The Liberty Beacon

The Liberty Beacon

 
» ENVIRONMENT
 
 

ENVIRONMENT

Hans-J_-Kugler-PhD-300x235

January 28, 2015

“Dr. Hans Kugler, PhD, is one of our most highly recognized researchers in the field of anti-aging medicine; his scientific presentations – supported by impeccable documentation – are eye-openers for professionals and lay-persons alike. As professor of chemistry at Roosevelt University in Chicago, where he also did extensive longevity research, Dr. Kugler not only puts things into perspective, but also provides a complete picture of the anti-aging and regenerative medical sciences that can be applied with successful results.” -Quote by Dr. Ronald Klatz, M.D., D.O. President, American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M)

As the completely out of control global climate modification assault continues to wreak havoc on Earth’s life support systems and the environment, more and more credible members of society are speaking out. Dr. Hans Kugler, who is a president and founder of International Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, and a director of HK Stem Cell Laboratory at Health Integration Center (as well as a former West-German Air Force officer, pilot and platoon leader), has shown exceptional courage by openly and directly sounding the alarm on the most critical issue that we face, the global climate engineering assault. My most sincere thanks to Dr. Hans Kugler for giving us a very clear assessment of the dangers posed by geoengineering.
Dane Wigington
geoengineeringwatch.org

Alarming increase in serious illnesses in the US, along with a marked decrease in life expectancy, trend starting 16+ years ago

By Hans J. Kugler, PhD, contributing writer for geoengineeringwatch.org

We, IAAM (International Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine), contacted a number of longevity experts to pinpoint the causes. Look at the graph in Bezruchka’s paper: The US is dead-last!

chart

Besides the established connection to the use of GMOs, there is also a definite increase in overall inflammation, clearly connected to Chemtrail/climate engineering spraying. For the latest like recent article in The Washington Post and GMO Industry Harassment against Researchers Exposed.

We are also exploring the connection between Chemtrail/climate engineering spraying and the – strangely – appearing and disappearing flu symptoms; we will cover this in the future.

Within the last 20 years there has been an alarming increase in serious illnesses in the US, along with a marked decrease in life expectancy (Bezruchka, 2012). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that the cost of diabetes and diabetes-related treatment was approximately $116 billion dollars in 2007. Estimated costs related to obesity were $147 billion in 2008 and cardiovascular diseases and stroke were $475.3 billion in 2009. Health care expenditures in the US totaled 2.2 trillion dollars in 2007 (CDC, 2013a). The onset of serious illness is appearing in increasingly younger cohorts. The US leads the world in the increase in deaths due to neurological diseases between 1979-81 and 2004-06 for the 55-65 age group (Pritchard et al., 2013). These mental disorder deaths are more typical of the over 65 age group. There have been similar findings for obesity, asthma, behavior and learning problems, and chronic disease in children and young adults (Van Cleave et al., 2010). Type II diabetes in youth is being called an epidemic (Rosenbloom et al., 1999). The rate of chronic disease in the entire US population has been dramatically increasing with an estimated 25% of the US population suffering from multiple chronic diseases (Autoimmunity Research Foundation, 2012). These findings suggest environmental triggers rather than genetic or age-related causes.
During this same time period, there has been an exponential increase in the amount of glyphosate applied to food crops and in the percentage of GE food crops planted (Benbrook, 2012). We undertook a study to see if correlations existed between the rise of GE crops, the associated glyphosate use and the rise in chronic disease in the US.

Reference to full paper: The Deteriorating International Ranking of U.S. Health Status. Annual Review of Public Health

http://antiagingforme.org/html/pdf/HansKugler_resume.pdf

Original Article Here

TLB recommends you visit GeoEngineering Watch for more great/pertinent articles.

field-of-hemp-350x250-ss

By Beth Ethier, January 26, 2015

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie is a man on a mission, and that mission is to get farmers in his home state of Kentucky and across the nation growing hemp again. Massie is a staunch libertarian with a disdain for intrusive federal regulation, and his Industrial Hemp Farming Act would chip off a bit of federal power by allowing cultivation of industrial hemp in the United States.

While Massie himself is something of an outsider in the Republican Party, having voted twice against John Boehner for Speaker of the House, this particular cause is moving further into the mainstream. His new bill boasts 47 co-sponsors*, forming a surprising coalition of lawmakers from both parties and suggesting there could be a groundswell of support for allowing marijuana’s strait-laced cousin back into American fields.

Industrial hemp can be made into a variety of products, including paper, food, clothing, and cosmetics. It does not contain enough of marijuana’s psychoactive ingredient, THC, to get anyone high from smoking it. Rep. Massie has taken to tweeting about the bill with the hashtag #ThinkRopeNotDope.

Massie’s work on hemp has attracted support from such far-removed corners of Congress that its co-sponsors include both liberal Democrat Keith Ellison of Minnesota and conservative Republican Don Young of Alaska; the Senate companion bill has been introduced by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul (both fellow Kentuckians), along with Oregon Democrats Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley. With all that bipartisan good feeling, a bill legalizing hemp is shaping up to be one of the best chances to unite an ideologically-divided Congress in 2015.

House and Senate Are Considering Bills to Allow Hemp Nationwide [continued]

Original Article Here

TLB recommends you visit The Liberty Crier for more great/pertinent articles.

 

460 300 wifi kids

Barry Trower & Dr. True Ott Breakdown the White House.gov doc. . . . where you will find both Scientist Barrie Trower’s and Dr. True Ott’s evaluation of the: WhiteHouse.gov  “Leaked Document” . .

Excerpt – Scientist Barry Trower:  You’re absolutely correct here, sir, because when I looked at this Economic Growth and will increase profits, you’re actually talking about, I would think that about 100 of 1% of the country will become immensely rich from this new technology, but most of the rest of the population, certainly half of the children exposed will become quite sick, in fact, very sick, and some of them will die, and of course all of that requires medicines, and time off work, and the rest of the population will become poorer whilst you have just these very few, the people in power here, becoming super rich.

TRANSCIBED BELOW

Barry Trower’s Recent Interview on Open Your Mind Radio – Ireland

We’d like to introduce Barry Trower.  We’ve had Barry on the show before, and Barry is an independent scientist and an expert witness regarding WIFI technology and microwave warfare.   Now we sent over to Barry a document from Deborah Tavares regarding new technology that the American government is releasing.  So we asked Barry to have a look at this technology and we ourselves didn’t know much about it.  We’re not that advanced with this technology and this is Barry’s background and so we had him take a look at this and get his opinion.

Good evening, Barry.  How are you doing?

Barry:  Good evening, sir.  Thank you for calling me.

OYM:  No problem at all.  Thank you very much for doing this call.  Deborah was on our show a couple of weeks ago and she sent us over the information in this document and she’s concerned about this technology that was on the White House Government website.  And so, we printed out a copy and we sent it over to you to have a look at.  Obviously you have had a chance to look at it.  Can you tell me what you think, what your first impressions are of the information?

Barry:  I’m going to upset a few people by telling the truth here.  It was written by U.S. scientists and the title of the document is To Spur Economic Growth, in fact, they say here, “will increase investment dollars.”  Now I’m going to take you back to 1976 when this level of radiation was known by the United States research scientists to cause up to 4,500 different illnesses in human beings depending on stage of growth and stage of health, and it was also corroborated by the United Nations.  And in 1976, this level of radiation was marked, basically, the documents concerning the ill health from it, were marked TOP SECRET and the United States scientists sent a report out to the rest of the world, mainly western governments at that time.  And to paraphrase their sentence, what it actually says is that governments must lie to the general populations, otherwise they will realize the ill effects caused by this level of radiation and it will have a massive impact on industrial profits and, of course, avoid law suits.  So what they did is they decided to keep everything secret and to lie to the people over the dangers of this level of radiation and, in fact, they are still doing what they set out to do in 1976 when all this was marked  SECRET thereby, by their own writing, it will spur economic growth and increase industrial profit.  So they are still maintaining that this is safe against their own research.  And this entire episode, this entire industry, is to make money on the ill health of the populations.

OYM:  That’s incredible.  That really ties into the whole pharmaceutical side of things where you have to get tablets and, obviously, alternative medicines and various treatments that can be used for cancer, they won’t let people use them, or they make things illegal or they take them off the market because they want to sell drugs.

Barry:  You’re absolutely correct here, sir, because when I looked at this Economic Growth and will increase profits, you’re actually talking about, I would think that about 100 of 1% of the country will become immensely rich from this new technology, but most of the rest of the population, certainly half of the children exposed will become quite sick, in fact, very sick, and some of them will die, and of course all of that requires medicines, and time off work, and the rest of the population will become poorer  whilst you have just these very few, the people in power here, becoming super rich.  So you’re absolutely correct, sir.

OYM:   Well, the one thing that Deborah has regarding her document, it does say on the document, Is This Technology Safe?And that It’s Meant to Spur Economic Growth, but will it do that?

Barry:  No, sir, it is certainly not safe, and, in fact, I know you’re going to come to it later, but a paper which is free of charge that I’m publishing later this week, if I’m using the best U.S. scientist’s data and the English scientists, and the World Health Organization data, we know that at this particular frequency on these wavelengths they are using that 57.7% of pregnant women will suffer miscarriages, still births, or genetically mutated children.  So, it’s certainly not safe, and these are their figures, not mine.

OYM:  This is certainly very scary information, Barry, especially next generation.  The actual technology affects our genes and that’s passed onto future generations, then we are going to have major issues in the next generation and the generation after that.

Barry:  Oh, absolutely, sir, absolutely.  And it’s already started showing.  I gave a lecture not too long ago at Brighton University and one of the professors there, he actually said that this phenomena now is already showing itself in other mammalian species.  And again, in Ireland, over there, I presented and referenced my paper to the Irish Doctors Association who are recognized world-wide for being incredibly clever, so this was discussed fully, so it is known, it is recognized, and the technology is not being challenged.  It can’t be challenged because it’s actually there on the scientific peer review documents that the U.S. government and the World Health Organization actually say is going to happen.  What we’re going here is we are making a massive profit for a few people on the backs of suffering of the populations, as you say, in the next three, four generations.

OYM:  That is very scary.  Now obviously we’re going to talk about is WIFI safe?  I mean what Deborah’s document has, but generally we talk about WIFI, and it’s linked to WIFI, is it safe?  I think we can pretty much say that it’s not.

Barry:  No, sir, WIFI is particularly dangerous to children and it is particularly dangerous to pregnant women.  And there are several papers published on the frequencies to do with WIFI or WIFI enabled frequencies, as this is, the first is that it can induce the autoimmune system of the brain to go into action which can actually cause Graves disease which is a neurological state with is detrimental to children.  The other pulse frequencies related to microwave radiation are feelings where you cannot relax, feeling of being unhappy, and if you are super sensitive to it, it can cause problems with anger and manic behavior and even problems with movement and loss of appetite and things like and these are published, these are well published frequencies or pulse frequencies modulation frequencies that parents are already reported in schools with WIFI.

OYM:  It’s something that I try to address in my son’s school regarding the dangers of WIFI but you get a blank look.  They just don’t seem to understand because if it has been approved by government they assume that everything is okay.

Barry:  Well, actually, they’re wrong.  It has not been approved by government.  In fact, the European Parliament actually wrote to ban WIFI from schools.  For legal reasons, it had to be changed to (read) wired system is preferred, but the meaning is the same and many of the leading scientists and professors in many countries have said why WIFI must not be allowed near children.  And the problem we have with schools is two-fold.  The first is that when Ofsted, and again this isn’t from me, this is from a professor, when I gave a lecture at a university, and a professor said,  she said, I’ll tell you what the problem is, Barry.  When the government inspectors come into schools they have to tick boxes like Ofsted and schools are terrified of not having that sentence that tells that this is an advanced technologically developed school with excellence and you don’t get ticks in boxes.  Now if you don’t have WIFI and all of these interactive things that you can touch, you don’t get ticks in boxes, and this is one of the things that schools are afraid of.  And the other thing of course is the legality of whoever signs the papers, and it is usually the chair of governors or the principal, because WIFI actually has no safety certificate and there is no insurance.   So what they’re now facing, and what they are afraid of and why they refer back to the government is because they can face super law suits over the injuries to children.  And I know two, one of which where the signatory of a document is being sued for 5.2 million pounds and the other where eighteen families are suing.  And when it comes to children and you will probably find the insurance companies on the advice of Lloyd’s put a little exclusion clause in you will find that if there is no insurance then it is your house, your land, your car that people will go for.  They are actually in a Catch-22 and they’ve painted themselves into a corner.

OYM:  It’s incredible.  Obviously we have heard of Agenda 21 which has been rolled out in so many countries now.  The one thing that Deborah is talking about regarding technology that she’d come across on the White House website is the fact that they want to use technology as a mesh network and they can trace and track everything with this mesh network.  Is that something that you’ve come across.

Barry:  Oh, yes.  It’s no secret. The U.S. has a super computer, it’s something like a million billion computations a second.  It can store and log every single conversation used on WIFI and cell phones and every other microwave device in the world and they can keep that and store that.  And I think they actually said that they are doing that not too long ago.  Information for governments is power.  It can be used in many ways.  It can be used to help people, but it can also be used to quiet people down and be used for blackmail.  So if everything that you ever say, do or touch is now being stored on computers by governments, they are not storing it for their health.  They are storing it for their own use for whatever they want to do with it.

OYM:  We have the whistleblower Edward Snowden who is coming out about the NSA and what they’re doing.

Barry:  Absolutely.  And when you mesh a whole block and a whole street, there is nothing you can do, say, go, that cannot be logged.  Your movements and they can even know and see you when you go to the toilet, if they want, when you take a bath, they can see and know what you say all day.  It is absolute total observation of populations.

OYM:  Is there anything we can do to reduce them being able to do that?

Barry:  The problem is that the people who have the power to do this, putting it simply, you are up against first the most powerful industry on the planet.  It has the government sand secret services in bed with it, along with the electricity generating boards and the pharmaceutical industry so you are up against the biggest people on the planet.  Whether the ordinary person can do something about it, I am hoping so because, and the problem isn’t just the island and the United States, it is worldwide.  I am not boasting, sir, and I make no money from this, my paper is free, and is all peer reviewed published references it has already been requested by over a quarter of a million people worldwide who have this same concern.  So we may have some very powerful people suddenly turning this around and saying we will do this and this but not this and this.  So I’m hoping the world comes to its senses once this paper comes out.

OYM:  That’s the next thing we’re going to talk about.  One of the things we are hoping to do, and we are happy to do this for you, when you send us a copy of your paper to OYM, we will digitize it and we will make it available on the OYM website for people to download and to read.

Barry:  In April I was asked to be a speaker at the annual conference of the Irish Doctors Association and they are renowned worldwide for being very clever and they have links all over the world and the basis of this paper, the effect of WIFI on girls from the age of five to when they’re pregnant women.  I spoke and answered questions and then they asked me to answer questions all day and they really went into this and one of the doctors said that you really must put this into a document.  It is free of charge and available to anybody in the world.  I’m hoping it is good enough to be used in a legal case anywhere in the world.

OYM:  We need to stop this rollout of WIFI all over the world, and smart meters and now they are going to be metering the water.

Barry:  Without insulting your intelligence or the intelligence of your doctors, I always write my research  papers so that they can be understood by an eleven-year-old child.  So any of the young adults listening to you, if they think they will never understand a research paper, this one they will, and I’ve used a graphic artist to do a picture as well to explain if there are words you don’t understand they will be in a drawing, but it should be understandable by an eleven-year -old who doesn’t have a science background.

You can invite me back onto your program, sir, with anyone from anywhere in the world and I will happily be a guest and answer any questions.

OYM:  Barry has been on the show twice before and you can download the shows on podcast.  This is just a quick interview on the information that Deborah Tavares sent over.

See article here: http://www.stopthecrime.net/warn.html

The Liberty Beacon recommends that your read more great/pertinent articles at:  http://www.stopthecrime.net/

300px-JMHERNDON

January 20, 2015

Marvin Herndon, Ph.D. , is a scientist of considerable notoriety. Marvin contacted me recently to express his growing concerns about the constant toxic aerosol spraying of our planet and the obvious human health and environmental ramifications we all face from this contamination. Dr. Herndon has shown a level of courage that is so very rare in the circles of the science community, he is taking a stand on the aerosol spraying issue and making his voice heard. There are so many in academia who have sheepishly hidden themselves in the shadows while they perform whatever task is asked of them in exchange for a paycheck and a pension. Marvin is the antithesis of this. He has sacrificed much in his life and career in order to stand on his convictions. I solute Dr. Herndon’s determination and courage, his recent letter to authorities in his region is below. May his outspokenness be an example to others in the science community.
January 16, 2015
To: Mayor Kevin L. Faulconer, and San Diego City Council Members
From: J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D.
Subject: Pervasive Toxic Aerosol Spraying of San Diego Residents

I am a scientist (PhD in nuclear chemistry, Post-Doctoral in Geochemistry and Cosmochemistry) and businessman, and have lived in Scripps Ranch for thirty seven years.

Over the past year the skies above San Diego have changed drastically in plain sight. We’ve been robbed of the beautiful blue skies we associate with our city. Almost every day jet airliners are spraying innumerable so-called “chemtrails” and they persist after release behind the jets to gradually form clouds. Chemical clouds. Toxic clouds. They eventually diffuse and form a white haze in the sky. Sometimes, the artificial clouds are laid so thickly as to make the otherwise blue San Diego sky fully overcast with toxic chemical aerosols. Sometimes, depending on chemical mix, the transition from spray to white haze is rapid. Please see a few examples, attached, that I photographed from my front yard.

Chemicals sprayed into the atmosphere do not remain suspended; they fall to contaminate the air we breathe, our rainwater, and our agricultural soil. This ongoing massive spraying taking place over San Diego represents a grave threat to me and my family, my neighbors, and all my fellow San Diegans.

Rainwater collected after intensive aerosol spraying now reportedly contains elevated levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium and likely other toxins. Aluminum is implicated in diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and autism, whose rising incidence is causing alarm to many Americans. How many additional children will be doomed to suffer a lifetime of autism? How many additional San Diegans will suffer premature brain degeneration or cancer? What horrors lie in store for our children and grandchildren who unknowingly play outdoors, or the pregnant women with their unborn offspring, or the runners and other outdoor recreationists? What about those of us who suffer asthma or who have compromised immune systems? What about the elderly?

What about your own family? Are we San Diegans no longer free to breathe uncontaminated air?

Why are San Diego’s Mayor and members of San Diego City Council silent about this imminent public health threat? Were you duped into believing that toxic chemical clouds will keep Earth from warming? Clouds might reflect sunlight back into space but those same artificial clouds also keep Earth from cooling by not letting Earth’s heat escape during the night. Clouds, artificial or natural, trap heat!

Why the silence? Are you afraid there will be demonstrations or riots in the streets if the truth were told about the ongoing activity that poisons the air San Diegans are now breathing? Deception by acquiescence and silence is fundamentally wrong, unless you are a willing participant in activities that will likely come to be characterized as crimes against humanity.

As elected officials you have the responsibility to advise and protect all San Diegans. Please speak the truth and stop this spraying over our homes.

The following links provide information you may find of benefit.
Chemtrail websites:
Interview with a neurosurgeon:
Please advise me of your intensions to make public disclosure of the chemical spraying over San Diego. Kindly respond before the close of business on January 23, 2015, or I will assume you have no intention of responding.
Sincerely,
J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D.

Permission to post this letter was granted to geoengineeringwatch.org from Marvin Herndon, Ph.D.  

Original Article Here

Visit Dane Wigington below for more great/pertinent articles.

GeoEngineerWatchlogo

bayer

Here’s an often overlooked murderous corporation that has a history of poisoning humanity. Monsanto is usually highlighted, but there is a plethora of other similarly complicit chemical weapons designers that deserve to be outed and shut the hell down.

By Zen Gardner 1/19/2015

With so many corporations polluting our environment, poisoning our food and corrupting our democracy, it’s tough to single out “the worst.” But this year, we’re asking you to elect one of the biggest bee-killers in the world, Bayer CropScience, into the Corporate Hall of Shame.

We think it’s about time consumers hold Bayer accountable for not only manufacturing the pesticides that kill bees, but for creating a public relations campaign aimed at blaming everything but the company’s pesticides for the mass die-off of pollinators.

By now, we all know that neonicotinoids are the primary culprit in Colony Collapse Disorder. We also know who stands to profit the most from selling neonics—Bayer CropScience is the world’s number one seller of neonics, with annual sales of over $1 billion.

To hear Bayer tell it, the neonic-maker is the honeybee’s best friend. Instead of taking responsibility for poisoning pollinators, Bayer has launched a very expensive public relations campaign, outlined in this report by the Friends of the Earth. The campaign is aimed at shifting the blame to global warming. Or maybe mites.

Bayer has even established the bogus Bayer Bee Care Center in a disingenuous public relations move aimed at convincing consumers that the company is dedicated to protecting bees.

Bayer should be ashamed. It isn’t, of course. So it’s up to us to shame the world’s leading bee-killer.

Vote Bayer into the Corporate Hall of Shame

See Article here: http://www.zengardner.com/blame-it-on-bayer/

The Liberty Beacon recommends that you read more great/pertinent articles at: http://www.zengardner.com/

 

Dead-Fish-Pollution-Dumping-Sewage.jpg460 300

5th Circuit Court of Appeals, federal attorneys told a three-judge panel that the EPA, not the courts, is responsible for setting priorities for water quality and other issues. 

Saturday, January 17, 2015 by: J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) is asking a federal appeals court in New Orleans to vacate an order that forces the agency to rule on whether federal regulations are necessary to curb the flow of pollutants – mostly from agricultural run-off – into the Mississippi River.

The pollutants, reports the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper, are major contributors to a low-oxygen “dead zone” that forms along the Louisiana coastline every spring, as farmers up-river plant crops throughout the Midwest.

The paper, located online at NOLA.com, noted:

At a [Dec. 4] hearing before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, federal attorneys told a three-judge panel that the EPA — not the courts — is responsible for setting priorities for water quality and other issues. The agency argued that the lower-court order allows the rule-making process to “be whipsawed back and forth” by interest groups.

‘States have failed to act’

The appeal surrounds a ruling by U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey in 2013 stating that the EPA has to make a “necessity determination” to assess whether a federal clampdown on water pollutants flowing into the Mississippi should be undertaken. The 5th Circuit has granted the agency’s request to delay the judge’s order as it appeals the ruling.

The ruling by Zainey, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, was viewed by environmental groups as a victory. They have argued that the EPA has been excessively slow to address the problem, with some even suggesting that agricultural industry interests are influencing the agency into inaction.

A number of environmental groups asked the agency in 2008 to craft new rules that would limit the flow of nitrogen and phosphorus – used heavily in fertilization processes – from Midwest farms, sewage treatment facilities and other sources into the Mississippi River and adjoining tributaries.

NOLA.com described the issue further:

The “dead zone” that fans out from the Mississippi River outlet into the Gulf of Mexico each spring is caused by algae, which kicks into rapid growth mode when large amounts of agricultural nutrients wash into the ocean. The nutrients feed massive algae blooms, which sink to the ocean floor and decompose, consuming most of the available oxygen in the water and leaving worms, clams and other bottom-dwelling sea life to suffocate.

In 2013, the paper said, the gulf-region dead zone near the state’s coastline covered as much as 5,800 square miles, with varying degrees of low-oxygen pockets, according to an estimate from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. That is an area similar to the size of Connecticut.

New Orleans-based conservation group Gulf Restoration Network, along with the National Resources Defense Council, a national organization, are among the organizations that have petitioned the EPA for tougher rules. But in 2008 the agency denied their request, saying it was not yet time for the federal government to intervene.

The groups cited the agency’s role under the federal Clean Water Act as giving it the authority to act, but the agency thus far has disagreed. The act “makes states responsible for regulating water quality,” not the federal government per se, “and the EPA said it would continue to work with states to curb water pollutants,” NOLA.com reported.

But, say the green groups, states have for years failed to act on their own, making it time the EPA did instead.

‘Lower court’s order should stand’

At the recent court hearing, an attorney with the National Resources Defense Council, Ann Alexander, said federal law required the EPA to act if states would not. She agreed with Zainey’s order and said it should stand.

“On this particular issue, it [has been] an entire decade of relentless avoidance of the problem,” she said, as quoted by NOLA.com.

If the 5th Circuit does not overturn the order, attorneys for the EPA have asked that it be sent back to his court for further clarification. The order says the EPA has 6 months – 180 days – to make a formal determination on whether it will write new rules to limit nutrient pollution.

“The agency may decide in favor or against taking action, but it must provide a clear explanation of the legal and scientific basis for its action, according to the order,” NOLA.com reported.

See article here: http://www.naturalnews.com/048318_EPA_Gulf_of_Mexico_dead_zone.html#ixzz3PCIUrgi5

The Liberty Beacon recommends that you read more great/pertinent articles at:  http://www.naturalnews.com/

Geoengineering 2

By TLB Contributor: Dane Wigington

All available data from the ground paints a very dark horizon for life on planet Earth. Mathematically speaking, on the current trajectory we have no chance. The fact that this is so hard to accept for most people does not negate the reality itself. If one is driving straight toward a cliff at high speed it is easy enough to say that if they do not alter their course they will certainly perish.

So what are our options?

To radically change the course of civilization as we know it or we will all face the consequences of the collective actions (and inactions) of the human race. So many are in total denial. Even within the ranks of movements that claim to be fighting for the common good, denial is epidemic. How is it possible to believe that our species can perpetually expand and consume resources on a finite planet with finite resources? How can all this activity not have an effect on the equilibrium of the planet’s life support systems? The climate balance of the last 7 to 10 millennia (which was unique in the Earth’s history) has been disrupted from countless causes. Again, mathematically speaking, the single greatest cause appears to be the global climate engineering insanity (though, as already mentioned, there are countless other causes).

With this in mind, the article below is an important read for those that truly want to understand just how dire our common dilemma is. When reading the article, and viewing the videos contained in it (also important to do) one must focus primarily on the data presented from the front lines. The fact that some of these scientists are calling for climate engineering to be implemented should not taint the data that reveals the unfolding reality on the ground. We MUST separate the baby from the bathwater.

It is impossible to know what the underlying motives are for the scientists calling for climate engineering to be immediately deployed (as if it has not already been going on for over 6 decades). Perhaps they have been threatened, perhaps on this point they are also in denial. Climate engineering has made an already bad situation much worse overall and has poisoned all life in the process. Reviewing the data below is critical for those that want to understand more deeply just how dire and immediate our collective situation is. It is important to understand that climate engineering has helped to bring us to this dark corner. Geoengineering is not a cure but a curse that is even worse than the disease itself.
Dane Wigington
geoengineeringwatch.org

Accelerating Towards an Arctic Blue Ocean Event

Source: Collapse of Industrial Civilization

icecaps-gif

“For the last 8,000 years we’ve had [relatively] amazing stability with constant weather temperatures and sea level. This stability has allowed the development of agriculture, civilization, industrialization, and a population of 7 billion and rising. This apparent stability is entirely a fluke. It is by amazing good luck that we are here today looking back on the past.”
John Nissen (12-4-2014), Arctic Methane Emergency Group

On the 4th, 5th, and 6th of December of the year 2014, the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) held press briefings at the COP-20 United Nations Climate Change Conference that is taking place in Lima, Peru. For those unfamiliar with AMEG, here is a summary about them from their website that illustrates their proven track record of predictions:

AMEG is a group of determined scientists, engineers, communicators and others, dedicated firstly to establishing what really is happening to our planet (especially in the Arctic) using best scientific evidence, secondly to finding effective and affordable means to deal with the situation, and thirdly communicating these matters to authority and the general public.

AMEG aims to position itself in the centre ground – neither overstating nor understating the dangers of climate change. We are only alarmist in the sense that we are drawing attention to the more unpleasant realities of rapid Arctic warming and climate change, which have been downplayed or ignored by IPCC, unwittingly backed up by the media. We are determinedly optimistic as regards promoting an intervention strategy against all the odds, believing that mankind must have the collective intelligence to sort out the mess that mankind has got itself into.

In early 2012, AMEG gave evidence to the UK’s Environment Audit Committee in their inquiry on protecting the Arctic. Much of our evidence was dismissed by government advisers, but all our evidence has been borne out by subsequent observations and events, including: the rapid rise in temperature of Arctic ocean and atmosphere; the dramatic decline of sea ice to a record minimum in September 2012 (following the exponential downward trend we had warned the committee about); the exponential increase in release of the potent greenhouse gas, methane, from the Arctic Ocean seabed; the exponential increase in melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and consequent sea level rise; and the continuing disruption of the jet stream patterns we expected from Arctic warming, with resulting climate change in the form of weather extremes (despite a continuing hiatus in global warming), causing widespread crop failures and increase in the food price index above the crisis level, thus promoting civil conflict in a number of Asian and African countries where food prices have recently escalated, including most notably Syria.

Recent independent research, by scientists in AMEG and elsewhere, puts beyond reasonable doubt our assertion that the Arctic is locked in a vicious cycle of warming and melting, with the sea ice well past its tipping point. The current albedo forcing from snow and sea ice retreat is now estimated at around 0.4 to 0.5 Watts per square meter, averaged globally, amounting to 200 to 250 terawatts heating in the Arctic – more than mankind’s total energy consumption.  This albedo forcing is liable to double within a few years as the snow and sea ice further retreat. AMEG believes that the vicious cycle of warming and melting can only be broken by rapid intervention to cool the Arctic.

Although AMEG’s research has concentrated on the Arctic and its effect on climate change, our study of IPCC’s own evidence suggests just how serious are the long-term prospects of climate change due to both CO2 and methane – far more serious than claimed by IPCC itself. The carbon budget for CO2 – the allowable amount of CO2 to avoid dangerous climate change – has already been used up, if one takes into account the effect of methane and other greenhouse gases. If one also takes into account the climate forcing through albedo loss in the Arctic, then it is clear that the world is heading for extremely dangerous global warming by mid-century, even without Arctic methane. The only way to head off such a disaster is by reducing the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere well below their current levels, using a combination of aggressive reduction in both CO2 and methane emissions but also by removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

The videos of both press briefings are below. They essentially cover much of the same material, but are both worth watching for the details that the different speakers give illustrating mankind’s dire predicament. Following the videos, I summarize AMEG’s discussions along with their conclusions. We truly are at a turning point in the survival of our species.

The source of these videos has taken them down since the original posting of this article. Perhaps there is now more attention on this information that was wanted. The only known functional video link left is below http://ameg.me

SUMMARY OF AMEG PRESS BRIEFINGS:
• The tipping point for the collapse of Arctic glaciers has been breached and a runaway meltdown of the North Pole ice cap is currently unfolding. Arctic ice is decaying exponentially. (For a better visualization, picture an area of ice the size of the state of Maine being lost every year since 1979.):

Highly reflective snow and ice is being replaced by dark sea water which is much more [absorbent] of solar energy causing the Arctic to warm much, much faster than the rest of the planet. This is destabilizing the atmospheric air circulation and ocean circulation. It is reducing the temperature gradient or difference between the equator and the pole which slows down the jet stream making it wavier with higher ridges and troughs. The jet stream has also become prone to stagnating in the same region. Very warm, humid southerly air can go to much higher latitudes than before, and cold arctic air can go to much southerly latitudes than before. This in itself is representing an enormous positive reinforcing feedback (not positive for humans) which is carrying more and more heat up into the Arctic and more and more coldness from the Arctic further south. What this will do is fracture the jet streams, leading us to a very different world, a less predictable climatic world where weather extremes such as torrential rains and extended droughts and floods come to dominate the weather system. The frequency, severity, and duration of these events all increase. These events also occur in regions where we did not have this before. For example, we get 80cm(32 inches) of snow in the Atacama Desert which is the driest region of the planet – an unprecedented event. We get torrential rains where we had desert before. We get desert where we had moderate temperatures before. This is already happening now with just 0.85 °C of warming that the world has experienced since the start of the industrial revolution. This situation is very dependent on the conditions in the Arctic. As the Arctic continues to exponentially decline in snow and sea ice cover, these extremes will undoubtedly have to increase. The physics of the system says so. Because we now live in a warmer planet, there is more evaporation of the oceans leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere which fuels stronger storms. (The atmosphere can hold 7% moisture for every 1°C increase in average temp. Since we have increased the average temp by ~0.8°C from pre-industrial times, we have 6% more water vapor in the atmosphere). Because we have changed the chemistry of the atmosphere, we have changed the planet’s weather and climate.

• Once we reach a point of no Arctic sea ice, perhaps as early as September 2015, this will create a “blue ocean event” in which all the heat from the sun will be able to penetrate Arctic waters, vastly accelerating the rate at which the Arctic is warming. Consequently, massive disruption of atmospheric circulation and ocean currents will ensue, thus locking the Arctic into an ice-free state. Global sea levels will rapidly rise and climate chaos will ramp up.
• The East Siberian Arctic Shelf, containing hundreds to thousands of times more heat trapping gases than what are presently in the atmosphere, is in the process of releasing a catastrophic amount of greenhouse gases.
• Climate models do not take into account fractures, imperfections in the sea floor, regions of unfrozen subsea methane and other weak points in methane deposits. The models simply treat these areas as uniform slabs that will act in a predictable and symmetrical manner.
• Historical ice core and sediment records show numerous instances of the Earth having undergone abrupt climate change of 5-6°C or greater within a very short time period, one or two decades.
• The initial heat-trapping strength of methane(CH4) is up to several hundred times more powerful than CO2 during the first couple decades of its release into the atmosphere before degrading into CO2.
• Collapse of Civilization is assured at a 4°C rise in global temperature.

Scientists consider a global warming of 6°C to be a threat to the survival of humanity, and anything beyond an increase of 2°C to be intolerable (as recorded at the Asia-Europe Summit by Khor, September 2006). - Link

• Even conservative IPCC projections of BAU predict a 4°C rise in global temperature by the end of the century and this estimate does not include the methane release from the Arctic seabed, permafrost and tundra. No where in its reports does the IPCC state that a 4°C would be catastrophic to civilization and life on Earth.
• Simply attempting to “adapt” to anthropogenic climate change is not a realistic option.
• The meme of money and profit holds sway over all of society.
• The operating system of global civilization, i.e. neoclassical economics, is fatally flawed and it will kill us.
• The consequences of predicted drought from global warming will make food production impossible in most of the world…

imageedit_27_9878978785

AMEG’S CONCLUSIONS ARE:
• A life-affirming system of ecological economics must replace the current ecocidal model of neoclassical economics.
• Institutions must divest from fossil fuel investments and burst the carbon bubble.
• Techniques for cooling the Arctic need to be implemented now, such as spraying salt into the atmosphere to thicken clouds. Additionally, carbon sequestration techniques need to be implemented now, such as biochar burial which is a carbon negative technology that also enriches soil fertility.
• The world must recognize that a 2°C target is not the benchmark we need to worry about right now. We need to worry about and immediately deal with the destabilization and disruption of our climate and weather patterns that are already occurring today at 0.85 °C.
• Only a concerted international effort will provide us with a chance to mitigate and adapt to climate change by building a deep toolbox of approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, reducing emissions alone will not be sufficient. An active withdrawal of CO2 from the atmosphere will need to be a part of managing climate change.

AMEG does not mention the Antarctic which was recently found to be melting three times faster than a decade ago:

The glaciers in the embayment lost mass throughout the entire period. The researchers calculated two separate quantities: the total amount of loss, and the changes in the rate of loss.

The total amount of loss averaged 83 gigatons per year (91.5 billion U.S. tons). By comparison, Mt. Everest weighs about 161 gigatons, meaning the Antarctic glaciers lost a Mt.-Everest’s-worth amount of water weight every two years over the last 21 years.

The rate of loss accelerated an average of 6.1 gigatons (6.7 billion U.S. tons) per year since 1992.

From 2003 to 2009, when all four observational techniques overlapped, the melt rate increased an average of 16.3 gigatons per year — almost three times the rate of increase for the full 21-year period. The total amount of loss was close to the average at 84 gigatons.

Also in the news a few months ago was the realization that Greenland’s ice sheet loss has doubled in just the last five years. Greenland’s ice is much more unstable and prone to collapse than previously thought, and it alone holds enough ice to raise sea levels by nearly twenty-three feet. Paul Beckwith notes that the rate of change in ice melt from Greenland and Antarctica has doubled every seven years for the last couple decades and that if we continue on this trend, then the world will indeed experience a sea level rise of nearly twenty-three feet by 2070.

Last month a seemingly reassuring headline stated that ‘Alaska shows no signs of rising Arctic methane‘ according to NASA’s CARVE project (Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment), but any hopes about the ticking methane time bomb in the Arctic were quickly dashed after reading the article:

…High concentrations of have been measured at individual Arctic sites, especially in Siberia. This adds to the concern that massive methane releases are already occurring in the far North. NASA’s multiyear Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE) is the first experiment to establish emission rates for a large region of the Arctic…

Alaska composes about one percent of Earth’s total land area, and its estimated annual emissions in 2012 equaled about one percent of total global methane emissions. That means the Alaskan rate was very close to the global average rate.

“That’s good news, because it means there isn’t a large amount of methane coming out of the ground yet,” said lead author Rachel Chang, formerly at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and now an assistant professor and Canada Research Chair in Atmospheric Science at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Charles Miller of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, the principal investigator for CARVE, noted that results from a single year cannot show how emissions might be changing from year to year. “The 2012 data don’t preclude accelerated change in the future,” he said.

Vast amounts of carbon are stored in undecayed organic matter—dead plants and animals—in Arctic permafrost and peat. Scientists estimate that there is more than twice as much carbon locked in the frozen North as there is in the atmosphere today. The organic material won’t decay and release its carbon as long as it stays frozen. But climate change has brought warmer and longer summers throughout the Arctic, and permafrost soils are thawing more and more. If large amounts of undecayed matter were to defrost, decompose and release methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the impact on global temperatures would most likely be enormous.

Because no other program has made measurements as comprehensive and widespread as CARVE’s, Chang said, “One of the challenges is that we have nothing to compare our results to. We can’t say whether emissions have already increased or stayed the same. Our measurements will serve as a baseline.”

We already know that methane levels have increased two-and-a-half times since the pre-industrial era and “since 2007 atmospheric methane has been on a renewed sustained increase… due to planetary feedback emissions.” Methane has “more than doubled its 800,000 [year] maximum”:

This increase in atmospheric methane started as a result of carbon feedback feedback methane (CH4) from anomalously high temperatures in the Arctic and greater than average precipitation in the tropics, rather than from increased industrial emissions (Dlugokencky et al, 2009). - Link

We also know that scientists continue to be shocked and awed at the increasingly accelerated rate at which glaciers around the world are melting. Essentially, industrial civilization is whistling past the graveyard.

Because of AMEG’s honest assessment about the climatic state of the world and the horrific future mankind faces, I support their efforts. We have no time left for philosophical musings about the ethics of AMEG’s geo-engineering ideas to cool the Arctic or debating why, how, and who is responsible for the mess we are in. The Blue Ocean Event is coming and time is not on our side.

“The end of the Arctic will be the noose gently placed around our necks. Get your affairs in order, Humankind.” ~ The Final Stand

Source: Collapse of Industrial Civilization

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TlLB recommends you visit GeoEngineering Watch for more pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments HERE

GMO Dangers

Michael Specter’s story in The New Yorker about Dr. Vandana Shiva’s work to protect public health from the effects of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) skewed the facts and fell short of the magazine’s usually high standards for fairness. In the piece published in the August 20th issue (and in a subsequent podcast on The New Yorker’s website), Specter makes it clear that he does not approach the topic simply as a journalist, but also as a strong believer in GMOs. He makes no secret of the fact that he considers opposition to GMOs to be unfounded.

But Specter makes his case by ignoring a great deal of evidence that directly contradicts his opinions. By ignoring important facts and questions – scientific, economic and legal – he allows his personal biases to undermine journalistic balance. The end product is a story that mirrors the false myths perpetuated by Monsanto Company on its website and does a true disservice to New Yorker readers.

Instead of allowing readers to weigh both sides of the argument and decide for themselves, Specter decides for them. He erases one side of the debate in order to tip the scales in favor of GMOs. Readers of his piece, “Seeds of Doubt,” could easily come away with a false impression that the debate over the utility and safety of GMOs is settled. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The dangers posed by GMOs are a mainstream concern, and the debate over their safety and value to society is far from over. Specter’s failure to acknowledge this undermines his argument in support of GMOs and harms The New Yorker’s reputation for quality journalism.

Specter roots his critique of Dr. Shiva in easily disproven myths that are commonly repeated by the biotech industry, Monsanto Company and other GMO producers (Monsanto et al.), and their supporters. Below, we illuminate his major errors and omissions, providing links to supporting research and articles that refute them. We encourage those who took the time to read Specter’s article to give equal time to the facts and voices he chose to ignore completely.

Error #1: Distorting the Relationship Between GMOs and Famine

Specter roots his attack on Dr. Shiva’s activism in a commonly repeated industry myth about the relationship between GMOs and famine. Just as Monsanto once claimed that a world without the carcinogenic pesticide DDT would be a world overrun by death and bugs, the GMO industry now claims that opposition to GMOs could lead to famines. In repeating this line, Specter specifically invokes India’s Bengal Famine of 1943.

However, as any student of famines knows, the Bengal Famine did not result from a shortage of food. As the work of Nobel Prize-winning Harvard economist Amartya Sen and others have clarified, the famine in Bengal – like many other famines – took place at a time when the country had adequate food production.

Famines often take place in situations of moderate to good food availability, without any decline of food supply per head,” Dr. Sen wrote in Ingredients of Famine Analysis: Availability and Entitlements.

Undernourishment, starvation and famine are influenced by the working of the entire economy and society – not just food production and other agricultural activities,” Dr. Sen observed in Famines and Other Crises. “People suffer hunger when they cannot establish their entitlement over an adequate amount of food.”

In Churchill’s Secret War, Madhusree Mukerjee documents how Winston Churchill’s well-documented disdain for the Indian people resulted in callous indifference toward the famine in Bengal. Mukerjee, a former editor at Scientific American and a recipient of the Guggenheim fellowship, takes Sen’s analysis a step further, arguing that Churchill allowed the famine to happen as part of a strategy to maintain the British Raj’s control over India.

There is no question that Churchill, who considered Indians to be “a beastly people and a beastly religion” and who referred to Mahatma Gandhi as a “malignant subversive fanatic,” repeatedly ignored pleas to address the famine. Instead, the British exported grain from India while millions of Indians starved to death.

Churchill’s unconscionable behavior drew a rebuke from Lord Wavell, the British Viceroy of India, who called it “negligent, hostile and contemptuous.” The Bengal Famine of 1943, it should be noted, was not the first famine to unfold while India was under British control. As Mike Davis documented in Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of The Third World, Britain had long employed the practice of exporting food while millions of Indians starved. Writes Davis:

Between 1875–1900—a period that included the worst famines in Indian history—annual grain exports increased from 3 to 10 million tons.”

By completely ignoring the causes of the Bengal Famine, Specter misleads readers with this reference. In many cases, including the case he cites, famine occurred despite abundant food production. The problem was that a callous dominant force controlled the food supply and failed to act in the best interests of people.

Just as the British exported rice and imposed exorbitant taxes while the people of Bengal suffered, Monsanto et al. today impose on poor farmers exceedingly high royalties fees for its seeds. This forces them deeper into poverty and makes it harder for them to feed their families.

If Monsanto wanted to reduce hunger, it would not be doing so much to impose deeper poverty on farmers through its overpriced monopolistic seed scheme that perpetuates unsustainable dependency. Specter’s assertion that profit-hungry corporations are the antidotes to famine makes zero sense to anyone who has studied famine.

Further, Specter’s assertion appears to be based on the debunked myth that genetically engineered seeds increase crop yields. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists – “Failure to Yield” – found that such claims are overstated. Instead, according to the report, which is based on an analysis of peer-reviewed scientific literature, Most of the gains are due to traditional breeding or improvement of other agricultural practices.” Even in the US, non-GMO crops have shown better yield improvements than GM crops, according to research conducted by the US Department of Agriculture and the University of Wisconsin.

This report and others show that when genetically engineered products are stacked up against other agricultural methods and technologies, they are only a minor contributor to productivity. Other methods are more important.

If anything, GMOs and monocultures may actually increase the risk of famine and ecocide because they disrupt our natural food system in unprecedented ways, in violation of the Precautionary Principle. From a recent report published by the Extreme Risk Initiative at the New York University (NYU) School of Engineering:

Invoking the risk of famine as an alternative to GMOs is a deceitful strategy, no different from urging people to play Russian roulette in order to get out of poverty. The evocation of famine also prevents clear thinking about not just GMOs but also global hunger. The idea that GMOs will help avert famine ignores evidence that the problem of global hunger is due to poor economic and agricultural policies. Those who care about the supply of food should advocate for an immediate impact on the problem by reducing the amount of corn used for ethanol in the US, which burns food for fuel consuming over 40% of the US crop that could provide enough food to feed 2/3 of a billion people.”

Notably, Monsanto is a top producer of GMO corn designed to streamline the conversion of a food staple into ethanol (rather than alleviate world hunger).

Conclusion: Specter’s embrace of the GMO industry’s famine canard ignores a Nobel Prize-winning economist’s research into the root causes of the Bengal Famine, as well as other famines. In addition, the assertion that GMOs increase crop yields (and thus food supply) is exaggerated. In particular, it ignores the availability of other methods, such as conventional crop breeding, that are more successful at increasing productivity. Finally, as the NYU paper indicates, contributing to monocultures of a few crops that are not primarily used for food, much less food that helps malnourished people, likely increases – rather than decreases – food insecurity. This very well-reasoned argument is completely ignored. Additionally, it should be noted that the European public has widely rejected GMO food products – while creating societies with less food insecurity than the United States.

We strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to us. We think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia, and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.” – Statement at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations by the Representative of every African nation, except South Africa, in 1998

Error #2: Obscuring Vast Difference Between GMO and Natural

Specter also repeats the false claim that what GMO companies like Monsanto are doing to our food and plants is not fundamentally different than what has been done for centuries. He writes: “Nearly all of the plants we cultivate – corn, wheat, rice, roses, Christmas trees – have been genetically-modified [sic] through breeding to last longer, look better, taste sweeter, or grow more vigorously in arid soil.”

But the vast differences between breeding methods that use processes that commonly occur in nature and those used in GMO corporation laboratories is substantial. For one thing, GMO foods often introduce proteins not previously in the food supply into our foods. The proteins come from organisms such as bacteria that normally cannot place their genes into our food crops, yet they enter our bodies when we consume these GMO foods. We do not fully understand their effects on human health. This is especially true because the regulatory systems do not thoroughly test their safety. In the US, the very companies that want to commercialize these products conduct most of these tests.

There is no comparison between tinkering with the selective breeding of genetic components of organisms that have previously undergone extensive histories of selection and the top-down engineering of taking a gene from a fish and putting it into a tomato,” say the authors of the NYU Extreme Risk Initiative paper. “Saying that such a product is natural misses the process of natural selection by which things become ‘natural.’”

Dr. George Wald, awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 1967, raised the alarm on these concerns long before consumers became aware of them:

“Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth…Up to now living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism or their neighbors. It is all too big and is happening too fast. So this, the central problem, remains almost unconsidered. It presents probably the largest ethical problem that science has ever had to face.”

These unanswered questions and ethical problems have resulted in widespread public concern over GMOs. Over 90% of Americans believe GMO products should be labeled, and a majority says they would avoid buying them if they were. As a result, Monsanto et al. have spent millions of dollars to kill proposals for GMO labeling.

Monsanto et al. have not been as successful in Europe. Notwithstanding that millions of tons of animal feed are sold to Europe every year, labeling laws coupled with scientific review based on the Precautionary Principle, in tandem with widespread public opposition of GMO products, have made it nearly impossible for GMO products to be sold there.

The refusal of European citizens to serve as guinea pigs for Monsanto has hampered the company’s efforts to expand there. Clearly, it is not only activists who have expressed legitimate concern about GMOs. Governments and scientists also clearly perceive the difference between natural products and GMOs, and taken steps to guard against potential dangers.

Yet Specter completely glosses over this issue, making an oversimplified comparison to essentially equate GMOs with natural products and wipe out a key concern of GMO opponents with one clever sentence. But according to the World Health Organization, Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.”

In a podcast accompanying Specter’s piece on the New Yorker website, Specter goes so far as to deny that organic foods are healthier than GMO foods, a claim that is challenged by many peer-reviewed studies.

Conclusion: Specter’s comparison between modern biotechnological engineering and other types of crossbreeding or hybridization is completely misleading. Many experts, including a Nobel Prize winner, have articulated why GMOs are not typically found in nature and represent uncharted scientific territory. Specter’s oversimplification of the differences between natural and GMO products misinforms readers.

Error #3: Denying the Debate Over GMO Health Dangers

Specter’s piece accepts as fact the false argument that GMOs pose no threat to public health and safety. He ignores credible research and serious questions about the health risks posed by GMOs.

For example, in 2013, a group of nearly 300 scientists from the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSEER) signed a public statement calling on GMO companies, commentators and journalists to stop repeating the false claim that a “scientific consensus” considers GMOs safe.

We feel compelled to issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist,” they wrote. “The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigor and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.”

The Center for Food Safety has done an excellent job of highlighting the potential risks of GMOs on human health, including toxicity, allergic reactions, antibiotic resistance, immuno-suppression, cancer and loss of nutrition. Monsanto et al. and their supporters typically deny any link between GMOs and negative health effects, saying there is no scientific evidence to prove it.

Yet, as the Center for Food Safety points out, the [FDA] also does not require any pre-market safety testing of GE foods.  The agency’s failure to require testing or labeling of GE foods has made millions of consumers into guinea pigs, unknowingly testing the safety of dozens of gene-altered food products.”

Specter raises the common claim that no one has been harmed by consuming genetically engineered foods despite many years of widespread use in the US. But as with other possible food health risks, long-term harm to public health can only be determined by doing epidemiological studies, as have been done for numerous other possible health risks. Yet these studies have never been done for genetically engineered foods.

The paper on GMOs issued by the Extreme Risk Initiative at the NYU School of Engineering pokes more holes in the idea that, because we don’t fully understand GMO risks, they must not exist: “A lack of observations of explicit harm does not show an absence of hidden risk … To expose an entire system to something whose potential harm is not understood because extant models do not predict a negative outcome is not justifiable; the relevant variables may not have been adequately identified.”

In addition to the possible dangers posed by the GMOs due to superseding natural genetics, there is an added risk from pesticides. As the New York Times, Reuters, Forbes and many others have confirmed, GMO crops have resulted in the increased use of pesticides and herbicides.

From Reuters: “Genetically engineered crops have led to an increase in overall pesticide use, by 404 million pounds from the time they were introduced in 1996 through 2011, according to the report by Charles Benbrook, a research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University.” Dr. Benbrook’s paper can be found here.

This increased use of dangerous toxins on crops poses known risks to human health. Highly credible studies have linked exposure to pesticides to a host of major human illnesses, including many cancers, endocrine disruption, reproductive harm and autism.

Recent research from the University of California at Davis found that “mothers who lived within roughly one mile of where pesticides were applied were found to have a 60 percent higher risk of having children with any of the spectrum of autism disorders, such as Asperger’s syndrome,” according to the Sacramento Bee.

The weight of evidence is beginning to suggest that mothers’ exposures during pregnancy may play a role in the development of autism spectrum disorders,” said Kim Harley, associate director of University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health.

The UC Davis study was the most recent study to establish a possible link between pesticide exposure and autism. Clearly, serious questions have been raised and there is more research to be done. Yet Specter fails to mention any of this.

Conclusion: Once again, Specter omits or ignores important research that raises questions about the health and safety of GMOs. By doing this, he obscures the fact that the concerns Dr. Shiva and others express about the dangers of GMOs are rooted in credible research and legitimate scientific inquiry. Specter’s reliance on the classic “straw man” fallacy is what one expects from polemicists writing at Fox News or Breitbart, but is troubling for a journalist who writes for a reputable publication.

Error #4: Erasing the Link Between Monsanto Seeds and Cotton Farmer Suicides in India

Specter denies any link between Monsanto and the epidemic of farmer suicides in India, attributing their deaths mainly to the financial stresses of farming. His explanation mirrors the explanation Monsanto has posted on the section of its website dedicated to denying any link to the farmer suicides. And just like Monsanto, Specter ignores a key fact: Monsanto’s role in creating the debt and financial stresses that drive many farmers to suicide.

Cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt (GMO) cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011-12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers.” – Memo from the Indian Ministry, quoted in the Hindustan Times

The marketing of GMO seeds in India has resulted in farmers widely planting them without adequate information about their use and value. Specter greatly exaggerates the GMO seeds’ effect on crop yields when authorities there have attributed most yield gains to other technologies, such as increased irrigation.

These seeds are extremely expensive compared to normal seeds, but they come with the promise of unrealistic results. When these promises prove false, an alarming number of these farmers – drowning in debt significantly worsened by Monsanto’s pricing scheme – end their lives by drinking pesticides.

As the brother of one suicide victim in Maharashtra, the heart of India’s cotton-growing country, told award-winning reporter Andrew Malone in 2008:

He was strangled by these magic seeds. They sell us the seeds, saying they will not need expensive pesticides but they do. We have to buy the same seeds from the same company every year. It is killing us. Please tell the world what is happening here.”

Monanto entraps Indian farmers in an expensive seed monopoly scheme, driving up their levels of indebtedness. Specter and others have tried to shift the blame for these suicides on “debt,” but given Monsanto’s role in helping to create that debt, this does not absolve the company of responsibility.

In attacking Dr. Shiva’s advocacy for these farmers, Specter cherry-picks the data in order to deny the suicide epidemic altogether. Most flagrantly, he uses the national average of farmer suicides in India to dispute the notion that the number of suicides has increased. Yet, as Dr. Shiva points out in her rebuttal to Specter, the suicide epidemic is focused in the cotton-growing regions of Vidarbha in Maharashtra state – where Monsanto’s expensive Bt Cotton (a GMO strain) has taken root.

From a July 2014 story in The Hindu newspaper:

With the highest number of farmer suicides recorded in the year 2013, Maharashtra continues to paint a dismal picture on the agrarian front with over 3,000 farmers taking their lives. According to a recent report of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), a total of 3,146 farmers killed themselves in the state in 2013. Maharashtra repeated this performance despite the state registering 640 less farm suicides than 2012.”

From a paper published in the Indian Journal of Psychiatry in 2008:

[The] majority of suicide cases are from cotton growing areas. The cotton farmers in India paying more prices for inputs like seeds, pesticides, fertilizers, electricity, water, and labor whereas the price of cotton has gone down along with decreased productivity.

Specter’s failure to acknowledge the fact that the farmer suicide epidemic is centered in the cotton-growing region, where Monsanto’s significantly more expensive Bt GMO cotton seeds now dominate, is a telling omission. Prices have increased exponentially since the introduction of Monsanto’s GMO Bt cotton seeds.

As the Indian Ministry of Agriculture put it: “Cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt (GMO) cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011-12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers.”

In addition to driving up farmer debt by making the cost of seed significantly higher, Monsanto’s GMO cotton seeds increase pressure on farmers because these GMO crops need more irrigation in order to grow. In dry regions where water is scarce, this mix of increased seed prices and increased reliance on irrigation can devastate farmers. As the Times of India reported in September, Indian agriculture experts are urging farmers to abandon the GMO seeds and return to natural cotton, which is more affordable and less dependent on irrigation.

Unlike Specter, the Indian government and other reputable press organizations have taken the Monsanto link to the farmer suicide epidemic seriously. Shifting the blame to “indebtedness” does not absolve Monsanto in the least. Instead, it repeats Specter’s use of a specific tactic – oversimplification – to dismiss concerns that contradict his opinion.

Micha Peled’s award-winning documentary on the subject, Bitter Seeds, is mentioned by Specter in passing. We encourage people to watch the film in order to hear from Indian farmers in their own words and understand their perspective on the suicide epidemic and its root causes.

Conclusion: Yet again, Specter ignores facts and evidence that contradict his opinion in order to mock the serious concerns expressed by credible observers, including the Indian government, and makes evident his lack of journalistic balance and objectivity.

In Conclusion: Monsanto vs. Dr. Shiva

Michael Specter’s New Yorker piece seems clearly intended to impugn the motives and character of Dr. Shiva. As we have shown in the preceding pages, he systematically excises important facts, studies and journalistic reports giving the false impression that concerns over Monsanto’s monopolistic business practices and GMO products are unfounded. The opposite is true.

Specter goes so far as to express sympathy for Monsanto, writing that “the gulf between the truth about GMOs and what people say about them keeps growing wider” and that Monsanto “is simply not that powerful.” What he fails to mention is that Monsanto has spent tens of millions of dollars to kill laws that would require GMO foods to be labeled in US grocery stores. The company’s power to defeat common-sense laws that most Americans support in principle – and thus keep people in the dark about whether they are ingesting GMOs – undermines Specter’s portrayal of Monsanto as misunderstood and ineffectual.

In addition to downplaying unsavory facts about Monsanto and GMOs, Specter also did his best to undermine Dr. Shiva’s academic credentials. In fact, New Yorker editor David Remnick apologized to Dr. Shiva after Specter erroneously wrote that Dr. Shiva only had a bachelor’s degree in physics. In fact, she has a master’s degree in physics and a PhD in the philosophy of science. As such, she takes into account the scientific facts against GMOs and – unlike Monsanto – also weighs the moral questions.

Malicious stories about people who the GMO industry considers threats are nothing new or unexpected. Monsanto has a long history of attacking its critics. In 1962, when Rachel Carson published Silent Spring – a landmark book about the destructive effects of pesticides often credited with launching the environmental movement – Monsanto went on the offensive. The company published a parody of Carson’s work titled “The Desolate Year.” It mocked Carson, portraying Earth as “a hungry world overrun by bugs” without DDT (a scenario that failed to unfold after the government banned DDT in 1972). Yet even today, decades after her death, Monsanto defenders like Rush Limbaugh continue to attack Carson for raising awareness of DDT’s dangers.

Specter is not the first journalist to come after Dr. Shiva nor will he be the last. Our goal in putting together this response is to highlight the manner in which GMO companies and their supporters demean their critics by ignoring facts, setting up “straw man” arguments and engaging in perfidious attacks. They pretend to have the weight of truth and science on their side but, as we have shown, they ignore many important facts and questions.

As Specter himself acknowledges, Dr. Shiva articulates serious concerns that are shared by many people around the world. This is why attacks on her will not succeed. In the end, Dr. Shiva is simply one voice among tens of millions of other voices speaking out in defense of nature, health and justice.

Much of what she says resonates with the many people who feel that profit-seeking corporations hold too much power over the food they eat. Theirs is an argument worth making,wrote Specter.

Rest assured Dr. Shiva’s work will continue. Attempts to ridicule or silence her will not have the intended effect. Instead, they will only increase her visibility and thus her ability to speak forcefully on behalf of those struggling to survive the capitalistic monopolies of Monsanto et al.

Navdanya International

With the support of:
Pushpa Mittra Bhargava, architect of molecular biology and biotechnology in India.  Founder of the Centre of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad India.  Supreme Court appointee on the Genetic Engineering approval committee;
Terje Traavik, GenØk-Centre for Biosafety, Norway, Professor Emeritus of Gene Ecology and of Virology, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT – the Arctic University of Norway; Hans Herren, President, Millenium Institute.  Co-Chair of report International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology (IAASTD);  T.V. Jagadisan, scientist and former managing director of Monsanto India; Irina Ermakova, Institute of  Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences; Miguel A. Altieri, Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, UC Berkeley, Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology (SOCLA); Alexander Baranoff, N.K. Koltzov’s Institute of Developmental Biology Russian Academy of Sciences; Marcello Buiatti, Genetics Chair at University of Florence. Board member of ENSEER, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, Italy Piero Bevilacqua, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy; Stephanie Seneff, Senior Research Scientist, MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory; Dr. Michael Antoniou, Head of Gene Expression and Therapy Group, King’s College, London; Philip L. Bereano, Professor Emeritus, Technology and Public Policy, University of Washington Seattle; Carlo Leifert,  Professor for Ecological Agriculture School of Agriculture, Newcastle University;  Dr Mae-Wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society, UK; Peter Saunders, Institute of Science in Socity, UK; Dr. M. Jahi Chappell, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), USA; Clare Kremen, Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management at University of California, USA; Carla Sarrouy, Senior Research Technician, School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, UK;  Anuradha Mittal, Oakland Institute , USA; Jerry Mander, International Forum on Globalisation; USA; Wolfgang Sachs, Wuppertal Institute, Germany; Peter Melchett, Soil Association; UK; Nadya Novoselova, National Association for Genetic Safety, Russia; Alena Sharoykina, National Association for genetic safety, Russia; Nnimmo Bassey, Health of Mother Earth Foundation, Nigeria; Milliion Belay, Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa; Dr. Medardo Avila Vazquez, Pediatrician and Neonatologist; Universitaria de Ambiente y Salud Médicos de Pueblos Fumigados, Argentina; Ana Broccoli, Agroecologist, Argentina; Jerry Carlson, Renewable Farming LLC, USA; Dave Murphy, Food Democracy Now!; USA; Devon G. Peña, The Acequia Institute; USA; Anthony Samsel, Research Scientist, Deerfield, NH; Henry Rowlands, Sustainable Pulse, Global GMO Free Coalition; Dr Brian John, GM-Free Cymru (Wales); Michael O’Callaghan, Global Vision Foundation, Switzerland; Claire Bleakley, GE Free NZ in Food and Environment, NZ; Howard Vlieger, Iowa; Tony Del Plato, member of GEAN; Ken Roseboro, The Organic & Non-GMO Report
LabelGMOs, Pamm Larry; GMOFree USA, Diana Reeves; MADGE Australia, Frances Murrell; MOMS, Zen Honeycutt; Organic Systems, New Zealand; Earth Open Source, UK; Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (SAFE); Washington Biotechnology Action Council;

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TLB recommends you visit Navdanya International for more pertinent articles and information

See featured article and read comments HERE

 

burning forest

Most of the “the golden state” is now parched, baked and dried far beyond any historical precedent. Reservoirs are nearly empty, streams are drying up, and forests are dying by the day. Catastrophic fires will also continue to decimate California due to the ongoing engineered drought.

Dane Wigington

geoengineeringwatch.org

Much of the “golden” state went through all of 2013 with no significant rain and 2014 is so far looking even worse. Why? What will it take to wake people up to the “weather warfare” being waged on them? Geoengineering reduces overall global rainfall totals (though it can also trigger regions of torrential flooding). Intentionally caused drought is weather warfare, period. There is a great deal of disinformation out there already and its getting worse by the day. Even some of the biggest “alternative news sites” are helping to “tow the line” for the global elite and the geoengneers by putting out articles on drought and “global cooling” which make no mention of the climate engineering at all. Yet, on the other hand, these same “news sites” claim to be aware of climate engineering and they say they are against it. Which is it? How can they be aware of the geoengineering programs and yet put out climate article after climate article without so much as mentioning the elephant in the room that is climate engineering? The articles from these “alternative media sites are even claiming all the chaotic weather is just “normal cycles”. This is exactly what corporate media does, so who’s side are these alternative media sites on? How is it possible that any weather in a completely engineered climate system is “normal”?

trails from behind

Does the satellite image below look “normal”? The grid pattern spraying for toxic aerosols over the Eastern Pacific could not be more obvious. This image from early June 2014 is typical of the constant blanked spraying going on over the oceans. The effect of this is continued shredding of the ozone layer and a total disruption of the hydrological cycle.

CONSTANT GRID PATTERN SPRAYING OVER THE PACIFIC

satellite grid spraying over pacific

So what happens when the skies above the oceans and storm tracks in the Eastern Pacific are constantly sprayed? Drought and deluge in the US. The Western US fries and dries, the Eastern US gets the opposite as moisture is in effect migrated across one region and brought down in another.

THE CLIMATE ENGINEERS DECIDE WHO GETS RAIN AND WHO DOES NOT

us drought monitor

Many are finally beginning to wake up to the fact that the something is very wrong with the weather. Many are finally realizing something profound is happening in our skies. Some are now finally making the decision to get involved with the fight to raise awareness of the lethal climate engineering programs, but are we already too late?

Have the geoengineers already pushed Earth’s natural systems past the point of no return? Based on all available data, the answer is yes. The damage already done to our planet from countless forms of anthropogenic activity, which includes geoengineering, has guaranteed us a planet that is much less hospitable than the one we have known. However difficult the future looks, we could yet perhaps preserve the planet’s ability to support life if we can stop climate engineering. This battle must be won or all will be lost.

No Natural Weather

trails over city

It is imperative that we all work together toward the goal of making the population as a whole understand that virtually all their “weather” is being completely manipulated. That there is NO NATURAL WEATHER at this point. That we are all the victims of “weather warfare” and many of us will soon be climate refugees if we are not able to bring the climate engineering to light and to a halt. On top of all this we are all literally being poisoned by the toxic metal fallout from these programs, but that’s another story.

Geoengineered Drought, Target California

goe drought

geo drought 2

geo drought 3

haarp

sun halo

Many are mistakenly calling short spray trails “condensation” and not realizing that this is just another form of aerosol spraying. The “spray light”  is common under less humid conditions and high pressure zones. This type of spraying transforms the skies into a silvery white haze or “cob web” clouds that many are so accustomed to they no longer even consider it unnatural. UV radiation readings are often actually higher under this type of spraying application, a “lens” affect. Is this intentional heating in order to increase the strength of high pressure zones? High pressure spins clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere. The manipulation of high pressure helps to steer the jet stream. The unprecedented high pressure over the west is also a major cause of the current and rapidly worsening catastrophic drought.

dead cow

With the combination of constant aerosol spraying and ionosphere heater utilization (HAARP) the climate engineers have effectively cut off the flow of moisture to the state of California. Why? There are likely a number of probable reasons. First, California is possibly a climate “sacrifice zone”. This means that California is collateral damage for the constant parade of engineered snow storms that occurred further east in the US all winter long. The rain blocking high pressure ridge that the climate engineers have locked in place over the western US and the eastern Pacific pushes the jet stream straight north, carrying the moisture with it before rain can come anywhere near California. This moisture then travels as far as Alaska and the Arctic (Alaska logged its warmest January on record).  The jet is then turned back south as it wraps clockwise around the HAARP/ionosphere heater created dome of high pressure. Then, it is pumped all the way down to the southern US carrying heavily sprayed and chemically ice nucleated moisture with it which enhances the artificial cool down of the eastern US.

polar-vortex

Another part of the puzzle is likely this, a population that has no water and can not grow any food does not tend to be in a position to effectively protest the crimes of it’s government. California has historically grown so much food for the nation that the catastrophic drought has very far reaching ramifications. Control the food supply and you control the population. There is also the growing effort by the government to take control of water rights in California and other regions in the west. The climate engineers literally have California by the throat and it does not appear they are going to let go anytime soon. The weather makers can drought California into a desert from top to bottom, we are well on our way to this already. Forests that were green and lush only ten years ago are now wilting, withering, and in many places have already died. In addition to the almost total lack of rain in California caused by the climate manipulation, the jet sprayed aerosols utilized in the geoengineering programs are desiccants. These are materials that adhere to all available moisture in the atmosphere creating very low humidity on the ground under many conditions which further dries out the already parched state. Now lets add the constant record high temperatures that often go along with consistent high pressure. All things considered, its a recipe for creating a dust bowl out of a once beautiful state. Its a method for bringing the population of this state to their knees.

Where Are The Geoengineers Concentrating Their Efforts, And How Cool Are They Making The Planet Overall?

giss map

The NASA temperature analysis map above should make clear where the climate engineers are most focused in their efforts to create a “cool down”. This map illustrates recent temperature trends as compared to the 30 year average. The NASA map clearly shows the only “cooler” places on the planet compared to the long term average. These areas of below normal temperatures are a direct result of massive geoengineering efforts such as those described above. If the temperature variations on this map seem unnatural, they are. Though the US media is trying frantically to convince its population (with considerable success) that the world is in a deep freeze, this is patently false from a global perspective. The radical swings in temperatures and conditions will persist and worsen as the climate engineers literally tear Earth’s natural life support systems apart. The geoengineers can and are radically cooling huge areas, but at the cost of a greatly worsened overall warming and a completely decimated climate system.

What Can We Do?

Everyone can and must help with this all important battle. All must get up off the bench and assist in the critical effort to raise awareness. Get organized with others in your community. Get educated (this means examining real data, not headlines), get credible information to hand out, hold viewings of documentary films like “Look Up” from film maker George Barnes, do whatever it takes to sound the alarm. If we can simply bring the climate engineering crimes to the light of day, and reach critical mass of awareness, the dominos that keep these programs in operation will start to fall.

See article here: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/engineered-drought-catastrophe-target-california/

The Liberty Beacon recommends that you read more great/pertinent articles at: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

Geoengineering

Commentary by TLB Contributor: Bruce Robinson

One thing I have learned about this game which is played out on us, particularly in our skies, is that our chess opponents not only changed the rules without our knowledge but that they are always several moves ahead. As history has shown we are consistently trailing in the game on the table. We have learned more than we knew in the beginning of the game but the gap between us and our opponents always remains the same.

Our opponents are skilled in games of deceit and deception. They’ve easily predicted at what point we would recognize the strategy of their previous moves and they laugh at us. They mock us for not knowing that which they have taken much effort in concealing from us, and then somehow believe they have superior skills and abilities. That is a mistake which will cost them in the long run. They incorrectly interpret their slight-of-hand, and their rearranging of the board when we leave the room, as skill when in fact is only a testament of their desire to win no matter how corrupt and scandalous their actions prove to be.

From watching us at a distance, and long before we accepted the challenge, they were rigging the game. They have come to learn we would focus upon the last move of theirs that we were aware of and count on us to dwell on the most resent observations and argue among ourselves. They know they will have the opportunity to adjust any of the boards pieces to their liking while some of us think in one direction and others of us think in a different direction. They are calculating and ruthless, not naive or ignorant.

chemtrails 2

We are just beginning to know for certain that which we have always expected. We know the depth of the lies and deceit used to draw us into the game. A game we never wanted to play at all, yet are forced to for the good of all. Absolute moral corruption has been the catalyst that allows for their unfair advantage. We know of their illicit actions culminating in their ill gotten gains. We recognize their ugly yet shrewd methods in predicting our responses to their actions. This is not catching up in any degree, we remain far behind. The reason for this is they have already known from experience, precisely where… and why… we would be where we are now, and they knew it from the beginning. When an opponent is devoid of morals and bankrupt in principles and character, the sinister plans they make as they sacrifice their own should be telling that this is not just a game; It’s endgame.

To me, it makes perfect sense that perhaps what we know, is precisely what they wanted us to know. They have fed us all along. To remain ahead in the game, it would be to their advantage to try and send us spinning off in some other direction far from where the game and truth is really being played out. Providing us with enough (dis)information about their game to keep us from guessing the true nature of the board that sits between us. They have known all along where we would be at any given time so we must assume they know exactly where we are at now…They have already determined our next moves. That needs to change.

I don’t pretend to have the answers which might resemble some form of truth, but from watching the game from the sidelines, and sometimes on the field, I find it is reasonable to conclude that our search for understanding of what is going on in the sky’s above us might not include any of the conclusions we have come to up thus far. There may be multiple purposes. There may be red herrings. Rest assured it is not what we think.

chemtrails 1

Our disadvantage in following the movement of their board pieces is what they rely upon to win. They require staying far enough ahead of us for them to count that “checkmate” if left playing the game as usual, will be upon us before we could even have imagined. Given the practices in this peculiar game, regular strategies will be played out to demise; figuratively and quite possibly literally. We are at the point where the clock is simply running out. Any of our anticipated moves will be countered with checkmate… with utter and complete predictability.

So if we play by the rules and counter each of their moves with a consistent predictability, then we have already lost. And they know that. What they don’t know is our ability to be unpredictable, to change the board, the pieces, and even give the game a new name. They can’t compete with the imagination we are capable of. We need to tap that resource. There is no thinking inside or outside of the box because boxes imply there are limitations.

We can imagine, and we will have to zone in on what might be worth their magnanimous efforts to steer us wrong. What will be the result they seek? It must be as large as their diversion techniques. It can’t be those of which we have deliberately been caused to believe. Remember, they began this game knowing each play and how it would end. Instead of logical and rational conclusions, we need to sidestep what appears obvious. We need to think worthy of biblical and global proportions.

Let’s take the lead by discovering “what” instead of why, “when” rather than how, and “where” instead of whom. They will be no match for us, our collective imagination, or any degree of predictability when it becomes out turn to determine the rules.

Added by TLB: This is one of those videos that is a shock to the system. Hats off to a great TLB partner, Dane Wigington, for this outstanding presentation. Please visit his site for more info, these guys know what they are talking about:

Dane Wigington presents (above video) 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 his website … GeoEngineering Watch

Share this information far and wide.