spiking the football and proclaiming the death of skepticism regarding a human-induced global warming crisis?

Even prominent global warming advocate Eric Steig admits, “Anybody expecting earthshaking news from Berkeley, now that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group being led by Richard Muller has released its results, had to be content with a barely perceptible quiver. As far as the basic science goes, the results could not have been less surprising if the press release had said ‘Man Finds Sun Rises At Dawn.’”

“Overall, we are underwhelmed by the quality of [the] Berkeley effort so far,” Steig adds.

Far from marking the death of skepticism, the media’s over-the-top sensationalism of the Muller paper shows just how far global warming advocates are from supporting their assertions of a human-induced global warming crisis. The straw man may be dead, but skepticism of a human-induced global warming crisis is alive and well.

Globalists, Climate Alarmists Move Forward with Deindustrialization Agenda

Reuters
April 8, 2011

Rich and poor nations overcame deep divisions on Friday to cut a deal that maps out U.N. climate negotiations for 2011, building on last December’s agreement in Mexico and hardening the focus on tougher issues.

The deal in Bangkok came after nearly four days of talks that some developing nations said were needed to “recalibrate” U.N. climate negotiations after last year’s Cancun agreements.

They wanted an agenda that tackled the fate of the Kyoto Protocol on fighting global warming and rich countries’ pledges to cut emissions, and clarified sources of cash for poorer nations rather than just building on what was agreed at Cancun.

But many rich nations said some developing nations were simply trying to row back on what was agreed in Cancun and this undermined negotiations this year that culminate in the South African city of Durban from late November.

Many nations were unhappy that much of the April 3-8 meeting was taken up arguing over the agenda, with the United States saying the delay dampened the mood, while some developing nations had misgivings about the end result. All expressed an urgency to press ahead with negotiations.

“It’s less rosy today than when we came in (at the start of the meeting),” senior U.S. negotiator Jonathan Pershing told reporters. In particular, he said some countries wanted to renegotiate the Cancun decisions.

“I don’t think that’s going to be constructive. What became evident is that we can expect more of that going forward,” he said.

Tosi Mpanu Mpanu, chair of the Africa Group, said he had mixed feelings. “Thank god we came up with an agenda. It’s a pity it took so long. What does it say for the rest of the year?”

FRAUGHT

Cancun is widely regarded as saving the often fraught negotiations from collapse.

Nations agreed curbs on the loss of tropical forests, schemes to transfer clean technology to poorer nations and help them adapt to climate change impacts, and a goal for rich countries to provide $100 billion a year in aid from 2020.

But it side-stepped tougher issues, such as whether to extend or replace the Kyoto Protocol, with concerns growing that a new pact or extension to Kyoto will not be agreed before the pact’s first phase ends next year.

Kyoto binds almost 40 industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels during the five-year period 2008-2012. A second phase is meant to increase those cuts for rich nations.

It is the only pact imposing legal obligations on emissions cuts and the U.N. talks have been hobbled by disagreement over how to extend that obligation to all major economies, such as China, the world’s top greenhouse gas emitter.

The United States is No. 2. It never ratified Kyoto.

In Bangkok, there was a fresh focus on trying to find a compromise, with the agreed agenda stating there should be a continued discussion of the legal options of a new agreement that captures emissions curbs by all major economies.

“This evening in Bangkok, parties agreed an agenda to work toward a comprehensive and balanced outcome at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Durban,” said U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres.

But disputes still loom over the size of rich nations’ pledges to cut emissions, with the United Nations saying they are not enough to avoid average global warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius.

Nations agreed in Cancun to work to keep the rise below this level to stave off ever greater extremes of droughts and floods, crop failures and rising sea levels.

Environmental groups were worried by the outcome of Bangkok.

“Once again, delegates could not reach agreement over key issues, including the future of the Kyoto Protocol, bringing the talks to a screeching halt almost from the beginning,” said Tasneem Essop of WWF.

Others pointed to the urgency to act to fight the impacts of climate change.

“There’s uncertainty about where the Cancun agreements take us, and can countries meet their commitments, and is it enough? And I think that was really at the heart of the agenda debate,” said Angela Anderson of the U.S. Climate Action Network.

Zero Hora Newspaper Lies to Readers about Chem-trails

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
June 23, 2010

Chem-trails do not decorate or adorn the sky. They are part of an experiment used globally called Geo-engineering that seeks to limit the

Chem-trails are lines of toxic Aluminum Oxide, Barium and Sulfur left on the sky by airplanes with the intent of reflecting solar radiation.

amount of sunlight the planet receives in order to reduce the nonexistent global warming. As The Real Agenda already reported, chemical trails or chem-trails, as they are called in English, are composed of crystals of aluminum oxide, barium and sulfur, used to -according to some scientists-, block and reflect sunlight in order to decrease the temperature of the planet. The problem with these trails is that, inevitably, they become part of the air people breathe, causing them severe breathing problems and other health complications.

Geo-engineering, or the artificial manipulation of weather and climate patterns, is a topic that has stirred controversy after it was discovered that government agencies have studied and are still studying the application of weather modification techniques, they say, to eliminate or limit global warming and other weather “diseases”. As with other artificially engineered products, such as GM foods, most of us were ignorant about it and took a huge effort from the alternative media to uncover and expose this program. See the video of chemical trails over the city of Sao Leopoldo, RS, Brazil and planes spreading them here.

The use of chemical trails is not only a question of climate change, but involves a set of environmental changes. The first direct consequences of the spraying of chemicals have been a multitude of health complications to the population, as the effects of neurological and behavioral changes, impaired blood circulation, heart problems, effects on the eyes and vision, reproductive failure, damage to the immune system, gastrointestinal, liver and kidney function damage, hearing defects, disorders of the metabolism, dermatological lesions, asphyxiation and pulmonary embolism. How do we know? Tests conducted on people suffering from any or several of these complications have high levels of one or more of the chemicals sprayed on population centers. In other tests, air samples also showed high concentrations of barium and aluminum.

But if these tracks are not toxic chemicals, as the Zero Hora Newspaper says, why is Monsanto, a chemical company itself, creating seeds that can withstand the chemicals used in the spraying? According to Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri, the chemicals applied to populated and depopulated areas are harming not only the environment but also human health.

“… We also know that certain types of chemicals can damage human health and animals, especially the immune system … … the dangers of hormonal changes are now more fully explained in the Internet but are not well known by people who listen to traditional news media.(1) Most of these highly toxic chemicals are invisible and thus are easily out of our collective radar. With the level of stress created by the financial crisis deliberately orchestrated by the elites, where millions of people lost their jobs and homes, a deteriorating environment is not a priority for anyone, especially if there is little information about it. This scenario is part of a broader perspective and is what Naomi Klein writes in his book “The Shock Doctrine.” We have major crises, one after another, making it difficult to keep up with our daily routine, much less to have time to consider the toxicological implications of huge amounts of heavy metals and chemicals that poison our food chain and therefore our supposed health . “We’re on top of a food chain in ruins. ”

Read the complete evaluation from Dr. Perlingieri on Geo-engineering and climate change here.

Chem-trails over Sao Leopoldo, Brazil on June 4th, 2010

In spite of negative consequences, there are scientists who insist on the use of chemical trails.”I suggest that both the aluminum oxide as well as silica particles can be used diluted as an additive in the fuel used in aviation,” writes engineer John Gorman, who conducted experiments to test the feasibility of such a scenario. “We want to burn fuel containing the additive specifically when the aircraft is strolling in the lower stratosphere,” he adds. Reports of chemical trails over hundreds of cities in countries around the world are now common. Plumes of smoke paint the blue skies of gray after commercial and private planes release chemicals. Both government agencies and institutions such as the air force and private contractors are responsible for operating the aircraft, putting the chemicals in tanks or even in the fuel that airplanes use.

With all the negative effects that chem-trails have had on populations, many scientists have made pronouncements about the dangers that this type of Geo-engineering poses to the environment and people. Dan Schrag, from Harvard University, warned that any attempt to change the environment, including the ecosystem itself, could have disastrous consequences, including droughts and other natural disasters. “I think we should consider the climate engineering only as an emergency response to a climate crisis, but there is no evidence to show that a climate crisis exists,” said Schrag. Alan Robock, a professor at Rutgers University, says the consequences could go much further than drought. These experiences, he says, “could create disasters”, damaging the ozone layer and potentially changing the stratosphere, eliminating weather patterns, such as the rainy season from which billions of people depend on for their crops and to feed their families. “The problem is that this is exactly what the use of chemical trails are supposed to do: change weather patterns. The use of chemicals to block the sun’s rays will lead to drastic changes in the biosphere and atmosphere, such as the hydrological cycle, wind patterns and how the sun drives the winds around the planet. Other consequences such as soil fertility and water availability are beginning to be emerge.

Do not let the lies of the Zero Hora newspaper confuse you. Geo-engineering and chemical trails are not the same as condensation trails or contrails. While the contrails disappear after a few minutes in the sky, chem-trails are left by airplanes crossing the sky several times, producing figures like chessboards, circles and semi-circles.

If humans are responsible for global warming, why block the sun? The truth is that the sun is the most gigantic hot body in the solar system and as such, the element that determines the climate. Different calculations estimate that human activity emits only between 4 and 6 percent of total CO2 in the atmosphere, thus having little influence on weather patterns. Volcanic eruptions and the sun, for example, have a greater effect on climate than any human activity. CO2 is really what most of the biosphere uses as food. An environment rich with CO2, provides more fuel for the plants and trees and more food for animals and humans. Another consequence of chemical trails is acid rain. Raindrops containing chemicals cause massive acidification of lakes and rivers, contributing to the poisoning of humans, trees at higher elevations and many sensitive forest soils.

But not only those who reject the theory of anthropogenic global warming are skeptical about the use of chemical trails. The chief scientist of Greenpeace UK, Doug Parr, a defender of the explanation of anthropogenic global warming, disqualifies Geo-engineering as “strange” and “dangerous.” A report from KSLA earlier this year found that chemical experiments with aerosols have been happening for decades. The report revealed experiments exposed in 1977 in hearings before the U.S. Senate. The report showed experiments with biochemical compounds in humans and reported that “239 populated areas were contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969.

According to the article on Zero Hora, -which omits the name of the reporter- these tracks mean nothing more than random condensation of

This is what a chem-trail looks like 30 minutes after it was sprayed. It then spreads and covers the sky in what seems to be haze.

contrails, but the evidence shows exactly the opposite. The newspaper reporters are ignorant or simply lie to their readers deliberately.

If the ultimate goal of Geo-engineering is to reduce the effects of global warming due to human activity and their related emissions of greenhouse gases, you would think that this method would at least have a good chance of working, Would not you? Well, it happens that Geo-engineering has no effect in preventing what corrupt scientists say causes global warming in the atmosphere. Therefore, the use of chemical trails is at best an inefficient solution and, at worst, a mass poisoning of humanity.

Scientist David Suzuki says Geo-engineering is “madness” and goes further to say: “If we learned anything from the past, is that although we are very skillful in inventing new and powerful technologies, our knowledge of how our world works and how things are interconnected is almost zero. ”

But there is a more worrisome aspect about Geo-engineering We all know what governments are capable of doing when they want to manipulate people: inexplicable wars, false pandemics, non-existent terrorist events … Although the use of chemicals as weapons of war is generally seen as morally and universally banned, we have seen very convincing evidence that such a prohibition is not always respected. According to an article published in Wired Magazine, other forms of Geo-engineering such as ocean fertilization can be used to sterilize the oceans, that in turn would destroy fisheries and water ecosystems.

Even the globalist United Nations, traditional supporter of these policies expressed concern with the use of chemical trails. The 14th Session of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice was the first place where the United Nations Council discussed Geo-engineering since the signing of the ENMOD Treaty in 1976. The treaty banned Geo-engineering when it is used for hostile purposes.  SBSTTA 14 will recommend to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to impose a moratorium on all activities related to climate change through Geo-engineering at a meeting in Nagoya Japan on October 2010.

So why have we adopted a technique of changing the climate which is harmful to humans and whose main goal is not achievable? Who benefits from this type of Geo-engineering technologies that are adopted for other reasons? Certainly not the environment. More answers about chemical trails or chem-trails, its origins and what they mean can be found in The Science of “Air Pharmacology” and “Chemtrails.”

Naturally, the knowledge spreads faster and better when more people locally and responsibly report on these issues. So tell your family, friends and acquaintances about the origin and dangers of Geo-engineering around the globe. Just as THE PEOPLE exposed the lies about anthropogenic global warming and Climategate, it is our duty to expose this too.

To my colleagues at the Zero Hora newspaper, I have to say: it costs nothing to write a full report with credible sources and facts. But I think we all know why this newspaper avoids writing the truth. It is part of the great media empire from Brazil known as GLOBO. Maybe it’s hard to speak or write the truth while working there. Only those who lend themselves to lie or tell half-truths because of their ignorance or laziness have space in a company like Zero Hora or the GLOBO empire.