2010

Restorations

Twice a year, all our neighbors are throwing away their mess bric-a-brac that the common collection management: the dumpster.

Among Ikea lamps broken into two pieces fridges and dishwashers odd Aunt foo, Gochoun saw a bargain, under the gaze of septic Pouch: two chairs in good condition but looks a bit retro, a hairdresser and nickel chromium will also require little facelift.

The 2 chairs corner

My new sewing room, hehehe!
It requires a good few months of procrastination ( no comment), a little elbow grease to sanding (Pouch thank you!), A layer of apret (bonus Français ) and 2 layers of paint applied by roller and brush.

Admire me those handles! It deserved the 25 hours spent on the Internet has the look, right? NO? ok ... All drawers are covered with different paper, and my favorite is the middle one with the map of Paris.
In the end, we are quite happy but we learned 2 / 3 stuff we will not do next time:

Do not paint inside the drawers because they close after this difficult
not bother to sand as flaws until the wood is completely bare
When you do it, it goes fast in fact!

And since my sewing machine has found her soul-sister, she is constantly whirring of happiness. And if you are looking after me that Martin is film, you know where to find me ...

Love

Gochoun

Report on the "ROYAL SOCIETY DISCUSSION MEETING ON Geoengineering"

Image source: " Royal Society: Our Planet is Not your experiment " an article published by http://www.handsoffmotherearth. org /

Reviewed by Saskia Messenger (association ACSEIPICA) ,
on "ROYAL SOCIETY DISCUSSION MEETING ON Geoengineering"
who was in London, November 9, 2010.

Below you will find our observations and a short report about our work discussion during meeting of the Royal Society on Geoengineering .

Meeting discussion: The Geoengineering - take control of our planet's climate
Organizers: Andy Ridgwell, Professor Chris Freeman, Professor Richard Lampitt
Location: Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London, UK
Dates: 8 and 9 November 2010

In the file attached pdf you find the full program, abstracts, speaker biographies and lists of participants. John Shepherd was not on the list, but very present.

Activists for a blue sky:
Claire Henrion, Saskia Messenger ( ACSEIPICA , France) two days
Andrew Johnson (United Kingdom) on 09/11/2010

Presence of NGOs

Monday morning, on arrival at the Royal Society, some members of Hands of Mother Earth " had hung a banner Stop geoengineering" and handing out little papers with the statements "we are here to oppose the geo-engineering "and to challenge the role of the Royal Society. Besides this action, no action was undertaken by other NGOs.
Various groups opposed to geoengineering in the audience of the discussion meeting were Biofuelwatch (on behalf of ETCgroup (not present)) EcoNexus, ACSEIPICA, Andrew Johnson. Maybe some others, but we have not met. There were about 200 participants. There were more people present on the list of registered participants.

INTERVENTIONS FOR SKY BLUE

There were 8 presentations per day. After every second presentation there were 30 minutes of discussion, mostly only 4-5 questions were answered. So it is obvious that with 200 people present it was not easy to get the floor.

Henrion Claire made a statement at the end of the first day. She spoke about the lie about CO2 and it believes the real causes of climate change, ie, the use of HAARP facilities and geo-engineering already perpetuated with chemtrails. There was no reaction from the presenters. Brian Launder who chaired the debate, suggested it should resolve this issue in a discussion of one to one. Anyway Claire has managed to attract the attention about chemtrails. His speech was the final statement of the day.

Saskia Messenger gave a presentation on the second day after the presentation by David Keith on the capture of CO2 from the air. We have seen here to promote his own business on carbon capture and sequestration. He was a sales presentation to 100%. We learned more about the cost of implementing the invention on its effectiveness.
Although the subject matter here by David Keith was not the spreading of aerosols, an intervention in that moment, for reasons of impact more attention from the media present fit.
She began quietly to not be interrupted immediately. Here's what she managed to say

"Today, I speak as a citizen very worried. I became interested in the geo-engineering, doing research on my health problems. Through websites of independent researchers, I was informed that some toxic substances were found in my body, actually fell from the sky.
I think we've all noticed that air traffic has increased considerably in recent decades. Well that fuels are more efficient with a rate of particulate residue after burning very low, it can be seen in the sky more and more abnormally persistent contrails. The sky was deep blue has become very rare. We are seeing more and more often a milky white veil in the sky, the mist that is certainly not negligible due to the presence of 0.04% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Since these streaks persist abnormally persistent and spread out for hours in the sky at an altitude of 37,000 feet, they end up creating high cirrus clouds.
Millions of people worldwide are very concerned about this for different reasons.
The persistence of these trails could indicate the presence of chemical particles. This is why many refer to them as "chemtrails".
(Here, she began to be interrupted, but continued)
Laboratory analysis of samples of soil and water in some regions even completely preserved showed high levels of aluminum and barium . This leads us to believe that geo-engineering by the injection of aerosol particles in the atmosphere is an event underway.
(Here, they cut the floor).

David Keith replied:
- He started saying that his life was threatened by militants opposed to chemtrails and has received many threats not to continue to promote the SRM (Solar Radiation Management).
- He said he was willing to believe that governments do not always have good intentions for the people, but something so huge that it seems impossible
- He said that if true, such a Secret could never have kept silent for so long.
- He said he looked at the issue of chemtrails, but he sees this as a conspiracy theory.
- He is urging Saskia consider that chemtrails are not true (sounded like a warning!)

Saskia Messenger spoke again:
- She asked if David Keith could explain that in a pristine area and preserved as Mt Shasta, California (USA), snow samples showed levels of 60,000 ppm of aluminum. Sixty times the maximum permissible level (1,000 ppm).
David Keith
- He was silent, did not respond
Richard Lampitt said (one of the organizers):
- This is not true, "such a secret, could not have been kept secret, it's impossible"

At the coffee break Saskia discussed again with David Keith. He said that the alumina is everywhere on earth, he said, again checking lab results and be sure it was done by a reliable laboratory.
Apparently, the result was 60,000 ppm had an impact on him. (Thanks for this and Dane Francis)

At another point Saskia had the opportunity to speak to David Keith and ask questions about the health consequences of deployment of the RS. She raised this question was not addressed in all presentations and aluminum sulfates and affect life on earth in a very negative way. The question irritated
David Keith, he said that many of his colleagues have studied these issues. And he was "not fair" to make such a statement.

It should be noted that Keith David has somewhat changed its strategy. For several years he was one of the great promoters of aerosol sprays in the RS, since the management of spraying being so easy and inexpensive to do. In this discussion meeting it takes clearly some distance from his previous statements. He said several times during these two days "he does not think the climate situation is so catastrophic that the spreading of aerosols must be used." The SRM is more a matter of last resort.
After a presentation from a colleague, Naomi Vaughan of the University of East Anglia, where she said that "the RS (the applications) must be maintained for many centuries to avoid a rapid increase in temperature and corresponding increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, "David Keith attacked somewhere saying: "Nobody is seriously thinking about using the Solar Radiation Management.

Points of interest • Easy access to all lecturers and scientists.
There was a very informal atmosphere and courteous. Everyone was prepared to discuss in an open manner. This could encourage others to participate more often in this type of discussion meeting. At least your voice will be heard.

• Aircraft are not an option for the injection of particles into the atmosphere ....
Only two techniques for injection of particles into the atmosphere to run the SRM have been presented at the meeting.
1. Marine Cloud Brightening (Clarification marine cloud) by Professor John Latham, National Center for Atmospheric Research, USA
stratocumulus cloud seeding by large quantities of monodisperse submicron particles of sea water
2. SRM injection of particles in the stratospheric by (guess what ...) ... giant balloons, Dr. Matthew Watson, University of Bristol, United Kingdom -! SPICE project
Several balloons floating 285 meters (!!!) to height of 20 km connected to a vessel with a tube of 20 km long. With pressure, sulfates and / or aluminum particles, will be channeled through the tube and dispersed at an altitude of 20 km per balloons. Absolutely crazy! Fortunately there were scientific engineers who said it was absolutely impossible. The pressure required to bring the particles at this height is beyond feasibility.

After this presentation Mr. Edwards in the audience asked why they would not question the use of commercial aircraft to disperse the particles, as many patents on this possibility already exists for ages. And as this solution is also cheap.
Dr. Watson said he does not think mixing with the fuel particles will be possible .....
Is not it interesting that the injection of particles into the atmosphere by aircraft is simply not an option for the Royal Society?
Here we discuss tactics and media strategy. And perhaps a silent admission that they do not need to do, because it is already done ..

• Questions about the consequences of spraying particles in the atmosphere: Dr Carol Turley
(speaker) asked Dr. Matthew Watson: What will happen to these sulfate particles in the air?
Dr Watson: They will fall on the earth
Dr Carol Turley: So, What will these particles to the oceans and on the ground? Does the pH change?
Dr. Watson: Yes, the pH change? Dr Carol Turley
: it will affect your life?
Dr. Watson: Yes

• Quality of presentations
Most presentations were very vague, hypothetical. Many catastrophic extrapolations based on assumptions and not on observations. It was
striking that a lot of speakers scientists presented graphs with no indication of such measures on the horizontal and vertical axes ... In sum
many assumptions and uncertainties that scientists of the Royal Society wants to rely to impose on the whole earth decision making dramatic and catastrophic.

Most of the lecturers, scientists, business men and women and other participants were from the United Kingdom and North America.
obviously their points of view have a geographical basis and thus very narrow policy. Climate scientists other parts of the world were totally absent! The views expressed during the two day conference at the Royal Society are clearly not shared across the world!
The only governmental institutions represented in the debate was the DECC (Department of Climate Change and Energy) and the U.S. Navy and U.S. government researchers.

• Dual language
one side all the speakers said there are so many uncertainties and inefficiencies in the same geo-engineering techniques, it should never be used. On the other hand, they sell the whole concept to obtain funds for research and implementation of geo-engineering. It's just business.
They say the cure is worse than the disease but continue to promote the concept of geo-engineering.

• Marketing strategy to the general public
They study the public to see what will make them accept the geo-engineering. They spend a lot of energy in this area.
"Get the confidence of people and you can hack the planet" This was said during the meeting.
Moreover they consider they are not part the public ("researchers" cons "public").

• Psychology - The science of climate is historically an observational science, not very exciting. Climate scientists have in the past probably had great difficulty in obtaining funding for their research.
Now there is this hype about climate change and then the money flows in this area. Suddenly they are in the spotlight, the money flowing. Do not forget they make a very good life now with the proposals and possibly the execution of geo-engineering techniques. They are not receptive suggest that the SRM will do more harm than good. It's worse when they are told what they are proposing is already done for dozens of years illegally.
- Pandora's Box
- They are no longer limited to observation, they can now make, change the world and thus leave their imprint on this land, the dream of any researcher.
is where scientists can be easily manipulated.

In conclusion: the existence of chemtrails and geo-engineering courses has been expressed and discussed at the Royal Society discussion meeting. Our voice was heard.

" There Is A Crack in Everything, Through Which Can Come in the Light. "
(There is a crack in everything, through which light can enter)

For the content of all presentations please take a look at the pdf file attached .
We hope this information is helpful.

Source: http://acseipica.blogspot.com/2010/11/compte-rendu-royal-society-discussion.html