A follow-up video on geoengineering

A discussion of the nature of evidence for geoengineering

I am making a second video with some of my after-thoughts.

Someone posted this under the comments:

"Why is there such a resistance even among our friends to acknowledge ongoing chemical ice nucleated winter storms and other geoengineering programs going on?"

It gave me some cause for thought and I have been reflecting on this and came to the conclusion that most of this can be put down to reductionistic thinking.

Reductionistic thinking dominates over everything and systems (or holistic) thinking does not have a chance.

Most people think in a dualistic way

It can only ever be this, not that.

This is good while that Is bad.

In order to preserve ‘this’ to kill thatd a thought about reductionistic thinking. It can only ever be this, not that. So they have, in order to preserve ‘this’ to kill ‘that’’

EVERYTHING has to be climate change. There's only ever ONE case.

It can’t be Fuku, geoengineering or anything else.

Which is nonsense. Nature -in fact NOTHING – works that way.

There is a complex web of interrelationship. In short, in the words of Thich Nhat Hanh we inter ARE.

So, in this complex relationship not only is climate changing because of mamade greenhouse gas emissions but we have the effects of Fukushima and many other factors coming together to create the perfect storm.

Personally,having looked into this a bit over the past 6 months I have come to the conclusion that geoengineering – not theroretical but actual – is part of the picture.

How big I have no idea – but part of the picture yes.

It grieves me no end to hear that some people complaining completely legitimately of what I may call 'consensus science' to be as fair as I can being used to diss legitimate concerns about polar ice and methane clathrates to give an example – then turn around and use the same tactics on others, such as Daner Wigington who is,whether he is right or wrong is trying his best.

If I was completely honest, rather than go on the attack I would simply (and rather more diplomatically) simply say I am confident about my area of expertise but I am not going to be deflected into lines of inquiry that are not part of it.

That, at least, is how I would approach things now.

Talking of evidence, as I said, I think there is evidence aplenty.

Obviously you are never going to get a peer-reviewed paper on this. Nobody can get funds to research something so out of the box that would, if proven true, totally overturn all the official narratives in a similar way to observations and proof of ABRUPT climate change.

I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject to discuss this in detail but I can say this:

My interest in this came not from watching videos or even reading articles. It came from observations of what is happening in the sky above me as well as looking from above in satellite images.

I then went searching for an explanation and no one up to now has come up with a credible explanation.

In fact it was listening to Paul Beckwith debate Dane Wigington that helped me to come to the conclusion that there might be something in this.

Evidence is indirect and comes from people's observations and the fact that people were getting sick from exposure to aluminium and other heavy metals leaching out and falling with the rain.

This has been borne out by a lot of documentary evidence such as patents for the technology and examples of people inadvertantly 'spilling the beans'.

I feel greatly for the people that have become sick because of this.

In my own case, my own health has been delivered a huge blow by exposure to pesticides. Every time I would mention this the eyes would glaze over or I would be told 'there is no proof'.

Until recently – in my last session with the neurologist I mentioned pesticides and he said "the only thing I know is that paraquat can cause Parksinsons or similar neurological disorders.

But it was specifically paraquat that I was exposed to!

And then I learned from a friend who has researched this that a chemical called atrazine, te use pf which was mandated by the government similarly causes Parkinsons.

There's LACK OF PROOF for you!

People who feel they are healthy will find it very easy to ignore and debunk the evidence.

Its what I call "contempt prior to investigation"

Not totally unconnected with this I would like to show some examples that taken by themselves might not be proof but taken together provide anecdotal evidence (and I am a great fan of anecdote) – of a program to geoengineer both the weather and -yes, Paul Beckwith! - the climate.

Because I had to record a second video I got confused and left this out of the video