From: Andrew Johnson
Date: 2007-11-23 09:47:52
Attachments : Short Illustrative video for Chemtrail awareness day 06.07.08 www.youtube.com/watc… And this is From Wayne Hall —–Original Message—–From: Wayne Hall [mailto:halva1@otenet.gr]Sent: 23 November 2007 04:21To: Wayne HallSubject: Fw: Dialogue with Greens on chemtrails 4. A response from Philip Dragoumis of the Ecogreens Concerning the discussion on chemtrails, all I could add at the moment is a question mark. I am not in favour that the chemtrails should be at the moment a “flag” issue of any official Green campaign, not until there is definite proof. I fully understand Nikos Chrysogelos’s serious doubts and his choice of priorities. There are so many proven issues of pollution which need to be dealt with first, before dealing with a suspicion, however serious it may be if true. There can be no campaign if nobody knows for sure who is doing this, who is financing the spraying, before we definitely know who and why is causing the problem. All there should be at the moment is more research on the matter of pollution by airplanes in general which may prove or disprove the issue of chemtrails. However, considering Dimas’ response to Gregoris Maltezos, there should now be a question mark in everybody’s mind, which definitely needs an answer. So, Stavros Dimas should be questioned again, to clarify what he meant in more detail and be more direct about it as he seems to know more than he admits, at least reading through his words.After this second answer by Dimas– should be an official one–, the discussion could be carried out on a more firm basis.The Green Party should not be asked to campaign or have an opinion on this issue. All that “enouranois” should ask for, is that the Greens (not necessarily the Greek Greens) pose a question, based on the strange reply of Stavros Dimas. Philip Dragoumis 5. Reply to Philip Dragoumis from Wayne Hall The Elliniki Etaireia (Hellenic Society for the Protection of Nature) says that we wont get any further official elaboration or explanation from Stavros Dimas. If they are correct, this means we will have to make do with what we already have extracted from him.. I signed the Greenpeace petition supporting Dimas on the genetically modified maize issue, and asked a lot of other people to do the same. I think he obviously should be supported where he deserves it. But on the issue of chemtrails, the conclusion from years of activism is that we are going to have to establish our own transparency, if we can. There appear to be real difficulties with the idea of the search for proof as the exclusive or even main axis of strategy. Intentional pollution is covered by different laws to pollution which is the incidental side effect of other, particularly economic, activity. Acknowledgement that one is engaged in intentional pollution means leaving oneself open to lawsuits, including politically motivated lawsuits from sceptics and the lobbies that support them. This is one aspect of the mechanism that is keeping the sceptics in the drivers seat. Take a look at this short video of a lecture by David Keith, who is one of the best-known protagonists of geoengineering: A surprising idea for solving climate change www.ted.com/talks/vi… Like Nobel-Prize winner Paul Crutzen, David Keith is on record as saying to the media that he would like to see ideas like the spraying of sulphate aerosols in the upper atmosphere shocking the public into a realization that climate change is very, very serious. He has also said one has to keep saying that geoengineering is NOT the most desirable solution to climate change. If it is sold to the public as a solution this will take the pressure off the fossil fuel lobbies to stop promoting technologies that exacerbate global warming.. But what happens when citizens responding to the evidence of their senses, and eventually even parliamentarians, conclude that geoengineering ideas are not just ideas and are already being implemented, on a huge scale? They are told by official spokespersons, including Commissioner Dimas, that their fears and suspicions are without basis. How can this official stance be of any assistance in promoting the shocking effect on the public that Crutzen, Keith and others claim they want to generate? Its effect is the opposite. It is only citizens coming into this situation as innocent, uncompromised, bystanders, that can play the shocking role. Geoengineering theorists have to be asked this question? What kind of grass-roots action and discourse do you want to see, particularly if you really are reluctant to embark on – or have embarked reluctantly on – global aerosol spraying programmes ..: the politics of denial as articulated by Nikos Chrysogelos, along with innumerable other ecologists and Greens, and by official spokespersons everywhere??. Or the Enouranois politics of analysis and exposure?? Wayne Hall
