Thread: MANUFACTURED CLIMATE CHANGE

WE KNOW Who(a) + Why(b) + How(c) = What(d)

a+b+c=d

d is the only thing thats still DEBATABLE, BUT WE ARE FIGURING OUT WHAT VERY RAPIDLY.





Things YOU NEED TO ADD TO YOU COLLECTION OF INFORMATION:

*Documentation on Geoengineering - http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/ (A GREAT PACE FOR INFO)


*UN(Formally know as League of Nations) has a lot INVESTED (Time/$/Power) in the Implementation of Agenda 21. http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/wssd/uganda.pdf

*Read/Watch The Report from Iron Mountain


*Read/Watch Behold A Pale Horse


This is NOT NEW. Trust but Verify. Sheep to Water...

Please feel free to HELP EDUCATE me and others with any INFO on any part of this EQUATION.

Former USDA Official Speaks Out About Geoengineering






Here is a "Debunker" lol in Efforts to Discredit Rosalind Peterson. I think his "Debunking"(? is that right) just adds to her Credibility, so we will just use that.
Debunked: Rosalind Peterson "Leaker" Addressing UN about Chemtrails and Geoengineering

Discussion in 'Contrails and Chemtrails' started by Mick West, Apr 21, 2014.

Tweet




Tags:

• chemtrails
• geoengineering

Previous Thread Next Thread

Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next >


Mick West Administrator Staff Member

This video of Rosalind Peterson at the UN in 2007 has been repurposed on social media as if it's something new. It's been posted with such headlines as "100% Proof!" and "Leaker Speaks Out At United Nations".

• This was not Peterson addressing the UN. This was simply a conference on Climate Change organized by the UN, not an actual UN session See: http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/ann...s/60/index.htm
• Peterson does not work at the UN, or have any connection to the UN at all. Peterson is a retired crop loss adjuster (a type of insurance agent working in agriculture). She worked for the USDA in Mendocino, California.
• Peterson is billed as "President of the Agriculture Defense Coalition", and while this is true, the ADC is just her. It's just the name of her personal web site.
• Peterson does not mention "chemtrails", only regular aircraft exhaust and some NASA rocket experiments

The session she spoke at was titled "Coping With Climate Change: Best Land Use Practice"
http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/ann...oundtable4.htm
Content from external source

This panel will focus on innovative ways to minimise and cope with the negative impacts of climate change, primarily as they present in erratic weather patterns. These events aggravate famine and mass migrations in areas already burdened, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions. The panel will address the effective local initiatives utilised in combating desertification--planning and zoning techniques, which can stem the rapid loss of agricultural lands to urbanisation. How can these be overcome without sacrificing issues of equity? What can NGOs, national governments and UN agencies do to encourage compliance?

In addition, the panellists will consider the vital role that the preservation of biodiversity and reforestation policies can play in reducing the amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere.

Her presentation only discusses geoengineering in the abstract future tense, and focuses more on weather modification (cloud seeding), sounding rockets in the ionosphere, and the effects of normal persistent contrails. Here's the official summary:
Content from external source

ROSALIND PETERSON, California President and Co-Founder, Agriculture Defense Coalition (ADC), focused her pre- sentation on the toxic gases being discharged into the atmosphere and how they influenced changing weather patterns . She mentioned weather modification programmes, which had no oversight, could alter micro-climates and modified growing seasons needed for pollination . She also discussed the idea of mitigating climate change through geo-engineering, which included putting chemicals into the atmosphere in order to reduce its negative impacts . However, such measures hampered crop production as it reduced the sunlight available for photosynthesis . She highlighted the impact of jet contrails on US crop production as these trapped heat by producing man-made clouds . NASA studies showed that part of the global warming problem could be attributed to this phenomenon as it caused increase in humidity as well as encouraged pest and fungus proliferation . Ms . Peterson
claimed NASA and the US Air Force used canisters of chemicals to experiment with the ionosphere repeatedly with no oversight . This increased pollution and affected drinking water purity, for example, water testing conducted by the State Department of Health in California and Arizona showed unusual traces of chemicals such as aluminium and barium . The use of aluminium in such experiments also caused the destructions of plants and trees in the region as they could not absorb water or necessary nutrients . Finally, she concluded by adding that increased jet fuel emissions released nitric acid into the atmosphere and depleted the ozone layer . Ms . Peterson believed it was time to concentrate on reducing pollution at its source and not invest in geo-engineering schemes, which could bring about yet more damage .

“If we don’t look at the problems we are creating ... and we say to ourselves we want to geo-engineer or add more particulates to help global warming or stop climate change, we are going to have a pea-soup of chemicals detrimental to our health.”
- Rosalind Peterson​

And Peterson later (in 2012) explained that she did not think there was any good evidence to show the trails were anything other than normal contrails:


Here's what Rosalind Peterson said:
Content from external source

We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. And if we go to sue someone, we have to have enough rock solid evidence that is so tight to make a case so that we don't lose the case, and that we have many many people, in other words experts in various fields, to testify on our behalf. This mean university professors, this means people that can come and back up our statements, back up the studies, where we can prove that the jets for example reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, they change the climate.


And so what happens is, that when I see though, that we are talking about suing, ... who? In other words, I find that the direct proof to link up who's doing what ..., and also I can tell you that in ten years of research, other than aluminum coated fiberglass, chaff releases by the US Military, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions.


Now I can prove that the rocket programs in the United States are releasing trimethylaluminum, aluminum oxide, barium. I can prove the rocket programs in the United States are just coating us with toxic chemicals all the time. And these programs are listed at NASA, NOAA, the US Air Force, the US Navy, I mean there's tests going on all the time. The US Navy CARE program is a prime example. So I can prove, I have so many documents I couldn't even put them all on the internet, even if I tried, because there's Pentagon reports, there's all kind of reports dating back twenty, thirty years.


When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft.


So there's a differentiation for me in putting my name or associating myself with something where I can't back it up. Now if anyone has direct proof, they've got university studies, if you've got documents, government documents, if you've got reports, then that makes a big difference. But right now, after ten years of research, I can't do it.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-ro...neering.t3514/