1. Rising CO2 levels boost agricultural productivity, human health – 2. Climate Disruption: It’s Not Due to CO2

By Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

A constant refrain of climate alarmists and “clean-energy” business eager to cash in on the scare is that the use of fossil fuels to create energy is endangering the climate by overloading the atmosphere with manmade greenhouse gases.

This, we are told, is responsible for rising sea levels, floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, extinction of species, spread of infectious diseases – the list goes on. Over time, greenhouse gases have been rebranded as “carbon pollution,” just as global warming now bears the label “climate change.”

Of all the noxious substances we are said to be putting into the air, none is viler that carbon dioxide, CO2. In the name of reining in this alleged killer, we subsidize intermittent wind and solar power and provide tax credits to the mostly well-heeled buyers of electric vehicles. We blanket the countryside and seacoast with giant, bird-and-bat-killing wind turbines and deface rural areas with massive solar arrays, many of which produce electricity exclusively for Silicon Valley data centers. Both pollute their surroundings when their back-up batteries — laden with the likes of lithium, cobalt, graphite, and nickel — die and have to be disposed of or recycled.

Not to worry, though. We’re clamping down on CO2!

But what if manmade CO2 isn’t the villain deep-thinking elites say it is? What if rising levels of atmospheric CO2 are instead fighting the scourge of malnutrition in the world’s poorest regions? A new White Paper, “What Rising CO2 Means for Global Food Security,” published by the CO2 Coalition points out that global food security is one of the most pressing problems facing the planet’s growing population.

“A Powerful Plant Food”

“Continuing advances in agricultural productivity and expertise will certainly increase food production in many regions, but the required doubling of food production by 2100 as diets improve with rising income will be a difficult task,” it says. “Fortunately, carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is created when fossil fuels are converted into energy, has proved to be a powerful plant food.”

The study’s lead researcher is Craig Idso, chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and a member of the CO2 Coalition. Dr. Idso has advanced degrees in both agronomy and climatology and is one of the world’s pre-eminent scholars on the effect of carbon dioxide on agriculture.

”Just as it does in commercial greenhouses every day, the CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere has already ‘greened’ the planet,” the study continues. “Since 1900, crop production has increased on the order of 15 to 30 percent.” The White Paper’s detailed review of the latest field research shows that “this effect will only improve as carbon dioxide levels continue to rise from 4 percent of one percent of the earth’s atmosphere to, perhaps. 6 percent of one percent in 50 years. In addition to boosting yields per unit of land area, CO2 also boosts yields per unit of fertilizer and applied and water used.”

Preventing Widespread Starvation and Premature Death

“In regions where food shortages persist, these enhancements by industrial CO2 will mean the difference between food security and food insecurity. They will aid in lifting hundreds of millions of people out of a state of hunger and malnutrition, preventing widespread starvation and premature death,” the White Paper points out.

“Society did not intend to boost plant production when it started to use fossil fuels to power its drive to the wealth that has dramatically improved both personal health and the environment,” the study adds.

The White Paper acknowledges that the clear benefits to humanity of industrial CO2 as a byproduct of the use of fossil fuels must be weighed against predictions, generated by computer models, of CO2-driven warming leading to climate catastrophes. Citing research from climatologist Judith Curry and environmental studies scholar Roger Pielke Jr., the study notes that “the modest one-degree Celsius rise in average temperatures since 1900 due to what all models acknowledge is a mixture of natural and industrial causes, has had a negligible effect to date on variables such as the rate of the rise of sea levels and the frequency of droughts and hurricanes.”

Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from about 250 parts per million (ppm) around 1750 (roughly the end of the Little Ice Age) to 400 ppm today. In the earth’s geologic past, CO2 levels were often much higher than they are now, without any runaway greenhouse effect. We are fortunate to be living in an interglacial period – meaning we’re living between the last Ice Age and the next one – and higher levels of CO2 are to be expected and, when it comes to agricultural productivity, to be welcomed.

Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with CFACT.



Via: https://www.cfact.org/2019/05/08/rising-co2-levels-boost-agricultural-productivity-human-health/#comment-4457279682

Climate Disruption: It’s Not Due to CO2

By Prof. Claudia von Werlhof and Silvia Terribili

Professor Claudia von Werlhof wrote to Greta Thunberg. In this letter Von Werlhof tells that the disruption of the global climate is not due to CO2.

Following questions arose from this letter for Silvia Terribili, who asked von Werlhof to give an interview for her radio show Onda Italiana on salto.nl, April 9th.

The radio interview: Climate Disruption Is Not Due to CO2

Below is the transcript of the interview.

Claudia Von Werlhof: The question is how we define climate change and its alleged reason, of which it is said it is CO2.  We consider climate change, at least in the official discussion, as “global warming” and this global warming doesn’t exist.  There are data from NASA, which is the North American Space Agency, and they show that in the last 18 years there was no general global warming.  What exist indeed – because we are not deniers of the problem – are  changes in different dimensions in the weather, in the climate and more so in the atmosphere, etc.  We are going to explain this more in this interview.  The second is the CO2-question which is now very prominent as all these young people are now on the street, because they believe in this story and this dogma of the CO2.

And this is very strange because a lot of scientists, real scientists, are denying the influence of CO2 as a reason for climate change or as an influence at all.  For example, there are about 30,000 scientists in the US now who say that there is no problem with CO2.  On the contrary, CO2 this is a gas that stems from rotten natural materials which is needed by the plants to transform it into oxygen.  They say that CO2 is not at all detrimental for the climate, and that it even is something we are to welcome and that we need for our trees and plants and as a positive effect.

So, the funny thing is that CO2 is often shown as some dirt, as if it was a dirt in the air. Then you look at the factories that are shown in this opportunity, you see the dust coming out of them, etc. This is not CO2.

CO2 is a gas that is invisible and doesn’t smell so you don’t see it.  In general, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.038 % only.  Most of that is vapour, water vapour, some 80 or 70%.  So, this tiny amount of CO2 cannot change something huge like the climate of this planet. This is impossible.

Screenshot Global CCS Institute

So, all these scientists who are serious scientists, are denying a negative influence of CO2 on the climate.  There are even winners of the Nobel Prize etc., like Ivar Giaever, who are explaining it or people from the MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, like Richard Lindzen and others. The IPCC, the International Panel on Climate Change, founded at the end of the ’80s of the last century, however, is not so much a scientific but a political organization, and it is propagating and proposing the CO2 myth in public.

So, this is a political question and from the point of view of a real scientist CO2 is not really something detrimental and is not changing any climate. It’s too tiny for that.

If you look at the origins of this debate at the end of the ‘80s, you see that before this time all the world spoke about a possible ice age, a new ice age. Lowell Ponte, f.i., wrote a book on “The Cooling”.  It was in 1976.

They spoke about a cooling and a new ice age in contrast to the global warming-speech of today.  There is no historical debate any more about how this myth about CO2 came about.

The IPCC was founded by Think Tanks, like the Club of Rome, the World Watch Institute, the Rockefellers, etc., people who have a different interest in the whole question. And they found, I think it was an analysis by William Engdahl, who said they found or invented the myth of CO2 in order to have a common enemy defined which is humanity itself.

Humanity is guilty of producing so much CO2 by civil industry and consumption. This ideology can be used for another, a new policy.  So, this was the origin of the CO2 myth and this has been their propaganda worldwide.  Then came Al Gore and everybody believes in him.  This is contrasting with the fact that a real climate change is not occurring in the sense they are defining it.  This history is generally not known. And people don’t really know anything about Nature and the Planet.  There is a certain ignorance generally, and the public just believes in everything.

There are a lot of changes in the world, in the climate, in many aspects, like those Dr. Rosalie Bertellfound out, we are speaking about her later, who said we are wrecking our planet. But how?  It’s not by global warming, but by something totally different.  This is not mentioned by these people who speak about climate change.  They don’t see that there are changes but there are different ones with very different origins.

Silvia Terribili:  Yes, it seems also that computer models predicting catastrophic global warming in the coming years are parameterized and there is a risk of framing the outcome of these methods and models.  Can you say something about these models?

CvW:  These models the IPCC is using are computer models.  Their results are just an outcome of computer simulation.  It has nothing to do with reality and what they are measuring is what they want to measure.  They just measure something like more CO2-output, but they do not consider the complexity of the climate on this planet.

They have no parameters about them and so they are really trying to fool us with what they are saying about such a big amount of climate change and global warming.  This is not happening, and it will not happen because of CO2.

So, these are strange methods, and not scientific ones.

One should say they are political methods which want to prove something which is not the case.  So, there is no reason why there should be such an amount of global warming of above 4 degrees, which is impossible.  At least it is impossible with simply putting CO2 as a measure of this tiny amount of CO2 in the air.  You would never have any effect and it is very funny that everybody is believing this nonsense.  It’s a theory but it has nothing to do with reality and we should look at why this theory exists.  So, this is the more important question.

ST:  Some 30 years ago we already warned that the protective ozone layer has been reduced. Nowadays we don’t seem to care anymore for ozone depletion in the stratosphere. How could this be explained because we have to be concerned about the depletion of the ozone layer and where does it come from?

CvW:  The ozone-question, yes.  This is a very funny thing again and it is not funny at all in the end, because the ozone layer is really something that we need.

Without the ozone layer there would be no life on earth, because it protects us from cosmic radiation from the sun, especially UV-B and -C radiation, which is very toxic.

And it has been found out that this radiation today is coming down to earth which normally is prevented by the ozone layer.

But now it comes through, and this is a long story because there was the Montreal Protocol in the ‘80s which prohibited the use of CFCs, all these chemicals you have in the refrigerators, etc., because they thought it was the reason for the ozone hole.

But this was wrong already then because we know that what is really damaging ozone is especially radioactivity. Of radioactivity there is a lot in the air since the military was experimenting with nuclear explosions since the ‘40s and ‘50s until the end of the ‘90s, and we had about 2,200 nuclear explosions on earth and in the atmosphere and they have produced a lot of radioactive radiation that is destroying the ozone layer.

This is the main reason for the weakness of this layer because radioactivity is somehow eating up the ozone so that it is suffocating in a way, because ozone is a sort of atmospheric oxygen and radioactivity is finishing with the oxygen.

The problem is something like suffocation and a toxic effect of radiation coming down to earth when this layer is destroyed or inhibited.

Last year, the people who were measuring the ozone layer found that it was weaker than ever, it did not recover as was proposed after the Montreal Protocol. And they found out that, on the contrary, it is not only existing in the form of holes over the Antarctic and the Arctic – the latter one existing only since Fukushima, as there was never a hole over the Arctic before.

And now we have ozone depletion even over the whole northern part of the earth.

So, the toxic radiation is not only occurring at the poles but generally it comes down and it is destroying a lot of plants and low animal life, like insects. With the insects dying, the birds and the whole food chain is affected by the weakness of the ozone layer, and in the oceans the plankton is dying and the krill that the big fish are eating.

You have now many fish who are dying from hunger and you have dying coral reefs like, for example, the Great Barrier Reef east of New Zealand, the biggest one in the world, which is now dying, and it is nearly not reproducing itself anymore.  People say it is because the oceans are warming up, but this cannot be the real reason. The main problem is that the toxic radiation from the sun comes down into the water as well and it is killing life in the oceans.

And then you have all this radioactivity from Fukushima which has been led into the Pacific so that life in the Pacific is dying out, and soon you will have no fish anymore.  This is somehow very tragic because Rosalie Bertell wrote her book “Planet Earth, the Latest Weapon of War” already in 2000.  She has studied all these problems, and where they come from, and she always warned about the ozone layer, because it had been thinned out already by 10% at the end of the ‘90s and now it is becoming thinner and thinner.

And she said that with a 20% thinning of the ozone layer there will be no agriculture anymore, because the plants will be destroyed by the toxicity of UV radiation. You can see it even on your balcony when you have your plants out there. It can already be seen that the leaves are getting brown and your plants are not growing much in the sun.  So, this is maybe the biggest problem we are facing and the result of many, many effects which are destroying the ozone layer not only with the radioactivity, but also other instruments and technologies worse than any CO2 or global warming.

ST:  What can we say about geoengineering and especially Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which is one of the technologies that the IPCC is in a way not suggesting but they say it can be a solution for the global warming.  What do you think?

CvW:  Well, because of this world-theory of global warming and CO2, we now have civil geoengineers appearing, something that didn’t exist in previous times. Now they have their research institutes everywhere, and plan to have a solution to this problem which is supposed to be “solar radiation management” SRM or SAI with which they are planning to inject aerosols into the air to block the sun from shining and from heating up the earth.

So, instead of removing CO2, because it seems impossible politically, they promote this other solution to fight against the effects of so-called global warming and this would mean blocking the sun from shining too much on earth.

So, the plan is to inject aerosols into the atmosphere and especially David Keith from Harvard University has a project called SCOPEX for this very process.  In this project he wants to inject even sulphuric acid into the atmosphere imitating something like a volcanic eruption and they call it the Pinatubo effect because the Pinatubo is a volcano that exploded in 1991 and the ashes and what came out had the effect of cooling down the temperatures.

And now they are trying to imitate this effect by adding sulphuric acid into the air.  Recently David Keith, this professor from Harvard University even said that tens of thousands of people would die from that at least, because it would mean to have acids down on earth which are eventually destroying all life.

I mean these are crazy experiments they are preparing, and they go for civil geoengineers and the funniest thing about this movement of civil geoengineers is that they do not speak of the military background of all these technologies they are now propagating.

And all these movements about climate change, etc., don’t know anything about it as well.  It is simply denied that these are military experiments which we know already, because since 30 years there are regular aerosol-sprayings of the atmosphere, so all this is occurring already.  I mean something like SRM is nothing new.  We have it already in the form of the spraying of barium and aluminium and other substances that are very bad for all life and agriculture.

Monsanto for example invented a seed that is resistant to aluminium, imagine.  So, things like that are occurring and the people are against it, but they don’t see that these experiments are a reality already, being a part of geoengineering, military geoengineering, that exists now for  about 70 or more years.  This has been a project of the second world war in which the military invented the nuclear as a weapon of war and after the nuclear they invented other weapons like those of weather control.

As Rosalie Bertell said, they invented weather wars, they invented geoengineering and they invented plasma weapons which are electromagnetic weapons used by and emitted by ionospheric heaters.  This is a very special technology mostly not known which is based on the inventions of Nicola Tesla who was a physicist inventor in the 19th and 20th century.

So, this is a special technology which is not very well known, like HAARP in Alaska (now closed down) which is one of these ionospheric heaters that are working with electromagnetic waves. These waves are artificially produced and reach something like a billion watts, and they are shot high up into the ionosphere to produce certain effects leading them back to the earth.

This is a very, very dangerous technology which can also be used for producing all kinds of so-called natural catastrophes like, for example, tsunamis or earthquakes, volcanic eruptions or the change of the weather in whole regions, or producing hurricanes, droughts, fires and floods, and even changing the ocean currents.

These are technologies that are not discussed in public but exist already since the Vietnam War. They have been invented during this time and the UN Convention on Environmental Modification, the famous ENMOD convention from 1977, explains these weapons, it explains the effects they may have when they are used.  So, it is not even a secret and it is decades ago that they have been invented and are in experimentation, and it is like a war that is fought against the earth and the planet as a cosmic macro-being on which we depend.  This is very, very dangerous and it is exactly Rosalie Bertell who has explained to us how these technologies are functioning, namely as the post-nuclear weapons of electromagnetic mass destruction.  We have these ionospheric heaters now everywhere.

ST:  What is the ionospheric heater?  What is, why do they use it?  What is the idea? We don’t understand because there is global warming, they said that there is a global warming. So, you are heating the ionosphere, but that ’s crazy.

CvW:   They are heating up the ionosphere, the sphere in the atmosphere that starts at about 80 kilometres up to about 800-1000 kilometres.  It is an electrified part of the atmosphere and when they send the electromagnetic waves up there they are heating it up because when they heat the ionosphere, this part of the atmosphere, they can manage these electromagnetic rays to come down on earth again, by making a curve. They can work with an angle and, like Rosalie said, it is like a gun from the ionosphere which is directed against the earth and when this ray comes down again to the earth it is terribly destructive.  These rays can even pass through the core of the earth.

ST:  But it is also warming, so it is completely crazy because we have too much warming and we are sending some…

CvW:  Because the warming is up there.  It’s not down here.  If there is any warming, it is up there. The NASA didn’t find a real warming of the earth in general, but you have different parts of the world that are warming up or have been warmed up like the poles, the polar regions and the mountains where the melting glaciers are, but it has nothing to do with a general global warming through CO2. Some of them are surely effects of the military use of ionospheric heaters.  For example, in 1974 there was a treaty between the US and the Soviet Union, the secret Vladivostok Agreement in which they planned together to heat up the Arctic because they wanted the ice to go away to get to the oil on the ground of the northern sea and they couldn’t get there because of the ice.  Today,  half of the Arctic ice has melted down already, because they used electromagnetic waves for that.  ELF waves, that are extremely low frequency waves and they have thawed the Arctic with that.  It has nothing to do with global warming but with this military technology.

ST:  Going back to geoengineering, the solar radiation management, do we have evidence that the program is on?  I mean we see all kinds of trails in the sky and the sky is completely sometimes covered by these trails.  They are persistent, staying the whole time.  What do you think about that phenomenon?

CvW:  It is an older military technology which has recently been implemented since about 30 years. This started in the ‘90s and, for example, you have effects in regions like Shasta in California. They have been heavily sprayed with aerosols.  It’s like Agent Orange that was sprayed on Vietnam, a toxic product from Monsanto and it’s like that.  It’s toxic and for example in this community of Shasta in Northern California the land is not producing anymore, everybody is sick, and the animals and plants are dying.

They had such a load of toxic materials, aerosols coming down from the sky that they got these problems, and after having analysed them they made a big event some years ago to protest publicly against the sprayings.  Nevertheless, the alternative and social movements do not accept – even ETC Group, which is very important in that respect – that this has been done which is a reality for the people affected, and they are denying that SRM is used already and discussing only the bad effects which this method would have on us. So, they are against it, but they are denying that these methods are in use already everywhere.  Of course, you see it in the sky, and I have done some research about why they are doing it, as the military is not interested in any global warming myth. They are even denying global warming because they know better.

ST:  So, they are doing that?

CvW:  Yes, they are doing that, so they know better, like Trump, who knows it from the military. But I found out that they are not interested in the global warming question or so.  They are doing it because of the ozone depletion, f.i.  If there is an ozone hole or weakness, they cannot pass their electromagnetic waves.  They need what I call a replacement atmosphere.

They need to spray aerosols as a conductor, they need an atmosphere that is conductive, and at the holes it is not.  This is the reason why they are using so many metals in the spraying, heavy metals like barium and strontium and aluminium, which is not a heavy metal, but they are all conductive for electromagnetic waves.  Recently I came about a research of a woman called Schmitt who lives in Venezuela.  She made an analysis of these sprayings of being protective against the cosmos, something like a Faraday cage, producing a sort of grid around the earth to protect it from radiation coming in and this also has to do with the ozone depletion. The ozone layer is really the central question that has to be an alarm for us, because this is now the moment of truth.  When we are not able to prevent these things happening, this destruction happening, we will die out within 20 or 30 years.

ST: But the official story, nobody is telling, talking about the ozone depletion.

CvW:  No. There was an alarm last year and there was a colleague in the US, Marvin Herndon, who was doing research about that question, together with his colleagues and he published it. He proved that ozone depletion leads to the arrival of toxic radiation down on earth. And he found out that NASA, the North American Space Agency, had come to the same result already in 2007.  And they didn’t do anything.  They knew it already then, but they didn’t do anything because the military thinks it can do everything it wants.  If they need it, they would invent a new ozone layer. This is what they think.  They think they have …

ST:  A technical solution?

CvW:  Yes, and they think that they can do whatever they want to do and prevent things from happening. But after all these nuclear explosions in the atmosphere and in the ionosphere and in the Van Allen belts which destroyed parts of the magnetic field of the earth, they could never replace or cure the magnetic field nor the atmosphere. They couldn’t do anything about it. They destroyed it and it is destroyed. This is one of the reasons of weather changes as well.  So, there are a lot of very complex reasons of why things are happening.  For example, you can even use electromagnetic waves from the ionospheric heaters in order to move the jet stream which consists of fast winds surrounding the earth, building a frontier between hot and cold.  So, if you are moving them north you have the heat from the south in the north and when you are moving them down south, you have the cold from the Arctic in the middle of Europe …

ST:  They influence strongly the climate and the weather

CvW:  With these technologies you can do nearly everything, and you can change the vapour streams that are the humid streams around the earth.  You can transport humidity to Arabia for example. This is one of the biggest businesses today, because the people there need water and you can just transport the water from here to there.  So, even snow is coming down in the South Arabian desert. This is all manipulation, weather manipulation, climate manipulation.  Nobody speaks about it, but it is occurring constantly. And another effect of the atmosphere being full of metal is that it is drying out, so we have much less rain in Europe for example which has nothing to do with a warming or CO2.

ST:  In Italy there is drought.

CVW:  Italy is drying out, and then you have fires which are also induced, not only because it is dry, but you have direct energy weapons and laser weapons. So, you can produce these fires what was happening in Portugal and Australia and in California. They have nothing to do with wildfires and they are not destroying the plants, but they are destroying the buildings. It is like a war that has passed through.  All these things are discussed as being a result of global warming and CO2.  It has nothing to do with that.  This whole CO2 question and global warming is used to distract people from what is really happening, so that they don’t see what has been done to the planet and to the atmosphere and to the weather, etc., so they wouldn’t look at it because they think it is all global warming.

ST:  Unfortunately, we have almost to close the program, but I would like to ask you something again.  On May 23 – 26, we will have European elections coming. What can we do as concerned Europeans to put climate engineering and all related risks on the electoral agenda because we expect European institutions to protect the 300 million citizens from the risks of these extremely dangerous technologies. What can we do?

CvW:  What we did, inform the people. We are just now publishing a book.  It is called “Global Warning!”, not warming, but warning.  It is going to appear soon.  Ten women are explaining their research of what we are talking about now and this will be published by Talma Studies International in Dublin.  So, I can recommend it.  The problem is that people don’t know anything of what is happening around them, and they don’t get informed even if this is possible. The book of Rosalie Bertell exists in the 4th edition in German, it exists in Italian, French and Spanish. Everybody can read it and many people have ordered the 4th edition now, it has been printed 15,000 times. Somebody should have read it, but people don’t speak about it. The parties that are running for election have nothing to do with all this.  The Greens should be the most interested in this question, but they are not.

We have to look behind the climate change-agenda. There must be somebody who wants people to be distracted, to be organized around other issues.

You have the whole Smart City and 5G movement, the technification of the society and a sort of policies of controlled reduction of production and consumption.  It is like the depopulation agenda of certain people which seems to be related to that.

I think that there are other political plans, the New World Order and interests behind it.

CO2 is only the scapegoat to prevent people from looking at them.

The Greens for example are totally involved into these plans for a so called “green” economy, but this is not the case.  It is not a green economy.  It is a weaponized economy which we see is approaching us.

I don’t see the Left, it has no interest in the whole question because it is concerned about progress and development, to say it like that.  You need a critique of these technologies.  I call it military alchemy what we have now.  But the Left is not interested in that and the other parties in any case not at all as well.  So, I don’t know who is going to be interested from the point of view of the parties.  People are not informed and they don’t get informed and people who speak about it are called conspiracy theorists, etc. How to get to that to change, the change from believing in these ideologies from above in order to see what is happening in reality? How can people like this Greta and the young people get informed about the reality? They should know what is really going on and not what is supposed to go on.  This is the problem. It is why I wrote the letter to Greta Thunberg, to get her informed and as I know she even recognized ultimately that there is a military problem but not the one we are discussing, that of military geoengineering.

ST:  Did she answer you?

CvW:  No, of course not.  Because there is a big movement behind her, the CO2 movement is behind her, of course. There have been plans: 7 years ago, it has already been discussed how to mobilize the youth.  This is not just a venture of the people but an organized campaign of the other side.

ST:  Claudia we have to stop unfortunately, but we will present your book when it is going to come out and maybe we can present the book of Rosalie Bertell one more time because our task is to inform people.  We do what we can to inform people.

CvW:  Maybe you can translate it for Italy and the Netherlands.

ST:  Yes, unfortunately, I have to stop but I thank you very much for being with us this evening and I hope to speak to you again.

CvW:  Thank you. Bye bye.

Transcription by Linda Leblanc, with formal corrections of the Interview from April 9, 2019

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


Rosalie Bertell: Kriegswaffe Planet Erde, 4th ed., Gelnhausen 2019, J.K. Fischer

——: Pianeta Terra. L´ultima arma di Guerra, Trieste 2018, Asterios

____: Planeta tierrra: La nueva guerra, Guadalajara 2018, La casa del mago

____: La Planète Terre, ultime arme de guerre, Tome 1, Paris 2018, Talma Studios

Michel Chossudovsky:  https://www.globalresearch.ca/does-the-us-military-own-the-weather-weaponizing-the-weather-as-an-instrument-of-modern-warfare/5608728

Claudia von Werlhof (Ed.): Global Warning! Geoengineering is Wrecking our Planet, Dublin 2019, Talma Studios International (forthcoming)

www.pbme-online.org, Info-Letters

Ref.: https://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-disruption-its-not-due-to-co2/5677036