Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Seeker

Is global warming happening and what’s the purpose of chemtrails?

Recommended Posts

Hi I’m trying to understand this one, obviously we are told about global warming to justify agenda 21. What proof is there that the temperature isn’t going up. Summer here certainly has been underwhelming! I know that temperatures were warmer in medieval times and Antarctica used to be green so must have been warm back then! Also what’s the use of chemtrails, is it just to block the sun and manipulate weather, contaminate water and soil or is there any more? Thanks for teaching me anything you know :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Global Warming is a giant made up thing as was the "Hole in the Ozone Layer" that Prince Charles has skillfully managed to have everyone forget was his eco-baby the big eared lunk.

 

Chemtrails....not sure. Seems a big topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, cshepherd said:

No, Global Warming is a giant made up thing as was the "Hole in the Ozone Layer" that Prince Charles has skillfully managed to have everyone forget was his eco-baby the big eared lunk.

 

Chemtrails....not sure. Seems a big topic. 

I agree but what evidence is there I could show an average person that global warming is a hoax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That it's now called climate change because they realised that it was all kinda balancing out and climates simply change due to seismic shifts. Also, this is second massive bombshell they have got wildly wrong because there turned out to be no friggin hole in the ozone layer either. 

 

Basically, they....whoever they are seem to be shite at calling seasonal disasters. So far they have said that the whole earths atmosphere is going to be destroyed by spray on deodorant AND that the entire world would suffer a "Greenhouse Effect" (remember that one?) and cook everyone. Out of those two they got zero right and in actual fact they have just shifted onto a statement of fact as an issue now with "climate change" because it's impossible to get it wrong unless the world sudenly stops at a constant temp  for the next 100 years.

 

The current "climate change" gripe is like saying your car needs towing because its speed can change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cshepherd said:

That it's now called climate change because they realised that it was all kinda balancing out and climates simply change due to seismic shifts. Also, this is second massive bombshell they have got wildly wrong because there turned out to be no friggin hole in the ozone layer either. 

 

Basically, they....whoever they are seem to be shite at calling seasonal disasters. So far they have said that the whole earths atmosphere is going to be destroyed by spray on deodorant AND that the entire world would suffer a "Greenhouse Effect" (remember that one?) and cook everyone. Out of those two they got zero right and in actual fact they have just shifted onto a statement of fact as an issue now with "climate change" because it's impossible to get it wrong unless the world sudenly stops at a constant temp  for the next 100 years.

 

The current "climate change" gripe is like saying your car needs towing because its speed can change. 

Yes I had noticed it’s now called climate change instead of global warming. Really good info thank you, do you know what the role of chemtrails are and is it to do with geoengineering. Is geoengineering affecting the planet in some way? I’m finding this topic contradictory because there’s evidence that it’s a hoax (I agree) and then harm to the planet is being done and I’m guessing from spraying crap from the sky which contaminated the land and water and affects the weather?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry good sir, not a clue on chemtrails other than you're almost guaranteed to earn a tinfoil hat for mentioning it. I don't say it's not true, it probably is but I wouldn't couple it with global warming to someone, it will debase that viewpoint you give because the criterion opinion with the great unwashed is that chemtrails are believed by people who "need help". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, cshepherd said:

Sorry good sir, not a clue on chemtrails other than you're almost guaranteed to earn a tinfoil hat for mentioning it. I don't say it's not true, it probably is but I wouldn't couple it with global warming to someone, it will debase that viewpoint you give because the criterion opinion with the great unwashed is that chemtrails are believed by people who "need help". 

Yeah I’m sure if people stopped looking down at their phones and looked up at the sky they would notice that the clouds are fake, what I mean is that they’re thin and ugly. Unlike to real clouds that a full and fluffy. Plus contrails disappear whereas chemtrails come down and create this blanket of this thin weird cloud we see so often now. Of course today’s kids won’t know the difference sadly. This blanket reflects the sun apparently and actually made me wonder where the myth of vampires came from. As we have people in power who drink blood and the sun is being blocked out. I know it’s a long shot but I like to use my imagination:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 8:13 AM, cshepherd said:

Sorry good sir, not a clue on chemtrails other than you're almost guaranteed to earn a tinfoil hat for mentioning it. I don't say it's not true, it probably is but I wouldn't couple it with global warming to someone, it will debase that viewpoint you give because the criterion opinion with the great unwashed is that chemtrails are believed by people who "need help". 

 

Unfortunately - 2 issues get put side by side

Chem trails and Spraying from aircraft - unfortunately the moment you attempt to demonstrate 1 isn't true - the immediate chem trailer response is that you are denyng aircraft can and do spray things. You are treated to images of aircraft spraying - which prove that you are wrong about spraying - despite clearly stating its to separate issues

 

Your average chem trailer cannot accept the idea that

1) if they spray - we wouldn't see

2) Every passenger aircraft would need to be spraying - because theres days every aircraft leaves massive Chem trails -

 

Chem trails are just contrails - nothing more - its caused by weather conditions.

 

Spraying on the other hand -  does happen - cloud seeding etc

 

As for spraying us - well they sprayed us in the 50s 60s with (mild)  flu viruses etc - to determine spread of bio weapons, I wouldn't rule out its being done today 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Eldnah said:

 

Unfortunately - 2 issues get put side by side

Chem trails and Spraying from aircraft - unfortunately the moment you attempt to demonstrate 1 isn't true - the immediate chem trailer response is that you are denyng aircraft can and do spray things. You are treated to images of aircraft spraying - which prove that you are wrong about spraying - despite clearly stating its to separate issues

 

Your average chem trailer cannot accept the idea that

1) if they spray - we wouldn't see

2) Every passenger aircraft would need to be spraying - because theres days every aircraft leaves massive Chem trails -

 

Chem trails are just contrails - nothing more - its caused by weather conditions.

 

Spraying on the other hand -  does happen - cloud seeding etc

 

As for spraying us - well they sprayed us in the 50s 60s with (mild)  flu viruses etc - to determine spread of bio weapons, I wouldn't rule out its being done today 

 

How does the spraying and seed clouding work? Looking at the US patents I thought it would be from an airplane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Seeker said:

How does the spraying and seed clouding work? Looking at the US patents I thought it would be from an airplane

 

Of course It is - as is fire retardent and water bombing

 

But its specially equipped aircraft - not every passenger aircraft on the planet. - Which was my point About the confusing of contrails with proof of chemical spraying.

 

Aircraft spray - but contrails being called chem trails  aren't proof of this.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Eldnah said:

 

Of course It is - as is fire retardent and water bombing

 

But its specially equipped aircraft - not every passenger aircraft on the planet. - Which was my point About the confusing of contrails with proof of chemical spraying.

 

Aircraft spray - but contrails being called chem trails  aren't proof of this.

 

 

 

 

Yeah I did notice how a passenger jet was releasing contrails and a different sort of airplane was releasing the chemtrails. I guess the best way to tell if it’s a contrail or chemtrails is by just watching the trail but it can take hours to see what happens. Contrails will disappear and chemtrails will create this thin blanket 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that with the level of increase of aluminum in the soils in the northern hemisphere, some say its from chem trails others not that Monsanto has been granted a patent foe aluminum seeds and plants

Gates Foundation invests in Monsanto: Could aluminium resisitant seeds and geo-engineering be the motive?‏

By Michael Murphy
Connecting the dots.  The following is info about the aluminum resistant seed and also an article about the Gates Foundation investing in Monsanto.  Gates has been funding geo-engineering programs.  Could their be a connection?

•  Aluminum resistant gene patent # 7582809

•  Patent granted on September 1, 2009

•  Patent developed at the Robert W. Holley Center for Agricultural Health at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY.

•  Leon Kochian and Jurandir Vieira de Magallhaes are the primary inventors/ researchers

•  Patent assigned to US Department of Agriculture and Brazilian Enterprise for Agricultural Research

•  According to Cornell University Chronicle Online, the research project was supported in part by the McKnight Foundation Collaborative Crop Research Program, the Generation Challenge Program, the National Science Foundation and the USDA.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a contributor to both the McKnight Foundation and the Generation Challenge Program.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2019 at 5:27 AM, peter said:

I find it interesting that with the level of increase of aluminum in the soils in the northern hemisphere, some say its from chem trails others not that Monsanto has been granted a patent foe aluminum seeds and plants

Gates Foundation invests in Monsanto: Could aluminium resisitant seeds and geo-engineering be the motive?‏

By Michael Murphy
Connecting the dots.  The following is info about the aluminum resistant seed and also an article about the Gates Foundation investing in Monsanto.  Gates has been funding geo-engineering programs.  Could their be a connection?

•  Aluminum resistant gene patent # 7582809

•  Patent granted on September 1, 2009

•  Patent developed at the Robert W. Holley Center for Agricultural Health at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY.

•  Leon Kochian and Jurandir Vieira de Magallhaes are the primary inventors/ researchers

•  Patent assigned to US Department of Agriculture and Brazilian Enterprise for Agricultural Research

•  According to Cornell University Chronicle Online, the research project was supported in part by the McKnight Foundation Collaborative Crop Research Program, the Generation Challenge Program, the National Science Foundation and the USDA.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a contributor to both the McKnight Foundation and the Generation Challenge Program.

Wow really synchronistic for me! :D bloody Monsanto and Bill Gates at it again! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2019 at 3:04 AM, Seeker said:

I agree but what evidence is there I could show an average person that global warming is a hoax?

Go on the site what up with that and you will find plenty. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 12:22 PM, Seeker said:

Hi I’m trying to understand this one, obviously we are told about global warming to justify agenda 21. What proof is there that the temperature isn’t going up. Summer here certainly has been underwhelming! I know that temperatures were warmer in medieval times and Antarctica used to be green so must have been warm back then! Also what’s the use of chemtrails, is it just to block the sun and manipulate weather, contaminate water and soil or is there any more? Thanks for teaching me anything you know :)

 

Report Sheds Light On The Rockefeller Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan

Published 1 week ago on August 6, 2019

By Arjun Walia

 

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    In the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became the authority of global warming. Why would they do this? Are these people really concerned about our planet or simply profiting and justifying heightened states of security for ulterior motives?

  • Reflect On:

    Why are there so many brilliant scientists publishing papers and making points but are never given any attention? Why are they ridiculed and character assassinated by the mainstream? What is going on here?

The climate is changing, and it has been changing for a very long time. In fact, the climate has always been changing, and there are a myriad of factors that influence climate change like solar activity and much more. If you’re not educated on climate science, it’s easy to adopt the “doomsday” perspective that’s often dished out by mainstream media. However, when you look at what actual climate scientists are saying, it doesn’t seem like anyone on either side agrees with the media’s “climate hysteria” narrative.

 

The main argument among those who ascribe to the hysteria perspective is that CO2 levels are the highest they’ve ever been since we started to record them, currently sitting at approximately 415 parts per million (ppm). It’s not like climate scientists disagree on the idea that CO2 causes some warming of our atmosphere, that seems to be a fact that’s firmly established in scientific literature. But what’s never mentioned is the fact that CO2 levels have been significantly higher than what they are now; in fact, CO2 levels have been in thousands ppm and Earth’s temperature has been much warmer than it is now. The idea that human CO2 emissions are responsible for shifts and changes in the climate is not scientifically valid, yet policy initiatives that do nothing for our environment are being produced and put forward, putting large sums of money in the pockets of some very powerful people.

“Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4,000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the CO2 level was about 2,200 ppm – still five times the current level.” – Dennis T. Avery, agricultural and environmental economist, senior fellow for the Center for Global Food Issues in Virginia, and formerly a senior analyst for the U.S. Department of State (source)

CO2 causing a temperature increase is the backbone of the global warming argument, but does CO2 even cause the temperature to increase, or does an increase in temperature cause a rise in C02?

“The question is how does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) determine that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature? The answer is they assumed it was the case and confirmed it by increasing CO2 levels in their computer climate models and the temperature went up. Science must overlook the fact that they wrote the computer code that told the computer to increase temperature with a CO2 increase. Science must ask if that sequence is confirmed by empirical evidence? Some scientists did that and found the empirical evidence showed it was not true. Why isn’t this central to all debate about anthropogenic global warming?” – Dr. Tim Ball, (source) former professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg

William Happer, American physicist and the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, is one of what seems to be thousands of academics to go unheard by the mainstream media who shares the same perspective:

advertisement - learn more

In every careful study, the temperature first rises and then CO2 rises, and the temperature first falls and then CO2 falls, temperature is causing changes of CO2 at least for the last million years, there’s no question about that. (source)

He also pointed out the major ice ages in Earth’s past when C02 levels were also extremely high, much higher than they are now, and did so to show how the correlation between C02 and temperature is “not all that good.”

In their paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999), they show how CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousands of years, but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other, but offer no explanation. The significance is that temperature may influence C02 amounts. At the onset of glaciations, temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall, suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times as well.

In 1988, the NASA scientist James Hansen told the US Senate that the summer’s warmth reflected increased carbon dioxide levels. Even Science magazine reported that the climatologists were skeptical.

The reason we now take this position as dogma is due to political actors and others seeking to exploit the opportunities that abound in the multi-trillion dollar energy sector. One person who benefited from this was Maurice Strong, a global bureaucrat and wheeler-dealer (who spent his final years in China apparently trying to avoid prosecution for his role in the UN’s Oil for Food program scandals). Strong is frequently credited with initiating the global warming movement in the early 1980s, and he subsequently helped to engineer the Rio Conference that produced the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Others like Olaf Palme and his friend, Bert Bolin, who was the first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, were also involved as early as the 1970s. – Dr. Richard Lindzen (source)

Since 1999, this theory has been discussed in numerous scientific papers, but not one shred of evidence exists to confirm that a CO2 increase causes ‘extreme warming.’

Doubling COinvolves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure. The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all. Lindzen (source)

Another quote stressing this point:

Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable importance. This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics. This acceptance is a strong indicator of the problem Snow identified. Many politicians and learned societies go even further: They endorse carbon dioxide as the controlling variable, and although mankind’s CO2 contributions are small compared to the much larger but uncertain natural exchanges with both the oceans and the biosphere, they are confident that they know precisely what policies to implement in order to control. Lindzen (source)

The quotes above comes from Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist who has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. He was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and he is actually the lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change (the organization that’s pushing the global warming and climate change agenda).

A number of times, Lindzen and many others have been quite outspoken regarding the conclusions of this document that are drawn by politicians, not scientists. There will be more on that later in the article.

According to Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist:

The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences. The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causing ‘global warming’ — in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not significant…(source)

In the IPCC documents, we can see how tenuous the link between climate change and CO2 emissions are, specifically in their findings titled ‘Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.’ Here was one of their recommendations:

Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model calculations. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

If we go back to the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC, we can see how much the agenda overshadowed and muted the actual science. The scientists included these three statements in the draft:

  1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
  2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”
  3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

The “Summary” and conclusion statement of the IPCC report was written by politicians, not scientists. The rules force the ‘scientists’ to change their reports to match the politicians’ final ‘Summary.’ Those three statements by ‘scientists’ above were replaced with this:

  1. “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

Here’s another great point made by Lindzen:

How did we get to this point where the science seized to be interested in the fascinating question of accounting for the remarkable history of the Earth’s climate for an understanding of how climate actually works and instead devoted itself itself to a component of political correctness. Perhaps one should take a broader view of what’s going on. (source)

Below are some more comments by him regarding the politics of climate science. It’s something I compare to the politicization of medical science and the corporate takeover of medical science by big pharma. Medicine is another area where we see brilliant minds creating awareness and publishing papers that, for some reason, get ridiculed and the authors are subjected to character assassination.

read on here https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/08/06/report-sheds-light-on-the-rockefeller-familys-covert-climate-change-plan/

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/20/2019 at 12:22 PM, Seeker said:

Also what’s the use of chemtrails, is it just to block the sun and manipulate weather, contaminate water and soil or is there any more?

 

its about controlling the global population through manipulating weather. This way they can say that there is 'manmade climate change' and we must all therefore accept the elites TECHNOCRACY which will be a an all pervasive ' Smart' system of control

Bill Gates backing plan to stop climate change by blocking out the sun

12 hrs ago

It sounds like a wacky idea out of science fiction - but it’s backed in part by billionaire Microsoft founder Bill Gates and top scientists from Harvard.

The researchers believe that a fleet of specially designed aircraft could spray sulfate particles into the lower stratosphere to cool down our planet and offset the effects of climate change.

A test of the technology has been proposed for this year, the Daily Mail reports, with the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx) seeing a bag of carbonate dust released into the atmosphere 12 miles up.

If that experiment proves successful, the researchers will move on to releasing the dust from planes.

The researchers suggest that jets flying 12 miles up would complete over 60,000 missions in 15 years, starting with a fleet of eight and moving up to 100 planes.

At present, there are no aircraft capable of doing this, so they would need to be developed.

The Harvard researchers have claimed that (if it were launched this year), it would cost about $3.5 billion (£2.74 billion),, plus $2.25 billion (£1.76 billion) per year.

The researchers said last year, ‘Dozens of countries would have both the expertise and the money to launch such a program.

‘Around 50 countries have military budgets greater than $3 billion, with 30 greater than $6 billion.’

The idea of ‘solar geoengineering’ or solar radiation management (SRM) is controversial, mimicking the world-chilling effects of huge volcanic eruptions.

Some scientists have suggested that such technology could be used a ‘stop gap’ to reduce temperatures while measures to limit CO2 emissions are put in place.

But others have suggested that when the SRM was withdrawn, it could lead to rapid global warming in a phenomenon known as ‘termination shock’.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/bill-gates-backing-plan-to-stop-climate-change-by-blocking-out-the-sun/ar-AAFKQVN?ocid=se

Edited by muir
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, muir said:

 

its about controlling the global population through manipulating weather. This way they can say that there is 'manmade climate change' and we must all therefore accept the elites TECHNOCRACY which will be a an all pervasive ' Smart' system of control

Bill Gates backing plan to stop climate change by blocking out the sun

12 hrs ago

It sounds like a wacky idea out of science fiction - but it’s backed in part by billionaire Microsoft founder Bill Gates and top scientists from Harvard.

The researchers believe that a fleet of specially designed aircraft could spray sulfate particles into the lower stratosphere to cool down our planet and offset the effects of climate change.

A test of the technology has been proposed for this year, the Daily Mail reports, with the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx) seeing a bag of carbonate dust released into the atmosphere 12 miles up.

If that experiment proves successful, the researchers will move on to releasing the dust from planes.

The researchers suggest that jets flying 12 miles up would complete over 60,000 missions in 15 years, starting with a fleet of eight and moving up to 100 planes.

At present, there are no aircraft capable of doing this, so they would need to be developed.

The Harvard researchers have claimed that (if it were launched this year), it would cost about $3.5 billion (£2.74 billion),, plus $2.25 billion (£1.76 billion) per year.

The researchers said last year, ‘Dozens of countries would have both the expertise and the money to launch such a program.

‘Around 50 countries have military budgets greater than $3 billion, with 30 greater than $6 billion.’

The idea of ‘solar geoengineering’ or solar radiation management (SRM) is controversial, mimicking the world-chilling effects of huge volcanic eruptions.

Some scientists have suggested that such technology could be used a ‘stop gap’ to reduce temperatures while measures to limit CO2 emissions are put in place.

But others have suggested that when the SRM was withdrawn, it could lead to rapid global warming in a phenomenon known as ‘termination shock’.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/bill-gates-backing-plan-to-stop-climate-change-by-blocking-out-the-sun/ar-AAFKQVN?ocid=se

 

This all comes right at a time when we are said to be coming into a solar minimum, or possible mini ice age, if they do this on a larger scale than they have been doing we could get very cold very quickly, the ultimate weapon is cold weather, no sun, no food, no chance of survival, the ultimate control, fix the weather along with the food, equals mass extiction.

 

I was just saying to her indoors that it was unusually cold for this time of year, I am getting to the stage where we were thinking of breaking out the thicker sweaters, we are not in the normal warmth here in the Uk, it is dam cold today under the cover of thick clouds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starting to piss me off Bill Gates is cuz he chats so much shite it’s unbelievable. Since posting this question I have learned a lot about this topic and thank you for the extra facts, I really appreciate them 😁 but his blocking out the sun nonsense even most people who don’t read much about global warming being a hoax can see this is nuts. We will have a lack of vitamin D and plants won’t be able to do photosynthesis very well. Oddly this concept has been shown in a simpsons episode. As for co2 causing global warming and recent stats on news about how much we contribute, they dont include water vapour which is 95% of greenhouse gasses, we only affect that by 0.001%, embarrassing this scam is when you look at the figures and graphs. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Seeker said:

😁 his blocking out the sun nonsense even most people who don’t read much about global warming being a hoax can see this is nuts. We will have a lack of vitamin D and plants won’t be able to do photosynthesis very well.

 

the sun also kills mould and bacteria so if you block out the sun it creates what sofia smallstorm calls a 'state of sepsis' so we could expect to see more people becoming sick

 

Bill gates isn't just investing money in geoengineering. he has also invested heavily in monsanto which is now being sued by about 14,000 people for harm caused by its genotoxic glyphosate which is in their widely sold product roundup

 

Bill also loves vaccines and wants as many people around the world to have his toxic brew injected right into their bloodstream thereby bypassing the bodies usual defences

 

gates microsoft is also carrying out the contract for the pentagons cloud. he's a bad hombre

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, muir said:

 

the sun also kills mould and bacteria so if you block out the sun it creates what sofia smallstorm calls a 'state of sepsis' so we could expect to see more people becoming sick

 

Bill gates isn't just investing money in geoengineering. he has also invested heavily in monsanto which is now being sued by about 14,000 people for harm caused by its genotoxic glyphosate which is in their widely sold product roundup

 

Bill also loves vaccines and wants as many people around the world to have his toxic brew injected right into their bloodstream thereby bypassing the bodies usual defences

 

gates microsoft is also carrying out the contract for the pentagons cloud. he's a bad hombre

 

Sunlight is as important today as it was to the ancient magi who revered it and what they knew it brought in season and then used the science against mankind for their own aggrandization, couple that with artificial sustinance like money and religion and you have a recipie for dissaster for anyone fixed within its gaze.

 

One of the most imporatant attributes that sunlight brings us is known as Crytochromatic or Blue Light, the same blue Azure that the Masonic world revere, this light spctrum is very important to how the biotechnical world ticks, and what nature and wildlife follow.

 

If we block out the first traces of this spectrum which is early spring  IE< when the sun crosses above the equator in either hemisphere , if we do this it slows down the natural cycles of life itself who are waiting for it to thrive,

 

Spring time/Aprile is where its all at, from here on in is where we either succeed or fail, because if the seeds in the ground cannot germinate we will grow hungry the next winter or year to come, if this happens on more than one season we will slowly begin to go hungry and decline in huge numbers, no vaccine has the same amount of power as does the weather.

 

The vaccines and the poor quality food will add to it, but not control it on an individual level, it is the accumulative effect that is being instigated by a ruthless elite who were are also feeding with what energy we have left.

 

Once again I steer the minds eye to the life cycle of the Varroa Destructor, who care not how the masses are effected by their sheer greed, beligerance and sellective ignorance.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Apprentice said:

 no vaccine has the same amount of power as does the weather.

 

The vaccines and the poor quality food will add to it, but not control it on an individual level, it is the accumulative effect that is being instigated by a ruthless elite who were are also feeding with what energy we have left.

 

the vaccines are about turning the human body against itself for example through allergies and auto-immune disorders and the processed food helps combine glyphosate with the aluminium in vaccines to produce harmful effects so these things shouldn't be seen in isolation

 

independent scientists need to be looking at how various things in the biosphere combine for example the fluoride in the water supply with things in the vaccines

 

if geoengineering is spraying nanoparticulates these can of course enter the human body through the lungs, through the skin and through the water supply.

 

if they weaponise the weather then they turn our very environment against us

 

The depth of the evil of these people is beyond many peoples grasp but i think more and more people are beginning to realise that something is very rotten in the state of denmark!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, muir said:

 

the vaccines are about turning the human body against itself for example through allergies and auto-immune disorders and the processed food helps combine glyphosate with the aluminium in vaccines to produce harmful effects so these things shouldn't be seen in isolation

 

independent scientists need to be looking at how various things in the biosphere combine for example the fluoride in the water supply with things in the vaccines

 

if geoengineering is spraying nanoparticulates these can of course enter the human body through the lungs, through the skin and through the water supply.

 

if they weaponise the weather then they turn our very environment against us

 

The depth of the evil of these people is beyond many peoples grasp but i think more and more people are beginning to realise that something is very rotten in the state of denmark!

 

I don't see any real benefits for spraying as the mass exposure model, because unless they have another world to escape to they are also vulnerable to the same pollution.

 

The key is to weaken the system/s that is nature  just enough to then treat and control the overall result, there will be mistakes made but those are seen as collateral damages which we are now witnessing.

 

The vaccines are not just about getting the body to attack itself, but also for preventing it from developing properly from a younger age, IE, the HD model, first they come for the children, then the adults and then anyone else who follows.

 

It is our duty not to take their blue pill, and make our own red pill.

 

We know what is afoot, what we might do is something about it, as we are here and the overall result will be a more secure future, this won't stop all of the negative thinkers because these kinds will never want to help themselves, so if enough did this they would eventually die out, once removed from the gene pool natural sellection will put things right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Apprentice said:

I don't see any real benefits for spraying as the mass exposure model, because unless they have another world to escape to they are also vulnerable to the same pollution.

 

not necessarily. Just as they developed these products in secret labs to figure out ways to meddle with the human body they will also have worked out how to save themselves from those problems

 

For example they will likely have a cure for cancer that they keep to themselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, muir said:

 

not necessarily. Just as they developed these products in secret labs to figure out ways to meddle with the human body they will also have worked out how to save themselves from those problems

 

For example they will likely have a cure for cancer that they keep to themselves

 

I can reccomend a cure for them for cancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, muir said:

the vaccines are about turning the human body against itself for example through allergies and auto-immune disorders and the processed food helps combine glyphosate with the aluminium in vaccines to produce harmful effects so these things shouldn't be seen in isolation

I know this is off topic so I do apologize, but since vaccines have been brought up, I find it interesting every time there is an outbreak of what ever the people that are not vaccinated are always blamed by the media ,but the ones that actually get crook are nearly always the one's that are vaccinated . go figure . Well at least here in Australia as over 95% are vaccinated, and the media classify an serious epidemic as about 25 cases 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×