Arizona State Senator Kelli Ward Holds Public Forum on Geo-Engineering, Weather Modification

Ben Swann

Kingman, Arizona, June 27, 2014 – On Wednesday, June 25, Arizona State Senator Kelli Ward held a public forum to discuss public concerns regarding white vapor trails in the skies. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) representatives Sherri Zendri and Beth Hager were on hand to answer questions from local residents who presented studies, personal research, and blood samples they claim prove that planes are spraying chemicals.

Senator Ward stated the meeting was a response to “relentless” communication from constituents who are concerned with vapor trails commonly called contrails or condensation trails. However, residents say the trails are not standard contrails but rather “chemtrails” being sprayed as part of a global program of weather manipulation. One resident claimed the difference between contrails and chemical trails is easy to spot because the contrails are short and dissipate quickly, while the chemtrails are long, dragged out, and crisscross the sky.

Meeting attendees listed a variety of reasons they believe the government is spraying. These include poisoning of the food and people to manipulating the weather patterns. Senator Ward and the ADEQ representatives repeatedly told attendees that they have no jurisdiction over chemical spraying whether it was happening or not. In a video of the meeting the frustration from citizens is easily seen.


ADEQ communications director Mark Shaffer said they regularly receive phone calls and emails on the topic, but “Our standard response has been that there is no credible scientific evidence about chemical spraying or geoengineering.” Geo-engineering is the science of manipulating the climate for the stated purpose of fighting man-made climate change. These include Solar Radiation Management (SRM), the practice of spraying aerosols into the sky in an attempt to deflect the Sun’s rays and combat climate change.

According to a recent congressional report:

The term “geoengineering” describes this array of technologies that aim, through large-scale and deliberate modifications of the Earth’s energy balance, to reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change. Most of these technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Moreover, very few studies have been published that document the cost, environmental effects, socio-political impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. If geoengineering technologies were to be deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects. 

In general, geoengineering technologies are categorized as either a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method or a solar radiation management (SRM) method. CDR methods address the warming effects of greenhouse gases by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CDR methods include ocean fertilization, and carbon capture and sequestration. SRM methods address climate change by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere or surface. 

Aerosol injection and space-based reflectors are examples of SRM methods. SRM methods do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but can be deployed faster with relatively immediate global cooling results compared to CDR methods.

One of the many dangers of manipulating the weather is the loss of blue skies. According to a report by the New Scientist, Ben Kravitz of the Carnegie Institution for Science has shown that releasing sulphate aerosols high in the atmosphere would scatter sunlight into the atmosphere. He says this could decrease the amount of sunlight that hits the ground by 20% and make the sky appear more hazy.

Although a number of authorities have warned about the dangers of geoengineering techniques, the risks are seen as secondary to the perceived risks of climate change. The interesting thing to note is that although proponents of geoengineering hail it as the solution to climate change and sustaining life, studies show that geoengineering could actually have the reverse effect of heating the Earth.

According to a recent study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, if geoengineering programs were started and then suddenly halted the planet could see an immediate rise in temperatures, particularly over land. The study, titled “The impact of abrupt suspension of solar radiation management”, seems to indicate that once you begin geoengineering you cannot suspend the programs without causing the very problem you were seeking to resolve.

Many of those who were in attendance to the Arizona meeting believe the SRM programs are not only in the developmental research phase but are currently active. Weather modification techniques in the form of cloud-seeding programs are active in China, for example. With researchers warning that the very initiation of geoengineering programs could cause global temperatures to rise, it does make sense that governments would work to keep quiet about domestic geoengineering programs. Geoengineering in one country could cause drought in another part of the world after all, and no government wants that responsibility.

Arizona citizens also pointed to a 1996 document entitled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather by 2025” where the U.S. Air Force discusses a number of proposals for using the weather as a weapon. There was also mention of the Environmental Modification Treaty signed by the United States to halt global weather modification. Others mention companies like Weather Modification, Inc. On this corporation’s website you can peruse different planes that you can pay to run a cloud seeding operation. They even offer a list of clients and sites that are active.

Whether or not Senator Ward or the ADEQ hold another meeting on the topic remains to be seen. One thing is certain though, the citizens of Arizona are keeping their eyes on sky and they are not going anywhere anytime soon.

Pre-Crime Police Target Mental Health

Activist Post

Arizona is the latest to begin using pre-crime models to supposedly thwart attacks by those who are "near the breaking point." The video below highlights how mental health police units look to harvest everything from medical records to gun purchases to online posts. Citing the crimes of Jared Loughner and Elliot Rodger, these units are being given the green light with new legislation to involuntarily detain those who are flagged.

It's becoming a trend that is taking various forms. In Chicago, a "Heat List" has gone into effect that has indexed approximately 400 people who have been identified by a computer algorithm as being future threats to commit violent crime. Without having actually committed a crime, some of those on the list are beginning to get visits from Chicago police warning them that they are already being watched.

In California, a sociologist at the University of California, Riverside has been working with the Indio Police Department to offer a computer dragnet that can predict where burglaries are going to happen in the future. Prof. Robert Nash Parker has developed a "computer model that predicts, by census block group, where burglaries are likely to occur." Notably, Indio only has a population of 75,000, indicating that populations large and small are increasingly being subsumed into the emerging Minority Report world of modern policing.

Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions

Natural News
by Mike Adams

When drug companies are caught faking clinical trial data, no one is surprised anymore. When vaccine manufacturers spike their human trial samples with animal antibodies to make sure their vaccines appear to work, we all just figure that's how they do business: lying, cheating, deceiving and violating the law.



Now, in what might be the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered, NASA and the NOAA have been caught red-handed altering historical temperature data to produce a "climate change narrative" that defies reality. This finding, originally documented on the Real Science website, is detailed here.



We now know that historical temperature data for the continental United States were deliberately altered by NASA and NOAA scientists in a politically-motivated attempt to rewrite history and claim global warming is causing U.S. temperatures to trend upward. The data actually show that we are in a cooling trend, not a warming trend (see charts below).



This story is starting to break worldwide right now across the media, with The Telegraph now reporting (1), "NOAA's US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been 'adjusting' its record by replacing real temperatures with data 'fabricated' by computer models."



Because the actual historical temperature record doesn't fit the frenzied, doomsday narrative of global warming being fronted today on the political stage, the data were simply altered using "computer models" and then published as fact.


 Here's the proof of the climate change fraud

Here's the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930's, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:

The authenticity of this chart is not in question. It is published by James Hansen on NASA's website. (2) On that page, Hansen even wrote, "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought."

After the Obama administration took office, however, and started pushing the global warming narrative for political purposes, NASA was directed to alter its historical data in order to reverse the cooling trend and show a warming trend instead. This was accomplished using climate-modeling computers that simply fabricated the data the researchers wished to see instead of what was actually happening in the real world.

Using the exact same data found in the chart shown above (with a few years of additional data after 2000), NASA managed to misleadingly distort the chart to depict the appearance of global warming:

The authenticity of this chart is also not in question. It can be found right now on NASA's servers. (4)

This new, altered chart shows that historical data -- especially the severe heat and droughts experienced in the 1930's -- are now systematically suppressed to make them appear cooler than they really were. At the same time, temperature data from the 1970's to 2010 are strongly exaggerated to make them appear warmer than they really were.

This is a clear case of scientific fraud being carried out on a grand scale in order to deceive the entire world about global warming.

EPA data also confirm the global warming hoax

What's even more interesting is that even the EPA's "Heat Wave Index" data further support the notion that the U.S. was far hotter in the 1930's than it is today.

The following chart, published on the EPA.gov website (4), clearly shows modern-day heat waves are far smaller and less severe than those of the 1930's. In fact, the seemingly "extreme" heat waves of the last few years were no worse than those of the early 1900's or 1950's.

Short-sighted agricultural practices cause more global warming than CO2

Seeing these charts, you might wonder how the extremely high temperatures of the 1930's came about. Were we releasing too much CO2 by burning fossil fuels?

Nope. That entire episode of massive warming and drought was caused by conventional agricultural practices that clear-cut forests, poisoned the soils with chemicals and plowed the top soil away. Lacking trees to retain moisture, areas that were once thriving plains, grasslands and forests turned to desert. Suddenly, the cooling effects of moisture transpiration from healthy plant ecosystems was lost, causing extreme temperatures and deadly drought.

Shortsighted agricultural practices, in other words, really did cause "warming," while a restoration of a more natural ecosystem reversed the trend and cooled the region.

Reforestation is the answer

This brings us to the simple, obvious solution to all this. If you want to cool the planet, focus on reforestation efforts. If you want to retain moisture and keep your soils alive, you need diverse plant-based ecosystems, not clear-cut fields running monoculture operations.

Forests act like sponges that soak up rainwater, and then they turn around and slowly release that water back into the air, "moisturizing" the atmosphere and keeping humidity levels high enough to support other nearby grasses, shrubs and plants. When you clear-cut forests -- as has been done all across the world to make room for mechanized agriculture -- you effectively raise temperatures by eliminating nature's plant-based water retention and cooling systems.

Industrialized farming, in other words, has already been historically shown to radically increase continental temperatures and "warm" the region. So why isn't the White House warning the world about the dangers of industrialized agriculture?

The answer: Because it doesn't accomplish anything that's politically important to this administration. It's far more important to use the false panic of global warming to shut down clean coal power plants (U.S. coal plants are FAR cleaner than China's) and drive the population into a state of subservient obedience through doomsday scare tactics.

Now we conclusively know the government is lying about global warming

As an environmentalist, I'm always concerned about pollutants and emissions, especially heavy metals being dumped into the atmosphere. But I've also learned over the years that almost everything the federal government aggressively promotes to the public is a blatant lie. Rarely does anything resembling the truth ever come out of Washington D.C.

These people are experts at lying with bad science, hiding their deceptions behind the cover of "scientific thinking" and making outlandish claims such as saying that anyone who doesn't believe their fabricated data must also believe the Earth is flat. Remember, the people who are telling you that burning fossils fuels is causing runaway global warming are the very same people who also claim mercury in vaccines is safe to inject in unlimited quantities, toxins in GMOs are safe to eat, chemotherapy works great for cancer patients and that there's no such thing as any food or nutrient that prevents disease.

These are the same government people who build massive networks of underground bunkers and caves in complete secrecy while publicly claiming preppers are conspiracy theorists. It's the same government that lied about running inhumane medical experiments on prisoners via the National Institutes of Health, then got caught and had to apologize decades later.

If you think this same government is telling you the truth about global warming, you probably need to have your head examined. But not by a government-licensed psychiatrist, or she'll dose your head full of psychiatric medications that cause you to lose so much of your cognitive function, you'll actually start to believe CNN's broadcasts.

My Dog Found My Cancer

The Guardian
by Emilie Clark

I met my miniature dachshund, Mia, at a rescue centre five years ago. She was one of a litter of 12-week-old puppies confiscated from a puppy farm. I hoped she would be my assistance dog for my health problems. Since birth, I have suffered with a type of heart arrhythmia called ventricular tachycardia. My heart races and, if I don't take medication immediately to slow it, I lose consciousness. I've had to be rushed to hospital to have it restarted. Unrelated to that, at 19 I started to lose my hearing and now struggle with high-pitched sounds such as the phone or doorbell ringing.

I was studying to be a vet, so the idea of having an assistance dog appealed to me – I love animals. The theory was that Mia would alert me when the phone was ringing or when my heart rate was speeding up and I had to take emergency medication. When she was 16 weeks old, she was assessed by a charity that trains pets to become assistance dogs. I hoped the immediate and instinctive bond Mia and I shared when we met meant she'd be suitable.

She qualified as my assistance dog just before her second birthday. Mia learned to alert me just before my arrhythmia starts by making a horrible screeching noise and jumping up at me. She ferrets in my handbag and brings me my heart medicine. She puts her paw on my leg to inform me when the phone's ringing. Once we were in B&Q when the fire alarm sounded and, executing her training perfectly, she lay on the floor and stared at me, hard, to tell me a siren was blaring.

One evening in November 2011, I was at my computer when Mia leapt on to my lap and nuzzled into the flesh at the top of my left breast. She closed her eyes and licked furiously. That frightened me because it's what she does when I have a bruise or cut.

I pushed her gently away but she fixed her eyes on mine and stared at me intently, as she does when she's alerting me to something. I was uneasy now. Mia seemed certain there was a problem with the area at the top of my breast. I couldn't distinguish anything – my breasts are naturally lumpy – so it was difficult. All evening Mia attempted to leap on to my lap and tend to the area of skin where she perceived a problem. The following morning, I visited my GP with a sense of dread. I asked for an ultrasound or a mammogram. I didn't start the consultation by telling him that my dog had alerted me to the possible abnormality – I was aware it might sound far-fetched, but when he was dismissive, saying it was unlikely I had breast cancer because I was only 24, I explained.

"I know dogs detect cancer and my dog is determined there's something wrong with my breast," I said firmly. Then I informed him that, as I trusted my dog, I wasn't leaving his surgery until he'd made me a hospital appointment.

My faith in Mia's diagnostic abilities wasn't misplaced. I had an ultrasound within a week and, sure enough, there was a lump that a biopsy later confirmed was grade 2a breast cancer. Two days later, I was in surgery having the lump removed. Then I started radiotherapy – five days a week for three weeks. I was angry. I was only 24 and I'd already suffered so many health problems.

It made everything else harder. Training to be a vet requires 100% dedication and, with fighting cancer and having intense and exhausting radiotherapy, I couldn't give that, so I had to drop out of university. They were really hard times. My relationship broke up and I had to move back home with my parents. Mia was by my side through it all. Cuddling her after bad news or a gruelling session of treatment alleviated some of the pain.

None of the oncologists I met during my ordeal was sceptical about Mia's role in diagnosing my cancer – they had heard it before. There's a charity called Medical Detection Dogs that trains dogs to sniff out cancer, and its work is endorsed by Cancer Research UK. Scientists are researching how dogs possess this diagnostic ability so that humans can harness it.

Fortunately, my cancer hadn't spread but it will be another 16 months of scans before doctors grant me the all clear. Meanwhile, I'm rebuilding my life. No matter what life serves up, the bond between Mia and me will always be incredibly strong.

Researcher Charged in Major HIV Vaccine Fraud Case

ABC News

Responding to a major case of research misconduct, federal prosecutors have taken the rare step of filing charges against a scientist after he admitted falsifying data that led to millions in grants and hopes of a breakthrough in AIDS vaccine research.

Investigators say former Iowa State University laboratory manager Dong-Pyou Han has confessed to spiking samples of rabbit blood with human antibodies to make an experimental HIV vaccine appear to have great promise. After years of work and millions in National Institutes of Health grants, another laboratory uncovered irregularities that suggested the results — once hailed as groundbreaking — were bogus.

Han was indicted last week on four counts of making false statements, each of which carries up to five years in prison. He was set to be arraigned Tuesday in Des Moines, but he didn't show up due to an apparent paperwork mix-up. A prosecutor said Han will be given another chance to appear next week.

Han, 57, didn't return a message left at his home in Cleveland, where he's been living since resigning from the university last fall. A native of South Korea, he surrendered his passport following his arrest and initial court appearance in Ohio last week.

Experts said the fraud was extraordinary and that charges are rarely brought in such cases. The National Institutes of Health said it's reviewing what impact the case has had on the research it funds.

"It's an important case because it is extremely rare for scientists found to have committed fraud to be held accountable by the actual criminal justice system," said Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, which tracks research misconduct.

Oransky, a journalist who also has a medical degree, said there have been only a handful of similar prosecutions in the last 30 years.

He said Han's case was "particularly brazen" and noted that charges are rarely brought because the U.S. Office of Research Integrity, which investigates misconduct, doesn't have prosecution authority, and most cases involve smaller amounts of money.

"It's a pretty extraordinary case involving clear, intentional falsification," added Mike Carome, a consumer advocate and director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group. "The wool was pulled over many people's eyes."

Carome noted that Han's misconduct wasted tax dollars and caused researchers to chase a false lead. He said such cases also undermine the public's trust in researchers.

Finding an HIV vaccine remains a top international scientific priority. A 2009 study in Thailand is the only one ever to show a modest success, protecting about a third of recipients against infection. That's not good enough for general use, so researchers continue exploring numerous approaches.

According to the indictment, Han's misconduct caused colleagues to make false statements in a federal grant application and progress reports to NIH.

The NIH paid out $5 million under that grant as of earlier this month. Iowa State has agreed to pay back NIH nearly $500,000 for the cost of Han's salary.

Han's misconduct dates to when he worked at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland under Michael Cho, who was leading a team testing an experimental HIV vaccine on rabbits.

Starting in 2008, Cho's team received initial NIH funding for the work. Cho reported soon that his vaccine was causing rabbits to develop antibodies to HIV, which left NIH officials "flabbergasted," according to a criminal complaint against Han.

Related:  Vaccine researcher charged with felony crimes for research fraud; may spend 20 years in prison over faked AIDS vaccine

Dr. Gabor Mate: Addiction

YouTube

 A bad childhood: Vancouver physician Gabor Mate and the social roots of our addictions.

MEDIA SMEAR: ROSA KOIRE'S INTERVIEW WITH FORTUNE MAGAZINE

Democrats Against Agenda 21

by Rosa Koire

Fortune Magazine (Fortune 500/Time, Inc.) published an article yesterday highlighting me and our fight against UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. The article is a nuanced manipulation that lies by omission and half-truths, and slimes by intent. David Morris, the author, brings in ICLEI public relations and the Southern Poverty Law Center to 'balance' the article, and then concludes that Agenda 21 is necessary to save the planet---it 'requires some sacrifices, not all of them made entirely willingly'. The following quote is from our interview; David Morris asked me if I had anything to add.

I guess what I want to ask you, David, is 'How committed you are to representing a particular point of view that's going to marginalize what I've told you?' I'm hoping that you're going to write an article that is genuine and fair...We have something serious going on in our country and around the world and it needs to be dealt with in a serious manner. If the major corporations which own the media are controlling that information we will not be able to get that information out to the people so that they can make these decisions for themselves. So I'm hoping--you have an opportunity here--and I'm really hoping that you're going to use it.

Watch the interview here on YouTube and read the article.  Judge for yourself how the media operates to manipulate public opinion and block the truth.