Would not one say that to keep pretending their non existence equally by the governments, police and doctors in the West is rather a sign of ‘historical inability” to deal with reality?
86 million barrels/year 2016 for operational purposes means over 4 trillion dollars. If we add the cost/hour of hiring the military airplanes for the global coverage, a half of the approximate number of unregistered global flights, salaries of all pilots, insurances, the wages of the craft personnel, you will get an astronomical cost for something Nature was doing for free, with far less extreems and without polluting the planet, its atmosphere and habitat.
Globally: A primer on weather and climate intervention for economists:
To refresh the history- the UN opened The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques for signature in May 1977..the UN made it clear that
intending to harm others through deliberate manipulation of the environmental processes by any state was an
unacceptable and inappropriate use of these emerging technologies.
That was 40 years ago.
Last year I wrote few words about the military background of our famous climate change https://dagmarpalmerova.com/2018/10/07/the-global-empires-new-clothes-alias-climate-change/#more-3380
It is a complicated and confusing issue for anybody, who wants to actually understand, what is really going on, yet the quickest and most sensible thing would be to turn one’s eyes up the sky and make one’s own observations. Unfortunately, it is still not the case, despite clearly visible geoengineering air activities across the whole globe.
We live in the scientific age and no one will dispute its validity, but there is a science which is based on the objective laws of the universe and science which is subjective and discovers the objective laws accidentally.
Climate change science is an example of the latter, half of the scientists insist there is a change, the other half denies it, that itself excludes objectivity. ‘How can that be?’ should be the most basic question to be asked by all media and the public.
There is an available approach to look at it from the opposite side of the Ray of Creation (excerpt from Ouspensky ISOM):
“The ‘ray of creation’ seems at the first glance to be a very elementary plan of the universe, but actually, as one studies it further, it becomes clear that with the help of this simple plan it is possible to bring into accord, and to make into a single whole, a multitude of various and conflicting philosophical as well as religious and scientific views of the world. The idea of the ray of creation belongs to ancient knowledge and many of the naive geocentric systems of the universe known to us are actually either incompetent expositions of the idea of the ray of creation or distortions of this idea due to literal understanding.
“It must be observed that the idea of the ray of creation and its growth from the Absolute contradicts some of the modem views, although not really scientific views. Take, for instance, the stage—sun, earth, moon. According to the usual understanding the moon is a cold, dead celestial body which was once like the earth, that is to say, it possessed internal heat and at a still earlier period was a molten mass like the sun. The earth, according to the usual views, was once like the sun, and is also gradually cooling down and, sooner or later, will become a frozen mass like the moon. It is usually supposed that the sun is also cooling down and that it will become, in time, similar to the earth and later on, to the moon.
“First of all, of course, it must be remarked that this view cannot be called ‘scientific’ in the strict sense of the term, because in science, that is, in astronomy, or rather, in astrophysics, there are many different and contradictory hypotheses and theories on the subject, none of which has any serious foundation. But this view is the one most widely spread and one which has become the view of the average man of modem times in regard to the world in which we live.
“The idea of the ray of creation and its growth from the Absolute contradicts these general views of our day.
“According to this idea the moon is still an unborn planet, one that is, so to speak, being born. It is becoming warm gradually and in time (given a favorable development of the ray of creation) it will become like the earth and have a satellite of its own, a new moon. A new link will have been added to the ray of creation. The earth, too, is not getting colder, it is getting warmer, and may in time become like the sun. We observe such a process for instance in the system of Jupiter, which is a sun for its satellites.
“Summing up all that has been said before about the ray of creation, from world 1 down to world 96, it must be added that the figures by which worlds are designated indicate the number of forces, or orders of laws, which govern the worlds in question. In the Absolute there is only one force and only one law—the single and independent will of the Absolute. In the next world there are three forces or three orders of laws. In the next there are six orders of laws; in the following one, twelve; and so on. In our world, that is, the earth, forty-eight orders of laws are operating to which we are subject and by which our whole life is governed. If we lived on the moon we should be subject to ninety-six orders of laws, that is, our life and activity would be still more mechanical and we should not have the possibilities of escape from mechanicalness that we now have.
If I take this esoteric knowledge as another valid hypothesis, it would mean that warming of our planet is actually destined in the long run and not something to be stopped at the expense of the whole planet. Our Creator is not a sadist who would design the Universe in order to fry all his creatures in it and it is understood that humanity will have developed higher being bodies for such transformation. But we have not yet officially admitted that there is a Creator, which is quite remarkable considering the fact that scientists broke the genome of species and make our replicas, so that will not be accepted. Yet it could reconcile both camps at least on something, that there is a possibility of a naturally occurring warming of the earth.
The rest is not really pleasant at all, the superpowers’ own published materials confirm that they artificially manipulate the climatic processes of Nature and not just for the scientific purposes but for the military, political and economic control of the whole planet. There is no doubt about it at all, we are just in a totally insane situation, where the long list of patents supports the published materials yet the official approach to climate change persists. The presidents’ advisors keep using the carbon dioxide narrative and their successors laugh at it. Nothing can be done as is evident since Kyoto. The ecosystem suffers, the species are disappearing, clandestine directed energy technologies are altering not just life on earth but the space around the planet as well, nobody knows what consequences it will bring yet the silence is imperative.
A while ago I was explaining the map of this situation for quick orientation: being a climate scientist means the sky is a primary subject of his/her investigation and it is literally impossible for him to miss what is happening up there,, but they are not allowed to talk about it publicly unless they are prepared to lose their positions, grants, families and get ostracised by media and society.
One way out of it is to concentrate on climate change topic (observation of weather patterns over a long period of time), by such way they elegantly avoid the weather change where the real problem resides, and by adding CO2 pollution which certainly exists but does not cause weather change they succeed in misleading equally politicians and the public.
So it works like this:
A – scientists who say there is climate change-
B- scientists who say there is no climate change
A is divided again into A1 and A2:
The A1 group follows government/military guidelines and strictly adheres to the climate change, sea levels, temperatures and the human influence since Adam. It comes to the conclusion there is climate change caused by greenhouse gases mainly CO2. Their numerous studies about the climate change over long periods of time are granted by private and public institutions and published in prestigious scientific magazines and newspapers. The A2 group is really concerned about the weather control and does not pretend the change is caused by Co2 which means they do not get any finances for scientific studies. Their voices are the ones we need to hear to know the truth, but they are not invited to the MSM clubs, one has to find them in the alternative media.
The second group B of NO climate change scientists is also divided into two subgroups B1 and B2. B1 is an advocate of the coal mine industry and also uses only the historical analyses of climate weather patterns, which get published in scientific magazines, no words about the military and satellite technologies involvements, so actually, they support them B2 are the scientists who refuse to play the game, who know that the moment global military stops its operations, the planetary weather will get back to ‘pre-weather control’ conditions and simply deny climate change, but by doing so they also deny the weather change.
Ironically B1 group is a strong hidden force which could support A2B2 if people were not so mechanical about the CO2 narrative. The coal mine industry does create a mess but does not jeopardize globally the existence of species as the Military and satellite technologies do. But they might be solely interested in money. I am not saying this is an exact picture of reality, but it helps me to quickly orientate myself in this controversial issue that has such an enormous impact on the planetary ecosystem and all countries be it large or small.
To those who have rather relaxed attitude to the catastrophic prognoses due to the fact they had not happened in the past, I would recommend to actively mentate over this picture and read the following articles. Then perhaps you will start to understand the complexity of the so called climate change, CO2 and 1-5 G technologies.