Posted on July 25. 2014. 5:21 PM UTC by Admin  |  Comments

LOOK UP!'s time to stop the crime.

". For more than a decade, first the United States and then Canada’s citizens have been subjected to a 24/7/365 day aerosol assault over our heads made of a toxic brew of poisonous heavy metals, chemicals, and other dangerous ingredients. None of this was reported by any mainstream media.

The US Department of Defense [DOD] and military have been systematically blanketing all our skies with what are known as Chemtrails (also known as Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering).

These differ vastly from the usual plane contrails that evaporate rather quickly in the sky. Chemtrails do not dissipate. Rather, planes (fitted with special nozzles) release aerosols “lines” in the sky that do not evaporate. Multiple planes are deployed, flying parallel (or often “checkerboard” patterns) overhead; and soon the sky is blanketed with many grayish-white lines [miles and miles long, although this is changing].

At first, these lines are thin; but soon they expand and, in a short time, merge together. Our once-blue sky has vanished and has been replaced by a grayish-white toxic haze that blots out and greatly diminishes our usual sunshine.

We must organize peacefully. PEACEFULLY is the operative word.If these many-pronged aerosol attacks by military and commercial planes can spray these horrific toxins on us, year after year with impunity –against all laws– then it is absolutely imperative that we organize peacefully. As Peter Dale Scott notes in Jason Bermas’ new DVD “Invisible Empire”: we must use the Internet and our peaceful intellectual powers to come together and shut this nightmare down. It is possible to do this."

- Quote by Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri.

Sept 27 2014 Promotional Video


Posted on July 21. 2014. 11:01 AM UTC by Admin  |  Comments


On Saturday September 27 2014 join us everywhere around the world in peaceful public protests, and educational events against all forms of Chemtrails, and Geoengineering.

These educational events will be held Simultaneously that week in many countries all around the world by committed individuals and groups.We all speak as one planet and one goal to increase public knowledge and stop Chemtrails and Geoengineering, Now is the time to take back our skies, and our very lives.

We are calling on people from all around the world to participate in their own local Global March Against Chemtrails And Geoengineering educational protest event, and take a stand for what they believe in. Our environment and our planet is on a dead end collision with the after effects of SRM and SAG Geoengineering that has already been going on for several decades.


1 » »Top Of Page

Posted on July 21. 2014. 11:01 AM UTC by Admin |  Comments



The GMO (Genetically modified foods) Geoengineering connection. One of the toxic contents in the chemicals they use for making these man made clouds is Aluminum. Test results from all around the world are confirming that Aluminum is poisoning the soils and killing off all natural plants and seeds on a global level. Monsanto knows that and has made an Aluminum resistant seed that will flourish in the high aluminum soils. This is no mistake.  It is part of the larger evil plan. This is the GMO and Geoengineering connection.

Our governments and scientists have been lying to us about the facts around global warming. They have been keeping the public in the dark about the largest global ecological disaster the world has ever seen because they have no plan B, and time is running out quicker then computer models have predicted!

We do have a plan B: It is called stopping all forms of Aerosol Chemtrail Geoengineering and SRM Geoengineering. Register your Global March Against Chemtrails And Geoengineering protest and educational event for your area today.

What Are You Doing To Help Save The World From Chemtrails And Geoengineering Today ?



1 » »Top Of Page

Posted on July 21. 2014. 11:01 AM UTC by Admin |  Comments



"Why in the World are They Spraying?" Documentary HD (multiple language subtitles) Full Version.(Run time 1:12)

People around the world are noticing that our planet's weather is dramatically changing. They are also beginning to notice the long lingering trails left behind airplanes that have lead millions to accept the reality of chemtrail/geoengineering programs. Could there be a connection between the trails and our severe weather? While there are many agendas associated with these damaging programs, evidence is now abundant which proves that geoengineering can be used to control weather. In this documentary you will learn how the aerosols being sprayed into our sky are used in conjunction with other technologies to control our weather. While geoengineers maintain that their models are only for the mitigation of global warming, it is now clear that they can be used as a way to consolidate an enormous amount of both monetary and political power into the hands of a few by the leverage that weather control gives certain corporations over the Earth's natural systems. This of course, is being done at the expense of every living thing on the planet. Directed/Produced by Michael J. Murphy and Produced/Edited by Barry Kolsky.. Written by Michael J. Murphy and Barry Kolsky.



1 » »Top Of Page

Posted on July 14. 2014. 4:17 PM UTC by Admin | 


LOOKUP !!! A Social Action Documentary.Full version(.Run time 30:03 minute)

"Look Up" new 1:10 minute film narrated by William Baldwin now available on DVD Help get the word out on the most serious issue humanity faces today.

Unregulated GeoEngineering and misuse/abuse of Climate Science is the SINGLE LARGEST ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT the planet faces today BAR NONE.GeoEngineering's objective is Climate Change and it's side effects include extreme weather, ozone depletion, drought, storms, air pollution, water pollution, and the intentional blocking of the sun.

SKYDER is a Non-Profit 501(c)4 dedicated to increasing public awareness about the dangers of unregulated GeoEngineering, and petitioning lawmakers for change.SkyderALERT smartphe app automatically contacts the appropriate legislators and news media based on your geo-location so you don't even need to know who they are. SkyderALERT provides that contact information.This breakthrough App also automatically lists politician's contact phone numbers so that you can call them up directly to voice your concerns on this environmental issue (or any other for that matter).


Full Movie At


1 » »Top Of Page

Posted on July 21. 2014. 11:01 AM UTC by Admin |  Comments



Please take a moment  to watch this presentation and familiarize yourself with this ongoing crime
against all life on earth.



1 » »Top Of Page

Posted on July 13. 2014. 6:08 PM UTC by Admin  |  Comments



To stop Geoengineering, we should learn from the man that exposed and stopped much segregation in the South, Martin Luther King, Jr. King was a master of bringing people of conscience together in order to end injustice. Today, humanity must form a united front and join together to stop death by Chemtrails. Educating others is the foundation of change. This means distributing flyers, speaking to your city council members, confronting air quality district board members, filing complaints, and filing public information and freedom of information requests. Lawsuits must be filed against the Air Force, EPA, Department of Health and Human Services, air quality management districts, and any private contractor or local government that is known to be Geoengineering.

We must continuously e-mail local, state, and national politicians, and stage public demonstrations to increase awareness. The new phone application may be helpful with this process. Once ten percent (10%) or more of the public is educated on Geoengineering, organized local and national campaigns will be needed to create tension in order to bring the issue to the public’s attention. From there, resolution will be possible – Stopping All Geoengineering.

There are many examples of this process. One is Monsanto’s genetically modified crops being banned from much of Europe because millions of people marched to create tension and awareness. Sheila Hemphill defeated smart meters in Brady, Texas. Adam Bonner, a farmer, defeated government CCTV cameras in Australia. Tony Rooke defeated a TV license fee and exposed corruption at the BBC. Michael Allison, the 41-year old Illinois mechanic who faced life in jail for video recording police officers, has had all charges against him dropped after a state judge ruled that his First Amendment rights had been violated, following a trend of similar rulings across the country that underscore the fact that it is not illegal to film police. Now it is our turn to defeat Geoengineering and stop Chemtrails.

The evidence demonstrates that the primary purpose of the public nuisance of Geoengineering is to cause bodily injury and premature death with malice aforethought. The Geoengineers are well aware of the consequences of spraying tiny particles aluminum, barium, and other dangerous toxins into the atmosphere.Our mission is to stop them and it will be accomplished if we take continuous action to inform others.

Story - By Paul Adams


1 » »Top Of Page

".. For anyone who looks up in the sky every so often while fostering some recollection of what a sunny day used to resemble, the reality of Geoengineering—what are often referred to as “Chemtrails”—can no longer be easily dismissed. For over a decade military and private jet aircraft have been spraying our skies with what numerous independent researchers, journalists, and activists observe to be an admixture of aluminum, barium, strontium, and other dangerous heavy metals. Such substances distributed into the atmosphere as microscopic sub-particulates eventually descend to earth where they are breathed by living things and absorbed by the soil and plant life."- Prof. James F. Tracy.Global



“..If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito.”
Dalai Lama XIV

Posted on July 13. 2014. 6:08 PM UTC by Admin  |  Comments

HOW TO HELP OUT: ".. People keep asking us what they can do to help, and we keep telling them it is simple, just jump in share and get involved. Participating or promoting this peaceful protest is one way that any one of any age can help save the world from Chemtrail Geoengineering."

1.Share Share Share...
Help us to promote this global event in any way you can.Help make the event viral by sharing our images, web site and Facebook address with your friends and community. You should consider all forms of media both traditional and nontraditional media sources. You welcome to use any of our web site links, images, banners or our promotional video's for your web page, blog, or your events calendar on your social media page.

2..Advertisethrew art. We encourage our artistic community to come together and make your own flyers,signs, youtube video's songs, banners,and avatars. We will gladly post them and add them to our web page for people to view and download.

3.Join our Facebook page and like us. By liking us you will receive our live updates in your Facebook news feeds.-> Facebook

4.Become part of the community by joining our Facebook page. Members can contribute content to the site and get live updates in their news feeds. Re-Share the information posts, pictures, links and resources with the world right off your own Facebook wall.-> Facebook

5.Follow us on Twitter retweet our updates -> Twitter

6.Create a global march against Chemtrails and Geoengineering protest event or a group web page, or a Facebook page for your own city or town. Then send us the link and we will post it and advertise it. You can send it to us either by E-Mail or by Facebook.

7.Participate in your own local Global March Against Chemtrails And Geoengineering protest event for your own city or town.



1 » »Top Of Page



CIA Funds Study Looking on the Effects of Geoengineering, Blocking the Sun

Posted on April 27. 2014. 06:18 AM UTC by Admin  |  Comments


Project Title: Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impact

I. CIA Digs Into new Geoengineering Project

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) raised eyebrows when it offered to shell out part of the $630,000 USD to a Geoengineering study.

Geoengineering is the practice of trying to control the weather, earthquakes, solar radiation, or other terrestrial phenomena.  In the past, the CIA has engaged in some secretive research that critics have dubbed as outlandish. For example recent reports indicate that it spiked bread in a French village in 1951 with LSD, leading to mass hallucinations, instutionalisation, and 5 deaths.

The U.S. military has also tried its hand at Geoengineering, rather successfully extending the monsoon season during the Vietnam War (Operation Popeye).  That effort led to the slogan, "Make mud, not war."  They also toyed with the idea of control hurricanes with silver iodine sprayed into clouds (Project Stormfury).  The Chinese attempted similar tactics to drive away smog prior to the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

And then of course there's HAARP -- The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program -- which ostensibly an effort to monitor the weather, but in turn yielded accusations of Geoengineering that made it "the Moby Dick of conspiracy theories", according to journalist Sharon Weinberger 

The new effort is designed to look at two tactics to fight "global warming" -- "solar radiation management (SRM)" and "carbon dioxide removal (CDR)".

CDR involves sucking carbon out of the air via chemical reactions or porous nanosponges.  SRM involves literally blocking the sun (partially) by sprinkling particulate chemicals in the air, in an effort to cut solar heating and greenhouse gas effects.  The study's page on the National Academies website reads, "This study is intended to provide a careful, clear scientific foundation that informs ethical, legal, and political discussions surrounding Geoengineering."

The study is being conducted by a non-profit group of scientific advisors to the government and will last 21 months, producing a final report in 2014.

II. No Conspiracy, Move Along Says National Academies

The study's subject matter is sure to stoke conspiracy theories, but the CIA has indicated interest in climate change for some time now.  In fact, it maintained an entire research center devoted to the topic until last year, when it was shut down following complaints by Republicans in the House of Representatives who argued it was wasteful spending.

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) spokesperson Lauren Rugani tells The Verge:

[The study is solely meant to] assess the current state of knowledge about several Geoengineering techniques [and the CIA's involvement] begins and ends with its financial contributions.  It should be noted, and in fact highlighted, that CIA is only funding a portion of this study, with the rest provided by NOAA, NASA, and the National Academy of Sciences itself.

She says that the CIA and other funding agencies will not interact with the study's authors, but only address the committee in charge of the study at a single meeting at its beginning.

As to why the CIA might think it worth spending on, she comments:

One of the objectives of the study is to discuss the possible national security concerns that might arise should Geoengineering techniques be deployed (expected or unexpectedly), either by a private entity or another country.

In other words, the study may examine what would happen if China or some other big polluter started dumping chemicals in the atmosphere in an attempt to limit solar radiation.  Ms. Rugani says the study will not look to attempt any of the techniques that it discusses, merely discuss results to date.




1 » »Top Of Page

" Solar Geoengineering is the idea that you could in priniciple reduce the rate of climate change or reverse it by making the earth more reflective, by reflecting away more sunlight, for example by putting reflective particles aerosol Pollution if you like in the upper atmosphere." - David Keith Geoengineer Scientists Explains Chemtrails And Geoengineering Quoted from " The science of science communication May 21-22 2013. Original quote can be found here -> Video -> Source


Posted on Jan 11. 2014. 2:30 PM UTC by Admin   |  Comments

By Dane Wigington



About :".. I began study and research on meteorology and atmospheric change in the late 90′s. After moving to Shasta County Cal. in 2001 and building one of the largest “off grid” solar homes in Northern California, I took notice of the of the sporadic aircraft “trails” and “grid patterns” that were blocking ever increasing amounts of my homes solar charging capacity (sometimes up to 80%). Subsequent research lead me straight to the subjects of SAG (stratospheric aerosol Geoengineering) and SRM (solar radiation management). I began lab testing of rain samples on a consistent basis. The skyrocketing toxicity of once pristine rainfall over the Pacific Northwest was shocking. Massive and ever escalating quantities of the exact heavy metals called for in numerous Geoengineering patents were present in all samples tested at Northern California’s state certified lab. I witnessed a stark and accelerating tree mortality along with insect and amphibian decline. Years of continuing research have left me with the following conclusion, the threat posed by Geoengineering, both immediate and long term, cannot be overstated.  I have spent the last decade dedicated to researching and exposing the long list of dire consequences related to the ongoing atmospheric spraying programs." - Dane Wiginton quote from

REPORT. In his video, Dane Wigington gives a presentation in Northern California on the harmful effects of Geoengineering, declaring that there is no more critical topic today. The very essentials needed to sustain life on earth are being recklessly destroyed by these programs.

This is not a topic that will begin to affect us in several years, but is now already causing massive animal and plant die off around the world, as well as human illness.

The debate over whether Geoengineering programs are going on is now a moot point. We have more than enough data to confirm it. We have actual footage showing tankers spraying. The materials showing up on the ground are exactly the same materials mentioned in the numerous Geoengineering patents and documents. Visit our website for a list of these government patents and documents.

Our skies today are simply not normal. Upon examination this cannot be denied. They are filled with nanoparticulates of heavy metals. But the skies have been filled with grid patterns for so long now that we are used to them and do not see them anymore. Sadly, the fact is that people do not look up.

To be clear, what we are seeing is not cloud seeding to increase rainfall. These particulates are designed to block the sun and move the jet stream. Dane explains how this is causing the drought and deluge being experienced around the globe.

Our atmosphere is nothing but a massive physics lab to Geoengineering scientists who have no concern whatsoever about the consequences to humanity or any living thing, including themselves. The experiments are literally tearing the planet apart and destroying life on earth.

Dane reports, among other things, on:
• Geoengineering related climate disruptions, extreme drought and deluge
• Ozone depletion
• Methane release
• Drastic reduction in arctic sea ice
• Global oxygen content reductions
• Oceans on the brink of collapse
• Massive fish die offs
• 200 species becoming extinct every single day
• A drastic rise in Autism, Alzheimer’s, and Dementia
• Crisis level forest reductions
• The sterilization of soils making it impossible for plants to grow without Monsanto’s aluminum resistant seeds

Dane Wigington presents hard data which reveals what these catastrophic programs have done to our planet to date and what they will do if they are allowed to continue. Please take the time to watch this video, follow up with some investigation of your own on our site —, and share this information far and wide.

Thank you,
GeoengineeringWatch Staff


1 » »Top Of Page



Posted on Jan 8. 2014. 5:45 PM UTC by Admin   |  Comments

By Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.

Chemtrails, Nanoaluminum, and Neurodegenerative and Neurodevelopmental Effects.

The internet is littered with stories of “Chemtrails” and Geoengineering to combat “global warming”; and, until recently, I took these stories with a grain of salt. One of the main reasons for my skepticism was that I rarely saw what they were describing in the skies. But over the past several years I have noticed a great number of these trails and I have to admit they are not like the contrails I grew up seeing in the skies. They are extensive, quite broad, are laid in a definite pattern, and slowly evolve into artificial clouds. Of particular concern is that there are now so many – dozens every day are littering the skies.

"..My major concern is that there is evidence that they are spraying tons of Nanosized Aluminum Compounds. It has been demonstrated in the scientific and medical literature that Nanosized Particles are infinitely more reactive and induce intense inflammation in a number of tissues. Of special concern is the effect of these nanoparticles on the brain and spinal cord, as a growing list of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s Dementia, Parkinson’s Disease, and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) are strongly related to exposure to environmental Aluminum."

Nanoparticles of aluminum are not only infinitely more inflammatory, they also easily penetrate the brain by a number of routes, including the blood and olfactory nerves (the smell nerves in the nose). Studies have shown that these particles pass along the olfactory neural tracts, which connect directly to the area of the brain that is not only most affected by Alzheimer’s disease, but also the earliest affected in the course of the disease. It also has the highest level of brain aluminum in Alzheimer’s cases.

The intranasal route of exposure makes spraying of massive amounts of nanoaluminum into the skies especially hazardous, as it will be inhaled by people of all ages, including babies and small children for many hours. We know that older people have the greatest reaction to this airborne aluminum. Because of the nanosizing of the aluminum particles being used, home-filtering systems will not remove the aluminum, thus prolonging exposure, even indoors.

:"..In addition to inhaling nanoaluminum, such spraying will saturate the ground, water, and vegetation with high levels of aluminum. Normally, aluminum is poorly absorbed from the GI tract; but nanoaluminum is absorbed in much higher amounts. This absorbed aluminum has been shown to be distributed to a number of organs and tissues including the brain and spinal cord. Inhaling this environmentally suspended nanoaluminum will also produce tremendous inflammatory reaction within the lungs, which will pose a significant hazard to children and adults with asthma and pulmonary diseases."

I pray that the pilots who are spraying this dangerous substance fully understand that they are destroying the lives and health of their families as well. This is also true of our political officials. Once the soil, plants, and water sources are heavily contaminated there will be no way to reverse the damage that has been done.

Steps need to be taken now to prevent an impending health disaster of enormous proportions if this project is not stopped immediately. Otherwise we will see an explosive increase in neurodegenerative diseases occurring in adults and the elderly in unprecedented rates as well as neurodevelopmental disorders in our children. We are already seeing a dramatic increase in these neurological disorders and it is occurring in younger people more than ever before.

Source August 23, 2012


1. Win-Shwe T-T, Fujimaki H, “Nanoparticles and Neurotoxicity,” In J Mol Sci 2011;12:6267-6280.

2. Krewski D et al., “The biological effects of nanoparticles. Risk assessment for aluminum, aluminum oxide, and aluminum hydroxide,” J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 2007;10 (suppl 1): 1-269.

3. Blaylock RL, “Aluminum induced immunoexcitotoxicity in neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders,” Curr Inorg Chem 2012;2:46-53.

4.  Tomljenovic L, “Aluminum and Alzheimer’s disease: after a century, is there a plausible link,” J Alzheimer’s Disease 2011;23:567-598.

5.  Perl DP, Good PF, “Aluminum, Alzheimer’s Disease, and the olfactory system,” Ann NY Acad Sci 1991;640:8-13.

6.  Shaw CA, Petrik MS, “Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration,” J Inorg Biochem 2009;103:1555-1562.

7.  Braydich-Stolie LK et al., “Nanosized aluminum altered immune function,” ACS Nano 2010:4:3661-3670.

8.  Li XB et al., “Glia activation induced by peripheral administration of aluminum oxide nanoparticles in rat brains,” Nanomedicine 2009;5:473-479.

9.  Exley C, House E, “Aluminum in the human brain,” Monatsh Chem 2011;142:357-363.

10.Nayak P, Chatterjee AK, “Effects of aluminum exposure on brain glutamate and GABA system: an experimental study in rats,” Food Chem Toxicol 2001;39:1285-1289.

11.  Tsunoda M, Sharma RP, “Modulation of tumor necrosis factor alpha expression in mouse brain after exposure to aluminum in drinking water,” Arch Toxicol 1999;73:419-426.

12.  Matyja E, “Aluminum changes glutamate –mediated neurotoxicity in organotypic cultures of rat hippocampus,” Folia Neuropathol 2000;38:47-53.

13.  Walton JR, “Aluminum in hippocampal neurons from humans with Alzheimer’s disease,” Neurotoxicology 2006;27:385-394.

14. Walton JR, “An aluminum-based rat model for Alzheimer’s disease exhibits oxidative damage, inhibition of PP2A activity, hyperphosphorylated tau and granulovacuolar degeneration,” J Inorg Biochem 2007;101:1275-1284.

15. Becaria A et al., “Aluminum and copper in drinking water enhance inflammatory or oxidative events specifically in brain,” J Neuroimmunol 2006;176:16-23.

16. Exley C, “A molecular mechanism for aluminum-induced Alzheimer’s  disease,” J Inorg Biochem 1999;76:133-140.

17. Exley C, “The pro-oxidant activity of aluminum,” Free Rad Biol Med 2004;36:380-387.

Recommended Reading  

Dr. Blaylock’s brochures Bio Terrorism: How You Can Survive and Nuclear Sunrise.  

Dr. Blaylock, an NHF member, is a World-renowned neurosurgeon who retired from Neurosurgery to devote his full attention to nutritional studies and research. 

An in-demand guest for radio and TV programs, he lectures extensively to both lay audiences and physicians on nutrition-related subjects. He is the 2004 recipient of the Integrity in Science Award granted by the Weston A. Price Foundation and serves on the editorial staff of the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association and is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, the official publication of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.




1 » »Top Of Page


Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails Conference 2012 - "Chemtrails Through The Eyes Of A Television Weatherman,

Posted on December 23 2013. by Admin   |  Comments

Scott Stevens


Full Video Presentation -

Scott Stevens is an award winning television weatherman who, a decade ago, began investigating the claims of Lt. Col Tom Bearden that North America was being subjected to full time weather modification.

During the course of that personal investigation he was the first on-air television weatherman to discover, through time-lapse photography, the primary reason for the now global chemtrail phenomena.

During Scott’s two decade television career he worked in Topeka Kansas, Omaha Nebraska, Tulsa Oklahoma, Albany New York and Pocatello Idaho.

Conference held: Sunday August 19, 2012




1 » » Top Of Page


Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails - Author Jeffrey M. Smith On GMO's And The Chemtrail Connection

Posted on December 23 2013 by Admin   |  Comments

Jeffrey M. Smith


Watch The Full Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails With Jeffrey M Smith on GMO's. FULL VIDEO HD.August 17th - 19th, 2012 marked the largest stand ever against Chemtrails! Over the course of 3 days in Los Angeles, and live online around the world, 16 leaders in Geoengineering research met to show the Unity and Collective efforts we are now taking against these "Aerosol Crimes!" FULL VIDEO HD ->

ABOUT - Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of the world’s bestselling book on the health dangers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating.  His second book, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, is the authoritative work on GMO health dangers. It includes 65 health dangers, linking GMOs in our food to toxic and allergic reactions, infertility, and damage to virtually every internal organ studied in lab animals. The book summarizes why ending GM foods must urgently become our world’s top food safety priority.

Mr. Smith has counseled leaders from every continent, campaigned to end the use of genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST), and influenced the first state laws in the United States regulating GMOs.  He is a keynote speaker around the globe, has lectured in 30 countries, and has been quoted by world leaders and hundreds of media outlets including, The New York Times, Washington Post, BBC World Service, Nature, The Independent, Daily Telegraph, New Scientist, The Times (London), Associated Press, Reuters News Service, LA Times, Time Magazine and Genetic Engineering News. Mr. Smith is also a popular guest on influential radio shows and television programs, such as the BBC, NPR, Fox News, Democracy Now and the Dr. Oz Show.

Mr. Smith has united leaders to support The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, a revolutionary industry and consumer movement to remove GMOs from the US food supply. He is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and producer of the films Hidden Dangers in Kids’ Meals and Your Milk on Drugs—Just Say No. He writes an internationally syndicated column, Spilling the Beans, has a regular blog on the popular Huffington Post, and is followed on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

The Institute for Responsible Technology’s Campaign for Healthier Eating in America mobilizes citizens, organizations, businesses and the media to achieve the tipping point of consumer rejection of genetically modified foods.

The Institute produces a wide range of consumer education and advocacy tools for its seven million monthly web site visitors and newsletter readers, including the nation’s most popular non-GMO in-store brand publication, the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.

The Institute informs policy makers and the public around the world about the risks and impacts of GMOs on health, environment, agriculture, the global economy, and the problems associated with current research, regulation, corporate practices, and reporting.

Currently Mr. Smith lives with his wife in Iowa, surrounded by genetically modified soybeans and corn.

Conference held: Sunday August 19, 2012.



1 » » Top Of Page


"..We are clear that serious consideration for the regulatory arrangements for geoengineering needs to start now, not once highly disruptive climate change is under way." Quote by UK Parliament.->

UN Global Warming Fraud Exposed by Detailed New Study

Posted on December 23 2013. by Admin   |  Comments

Written by John O'Sullivan

Professor Vincent Gray, in his latest New Zealand Climate Truth Newsletter, showcases an important new study by Canadian professor, Ross McKitrick that details why the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should be abolished.Detailing compelling facts exposing how government climatologists engaged in data manipulation, subjective bias, suppression of inconvenient evidence disproving their alarmist claims about man-made global warming, McKitrick's study is shown by Professor Gray to be perhaps the most compelling condemnation of junk science yet seen. Gray's full report is detailed below.


MAY 21st 2013


Ross McKitrick has a recent report entitled “What is Wrong with the IPCC ? Proposals for a Radical Reform."The Report has a foreword by John Howard, former Australian Prime Minister.

It is published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, whose Chairman is Lord Lawson, former British Foreign Secretary and whose Directors and Trustees include four other members of the British House of Lords.

McKitrick does an excellent job in explaining the origins and structure of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also provides a damning indictment of its failings. He makes the following recommendations for its reform:

Recommendation 1: An objective and transparent Lead Author selection procedure.
Recommendation 2: A transparent Contributing Author recruitment process.
Recommendation 3: Appointment of an Editorial Advisory Board and identification of potentially controversial sections.
Recommendation 4: Explicit assignment of both section authorship and reviewer positions.
Recommendation 5: Adoption of an iterative process to achieve a final text under the joint supervision of authors, reviewers and editors.
Recommendation 6: Adoption of a procedure for seeking technical input when necessary from outside the list of authors and reviewers during the assessment process.
Recommendation 7: Due diligence regarding key supporting papers and full disclosure of all data and methods used to produce original IPCC Figures and Tables.
Recommendation 8: Immediate online publication of the full report upon finalization, prior to production of summary.
Recommendation 9: Production of Summary by Ad Hoc group appointed by the Panel based on recommendations from the Editorial Advisory Board.
Recommendation 10: Release of all drafts, review comments, responses and author correspondence records within 3 months of online publication of the full report.
Recommendation 11: That the nations involved in the IPCC Panel begin these reforms at once, and if such a process cannot be initiated then those national governments that seek objective and sound advice on climate change issues should withdraw from the IPCC and begin the process of creating a new assessment body free of the deficiencies identified herein.

McKitrick is one of the most active lecturers and writers to have exposed the errors of the “greenhouse” theory. He is part author, with Christopher Essex of “Taken by Storm 2007”, Key Press Books Canada and part author with Essex and Bjarne Andresen of “Does a Global Temperature Exist.” This paper points out that temperature is an intensive property which means that it only exists for a substance that is in equilibrium. Contrary to the climate models favoured by the IPCC, the climate is constantly varying. The only approach to global temperature measurement, therefore, is to divide the entire system into transient infinitesimal increments of three linear dimensions, plus time, each of which would have a temperature. Such an array could not have a single average because day and night have such different temperature populations that a joint population involving both is heavily skewed, so there are therefore several different and conflicting definitions of an average.It goes without saying that these measurements cannot currently be made and probably never will be. It might be remarked that even an acceptable surface temperature in one place is also “elusive” as has been explained by Hansen.

The “Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly Record” (MGSTAR), which is regarded by the IPCC as a legitimate guide to Global Temperature, falls far short of being a scientific or mathematically acceptable guide to global temperature trends. If this fact were to be accepted by the IPCC most of its arguments would collapse.

Ross McKitrick has devoted much attention to displaying some of the the defects of this record. Together with Pat Michaels he showed the record was influenced by socioeconomic changes.

Together with Steve McIntyre he carried out a long fight at over the so-called “Hockey Stick” graph which joined past proxy temperatures to the MGSTAR. They showed that there were statistical irregularities in the use of the proxy temperatures, which, it should be said deviate even more sharply from conceivable scientific justification than the MGSTAR itself.

The MGSTAR is based on:
Temperature measurements from a constantly changing set of unrepresentative samples of the earth’s surface.
It assumes that an average of a daily maximum and minimum temperature can be considered to be a genuine average.

The conditions of measurement and their control are not standardised. The measurements are subjected to a set of averaging procedures for which no plausible estimates of accuracy are supplied. Single annual figures in the record are assumed to be constants. “Trends” of less than one degree Celsius over one hundred years are assumed to represent disastrous warming when any rational estimates of uncertainty would greatly exceed this amount.McKitrick seems reluctant to reject MGSTAR completely despite these problems and the conclusions of his book and papers with Christopher Essex, which damage the credibility of the entire IPCC system and make “reform” impossible.




1 » »Top Of Page

Posted on December 23 2013. by Admin   |  Comments


The examples of fraud and dubious scientific and mathematical practices by the IPCC given by McKitrick are part of a persistent and continuing pattern of selection, distortion and fabrication throughout the activities of the IPCC which I have documented in the following papers:

The Global Warming Scam 2008.
Spinning the Climate 2013.
The Triumph of Doublespeak 2009.
The Greenhouse Revisited 2013.

The “Evaluation” process carried out by the IPCC uses what it calls “attribution”. “likelihood”, “fingerprints”, and levels of “confidence”, which depend on the unacceotable belief that correlation is evidence of causation.They also go to the length of assigning numerical statistical levels of significance which are not based on a population of experimental measurements, but are purely matters of opinion. These are sharp practices bordering on fraud I have shown that the IPCC is not an honest independent body but a firmly established political lobby group set up with the task of imposing the global warming theory by any means, controlled by the 195 governments that have signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change it needs to be asked why there needs to be a politically motivated organization to promote a theory of the climate which has not been proved to be correct, despite so much effort, even if it can be “reformed”.

There is already a well established discipline called meteorology which provides all over the world an essential weather forecasting service based on the very latest scientific understanding of the climate. The properties of the so-called greenhouse gases have never proved useful for this task, and current attempts to introduce “long-range” forecasts based on these properties has not been useful. For example, they have failed to predict the repeated cold winters in Britain or droughts in Australia and New Zealand.



1 » »Top Of Page

Posted on December 23 2013. by Admin   |  Comments



The Framework Convention on Climate Change, which resulted from the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, defined “Climate Change” as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

They changed the meaning of the term “climate change” which had previously not involved any particular cause, to one restricted only to its being ”attributed” to direct or indirect human changes in atmospheric composition. This means that they do not have to prove that all changes in climate have this cause. All they need to do is to get people to use the term "climate change”, and they will suddenly discover that by saying these words they support the IPCC “attribution” whether they know it or not.

There does not need to be any actual evidence. All that is needed is for somebody, such as an IPCC climate scientist, an environmental activist, a politician, or a journalist, to “attribute” it. The “attribution” does not even need to be “direct”. It can be “Indirect” which can be as obscure as they choose it to be.

This device has been an outstanding success. Any “climate change” which is disapproved of, be it a heat wave, cold spell, flood, drought, or hurricane, is today routinely “attributed” to human influence on the atmosphere. Most of the people who use the phrase do not understand that it assumes that “global warming” is actually happening, when the main records which purport to indicate global temperature trends have shown no significant change for 17 years.

This definition of “Climate Change” is part of the Title of all the Reports of the IPCC to make it plain that their purpose is to promote evidence to support it.They have made only one concession, included as a footnote in several reports:" Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as the result of human activity.”

This was added purely to permit study of other influences on the climate apart from human activity, but they were not permitted to be involved in *change”, only “variability” and throughout all the reports everything is done to claim that “natural variability is unimportant.



1 » »Top Of Page

Posted on December 23 2013. by Admin   |  Comments



From the beginning there have been scientists who disagreed with the theory that increases in greenhouse gases are harmful, but everything has been done to prevent their views from appearing in the IPCC Reports. This process is assisted by the successful attempts to influence editors of scientific journals and to capture the “peer review” process (as described in the “Climategate” Emails). Critical comments have been comprehensively rejected and the existence of such activity concealed by secrecy. As a result few critics now bother to comment at all. Some recognized experts have resigned or expressed their opposition to the entire exercise.

Deliberate bias was made clear in Appendix 4, of the First Report (1990) in an introduction to a list of Reviewers, with the statement:The persons named below all contributed to the peer review of the IPCC Working Group I Report. Whilst every attempt was made by the Lead Authors to incorporate their comments, in some cases these formed a minority opinion which could not be reconciled with the larger consensus. Therefore, there may be persons below who still have points of disagreement with areas of the Report.” The belief of McKitrick that “delegates from the member states.... oversee and receive the findings of the assessment working groups” is far from the truth.The “Summary for Policymakers” that is at the beginning of all Reports is dictated, line by line to the “Drafting Authors” of each Report. It represents the “consensus” opinion of these delegates and should not be interpreted as the opinion of the Drafting authors or of any of the other authors.

Everything is done by these delegates to eliminate from the Reports any opinion which questions the Greenhouse “theory.”They had trouble in enforcement right from the beginning. The First Report (1990) was unashamed propaganda for the climate models for the first 6 Chapters, with actual observations left to Chapter 7.At the beginning they said: "The size of the warming is broadly consistent with the predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability.”

Readers had to wait to Chapter 7 to find that the models were not “broadly consistent” with the claimed warming. But they were still being allowed to say that “The size of the also of the same magnitude as natural climate variabilit.”

This was the only Report prepared to make “predictions” which, it turned out in the text to be exclusively based on the subjective opinions of “experts”. Later Reports admitted that this did not provide a basis for “predictions”, so they only supplied “projections” which were “evaluated” by the same procedure, the subjective opinion of “experts” without any scientifically acceptable evidence.

In the Second Report (1995) the original Working Group I report was approved by the IPCC in December, 1995. The Final Draft had been circulated only to Government Departments, but I was allowed to see it, at the time, by David Wratt.

The Report contained a number of opinions that questioned whether the greenhouse theory was proven. One example was the following:"Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur ? In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter, it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'”. [emphasis added]

The government delegates and their scientific supporters decided that all opinions which did not support the view that greenhouse gases are the exclusive cause of “climate change” must be ruthlessly eliminated. They hired Ben Santer to alter all dissenting opinions. The above statement was then changed to: "Finally we come to the difficult question of when the detection and attribution of human-induced climate change is likely to occur. The answer to this question must be subjective, particularly in the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter.”

To which they then added this new material:
"However, evidence from the patterned-based studies reported on here suggests that an initial step has now been taken in the direction of attribution, since correspondences between observations and model predictions in response to combined changes in greenhouse gases and anthropogenic sulphate aerosols have now been seen both at the surface and in the vertical structure of the atmosphere have been found in terms of complex spatial patterns rather than changes in the global mean alone show an overall increase over the last 20 to 50 years;are significantly different from our best model-based estimates of the correspondence expected due to natural internal climatic variability. Furthermore, although quantitative attribution studies have not explicitly considered solar and volcanic effects, our best information indicates that the observed patterns of vertical temperature change are not consistent with the responses expected for these forcings.

'..The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points toward a discernible human influence on global climate. Our ability to quantify the magnitude of this effect is currently limited by uncertainties in key factors, including the magnitude and pattern of longer-term natural variability and the time-evolving patterns of forcing by (and response to) greenhouse gases and aerosols."

This still admits that they have no proof, only the subjective opinions of their “experts.” The many other changes that were made are listed in my “Spinning the Climate” found here:



1 » »Top Of Page

Posted on December 23 2013. by Admin   |  Comments

There was another fundamental change in the Second Report which must have disturbed the promoters. The First Report had a Chapter headed “Validation of Climate Models”. A Similar Chapter appeared in the First Draft. I commented that since no climate model had ever been validated the title was incorrect. To my surprise, in the Second Draft, they changed the words “Validation” and “Validate” to “Evaluation” and “Evaluate”, no less than 50 times. All subsequent Reports “evaluated” the model results but did not “validate” them.

”Validation” is the term used by computer engineers to describe the rigorous testing procedure that must be carried out before a computer model can be used to make future predictions. It would require an ability to predict past behaviour satisfactorily, but it must also involve evidence that the model can predict future behavior over all the conditions that the model is used, to an acceptable accuracy. The IPCC have never made such an exercise and only in the Fifth Report drafts has there been any discussion of how it might be done.This means that the models are currently unsuitable for future prediction.They say of their scenarios:

“Scenarios are not predictions of the future and should not be used as such”.and "Since scenarios deal with the future they cannot be compared with observations." They do not give similar advice about the model calculations, but since the final model result is a combination of the model calculation plus a range of scenarios they are effectively telling us to ignore their own opinions or their “likelihood” of happening.

The Second Report ceased to claim that it was able to make “predictions”. The model outputs were merely “projections”, dependent on the opinions of “experts” for the plausibility of their assumptions.



1 » »Top Of Page

Posted on December 23 2013. by Admin   |  Comments


McKitrick mentions conflict of interest, but he only considers doctrinal conflict of interest, where a difference of opinion is honestly held.

He does not seem to realize that the “Evaluation” process carried out by the IPCC is made by persons who are financed by one or other body committed to promoting the greenhouse theory so they have a financial interest in providing an evaluation opinion which suits their employers. There is ample evidence that failure to do so leads to discrimination and even dismissal. A number of established experts have resigned from the IPCC because they were unwilling to accept this pressure, often to their financial disadvantage.



1 » »Top Of Page

Posted on December 23 2013. by Admin   |  Comments


The Third Report (2001) had this statement in Chapter 1:

“The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural” .

In the Fourth Report (2007) the delegates took their revenge and abolished the First Chapter “The Climate System: An Overview” and replaced it with one called “Historical Overview of Climate Change Science” which was little more than a public relations exercise for their own activities. It notably omitted the 90,000 peer reviewed published papers containing measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1812 compiled by Beck at

This Fourth Report was challenged to comply with the Official Information Act by publishing comments by reviewers and the responses to them. Not all of these published papers seem to have survived, but the comments and the responses to the Second Draft of the WGI Report are to be found at the Harvard University archive at

McKitrick claims to be a reviewer of the IPCC but his name is absent from the earlier reports and occurs only in the list supplied with the WG1 AR4 Report. According to John McLean (June 30 2007) he made a total of 37 comments, 11 to Chapter1, 1 to Chapter 2, 10 to Chapter 3, 14 to Chapter 6 and 1 to Chapter 9.

From the same source I made a total of 1878 comments, some on all Chapters with 572 on the vital Chapter 9. I had 16% of the total.I have commented liberally on all the Reports except the First and I believe that I am the only person to have done so. In all of the Reports there have been only a small number of persons critical of the claims of the reports and no-one who has stuck it out for several Reports.

The manipulation of the data and of the literature that was revealed by the “Climategate" Emails was carried out from the beginning, is still operating, and is supported and endorsed by the signatories of the FCCC. McKitrick’s recommendations for reform are a set of proposals for the leopard to change his spots. His belief that the IPCC could become “fair” and operate a genuine scientific debate is futile because most of them know that this would lead to their departure.

Recommendation 12 seems to envisage this but there is no need for an international body to impose one point of view on any branch of science. The IPCC should be abolished.To be practical, its operations are so endemic and pervasive that the best we can hope for is their slow departure as the world responds to repairing the disastrous economic burdens for which they can be held responsible.



1 » »Top Of Page


Posted on December 23 2013 by Admin   |  Comments


Dr Vincent Gray has updated his revealing history of how the hoax of "dangerous anthropogenic global warming" was hoisted on an unsuspecting world and a credulous mainstream news media.  An 80-year-old plus scientist, Dr Gray has been an expert reviewer of all UN IPCC Assessment Reports (including AR5 due later this year) and has recorded in detail the motives and modi operandi of those responsible for the greatest scaremongering campaign the world has known.

 Download pdf file here

Last Updated ( Saturday, 18 May 2013 )


1 » »Top Of Page

Posted on December 23 2013 by Admin   |  Comments

Study Finds Shift to 'Dark Money' in Climate Change Denial Effort

Koch Industries, ExxonMobil disappear from traceable public databases after 2007.-December 22, 2013  |  

Study Finds Shift to 'Dark Money' in Climate Change Denial Effort.The study, but Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.

It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

The study was published Friday in the journal  Climatic Change.

"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on global warming," Brulle said in a statement. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight  – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers."

"If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes."

Consistent funders

To uncover that, Brulle developed a list of 118 influential climate denial organizations in the United States. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the  Foundation Center, a database of global philanthropy, with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.

According to Brulle, the largest and most consistent funders where a number of conservative foundations promoting "ultra-free-market ideas" in many realms, among them the Searle Freedom Trust, the John Williams Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

Another key finding: From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in funding climate change denial efforts. But Exxon hasn't made a publically traceable contribution since 2008, and Koch's efforts dramatically declined, Brulle said.

Coinciding with a decline in traceable funding, Brulle found a dramatic rise in the cash flowing to denial organizations from  Donors Trust, a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation, the assessment found, now accounts for 25 percent of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations promoting the systematic denial of climate change.

A call and e-mail Friday night to Donors Trust was not immediately returned.

Matter of democracy

In the end, Brulle concluded public records identify only a fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars supporting climate denial efforts. Some 75 percent of the income of those organizations, he said, comes via unidentifiable sources.

And for Brulle, that's a matter of democracy. "Without a free flow of accurate information, democratic politics and government accountability become impossible," he said. "Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square."

Powerful funders, he added, are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise doubts about the "roots and remedies" of a threat on which the science is clear.

"At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts."


Original Full Story ->


1 » »Top Of Page


Video How To Start Your Own Event On The Internet And On Facebook

Posted on Jan 10. 2014. 3:30 AM UTC by Admin   |  Comments

People keep asking us what they can do to help, and we keep telling them it is simple, just jump in share and get involved. Participating or promoting this peaceful educational event, is one way how any one of any age can help save the wold from Chemtrail Geoengineering".

How To Start Your Own Event Page On The Internet

[1].Start by making your own local events page on Your Web Site, Blog, Facebook, or Other Social Media site where people can meet and join the Global March Against Chemtrails And Geoengineering. Send us the URL address for your events public page, time of your march, location of your march, and we will add your event to our data base and advertise it to the world.You can do a Google search for free blogs, or here is a EZ to use blog we found that is available in many languages.

How To Start An Event Page On Facebook Full Video Tutorial Included !

*Note. We all want this to be a peaceful and legal protest everywhere in the world.So after your page is made then immediately contact your local city hall to register your protest, or ask some on in your events page to register the event because it is the local law in some places. -

[1].From the home page click on the "Events" tab, which is on the left. Then create event on the top right,insert name of the title at the event and details. Add a description of the event.

[2].In the "Where" insert the location of the event in the "When" select the event start date and time. Once inserted the time we choose to add an end date. Then add a end date. Choose whether to make the event public or private and click on create.

[3].Come back to our site here and register your city's event with us and provide the URL. We will then add your local protest to our events page on Facebook with the rest of the global protests against Chemtrails and Geoengineering.

[4] That's it ! Now you have created our event on Facebook and you can start to invite your friends to the event.



1 » »Top Of Page


Posted on December 23 2013 by Admin   |  Comments

Geoengineering Aerosols Destroy The Ozone Layer.

Geoengineering Aerosols Destroy The Ozone Layer.This is not speculation, it is fact. There is a mountain of science data that confirms the ozone decimating effect of sunlight-reflecting particulates in the upper atmosphere. As geoengineering climate modeler Ken Caldeira warned after crunching the numbers for Dr. Edward Teller’s aerosol “sunscreen”, the resulting rapid cooling of the stratosphere causes the formation of huge ice clouds that attract and concentrate ozone-destroying chemicals.

In addition, high nitrogen oxide emissions from fleets of aerosol-spreading jet tanker aircraft – and more than 93,000 daily airline flights – directly attack Earth’s protective ozone layer.

At A Crossroad

The gravity of our collective crisis cannot be overstated. Current UV metering makes clear we are now being exposed to dangerously high levels of UV radiation, specifically UVB and UVC.The metering performed in Northern California, on which this statement is based, was done by a pair of identical state-of-the-art, brand-new, science-grade meters guaranteed to be scientifically calibrated to a range within 4%. As stated earlier in this article, the tech who did this metering is a 40- year veteran in environmental measurement and interpretation.

Here in Northern California, we are already seeing frighteningly visible damage to foliage, trees, and plants. The ramifications of extremely high UV levels to all life forms – including us – are grave. As the die-off of other species go, so will we. We are in the 6th Great Mass Extinction – right here, right now! (References below)

If geoengineering continues unabated, and the ozone layer is completely destroyed, it will be game over for us all. No ozone layer = no life on Earth.

It’s that simple.

  • Global geoengineering is tearing apart the entire fabric of life on our planet.
  • Geoengineering is poisoning our air, waters, and soils.
  • Geoengineering is pushing increasingly erratic atmospheric processes resulting from human-propelled climate change past the Chaos threshold into unpredictable, self-reinforcing, cascading events.
  • Geoengineering is disrupting the jetstream and all natural weather patterns, which in turn is fueling catastrophic climate feedback loops – the most dire of which are mass methane hydrate releases from the Arctic tundra and seafloor.
  • Geoengineering is destroying the stratospheric solar radiation shielding, which protects all life on Earth.

By - Dane Wigington



1 » »Top Of Page