ROBERTO NUZZO: HAARP and Geoengineering - 1st July 2022
Exodus 20 App
https://nucleapp.com/app/6582b66b12b7696f0344ce79″
HOMEPAGE DELLA CINA 10 Apr 2024
https://andreasalvatorebuffa2.substack.com/p/homepage-della-cina-10-apr-2024
Earthquakes and chemtrails in the sky lately
Luke 21:11 there will be great earthquakes, and in various places pestilences and famines; there will be frightening phenomena and great signs from heaven.
The extraction of gas and oil from the subsoil will inevitably create significant landslides and also at considerable distances from the deposits.
Other mythical theories may shadow the real reasons for speculation and kickbacks for covert endorsements.
Terremoti e scie chimiche nel cielo ultimamente
Luca 21:11 vi saranno grandi terremoti, e in vari luoghi pestilenze e carestie; vi saranno fenomeni spaventosi e grandi segni dal cielo.
L'estrazione di gas e petrolio dal sottosuolo creerà inevitabilmente frane significative e anche a notevoli distanze dai giacimenti.
Altre teorie mitiche potrebbero oscurare le vere ragioni delle speculazioni e delle tangenti per avalli nascosti.
CHEMICAL TRAILS HEAVY METALS DEPOPULATION
https://andreasalvatorebuffa2.substack.com/p/chemical-trails-heavy-metals-depopulation
"European Parliament Report on HAARP and Geoengineering - 1st interview July 11, 2022 - ROBERTO NUZZO"
Once again with Roberto, an ex warrant officer of the Italian Air Force, welcome back. Thank you for the invitation. Good evening. Today, we talk about chemtrails and geoengineering, but let's start from 1995 when in a European parliamentary session, the president communicated deferring the resolution proposal of honorable Wren Ruva on the use of potential resources for environmental strategies. Then again in 1999, the European Parliament expressed opposition to ARP experiments, namely the high frequency active auroral research program based in Alaska and the USA.
What does it tell us? USA. Let's start this journey together by discussing the committee on the environment, public health, and consumer protection, which in 1999 expressed its views on this HAPA project as you very well described. The name stands for high frequency active auroral research program. Basically, at point 11, the European parliament considers the US military system of ionospheric manipulation, HAARP, based in Alaska, as just part of the development of electromagnetic weapons for both internal and external security.
An example of the most serious emerging military threat to the global environment and human health since it seeks to manipulate the highly sensitive and energetic section of the biosphere for military purposes while all its consequences are not clear. It also urges the committee, the council, and member states to exert pressure on the governments of the United States, Russia, and any other state engaged in such activities to end them and to reach a global convention against such weapons. You understand well that this committee poses a problem of public health and safety, and it says it very clearly in this article 11, which is an extrapolation of a much broader and deeper argumentation that I invite everyone to read. What are these chemtrails composed of? So we talked about the HARPA project, which is a project for the propagation of electromagnetic waves.
And according to general Minnie, who is a general of the army currently on leave, we will talk about it in one of the next episodes. He draws a correlation between the Harpa project and geoengineering, which is illegal geoengineering, which, to put it very succinctly, is called chemtrails. I wanna make a note. Someone, especially from the air force where I served for 37 years, believes that they are condensation trails. I asked the air force captain who gave an interview on this subject on YouTube, which I will send you later.
I would like to ask why in the last 21 days I don't see condensation trails here over Salento. Yet commercial planes are there and pass according to what the Flightradar app tells me. So it means that those condensation trails are not condensation trails since the climate is the same as 21 days ago. So regarding your question about clinical studies, and then we will also say in the future who did these studies, these studies say that these chemtrails are composed of barium, aluminum, titanium, quartz, calcium chloride, metals, polymers, silicates, viruses, bacteria, manganese, various fungi, thorium, copper, cadmium, silicon, lithium, lead, cobalt, iron, brominated ethylene, radioactive cesium, and 3,000 aluminum per ice. So you understand well that they are certainly not substances that are good for health.
And as for geoengineering, what could be the future scenarios? Geoengineering was born as a possibility to manage the climate for positive purposes, to make it rain when necessary or not to make it rain already for the climate itself. But these purposes have been lost because everything is being done with geoengineering except for the purposes for which they were set. That's why it's called illegal geoengineering because something negative is being done to the detriment of health. And that's the purpose of this investigation, of this inquiry, that we will try to piece together step by step, episode after episode.
And there are authoritative people who also talk about this. Thank you, Roberto Nuzzo, for being with us. We will deepen the topics later. Thank you. Until next time.
Maybe we will talk about the parliamentary inquiry of the senate. Instead, we will see each other very soon after the weather forecast.
Italiano
Ancora una volta con Roberto, ex maresciallo dell'Aeronautica Militare Italiana, bentornati. Grazie per l'invito. Buonasera. Oggi si parla di scie chimiche e geoingegneria, ma partiamo dal 1995 quando in una seduta del Parlamento europeo il presidente comunicò il rinvio della proposta di risoluzione dell'onorevole Wren Ruva sull'utilizzo delle risorse potenziali per strategie ambientali. Sempre nel 1999 il Parlamento Europeo si oppose agli esperimenti ARP, ovvero al programma di ricerca sulle aurore attive ad alta frequenza con sede in Alaska e negli USA.
Cosa ci dice? STATI UNITI D'AMERICA. Cominciamo insieme questo viaggio parlando del comitato per l'ambiente, la salute pubblica e la tutela dei consumatori, che nel 1999 si espresse su questo progetto HAPA, come lei ha molto ben descritto. Il nome sta per programma di ricerca aurorale attiva ad alta frequenza. In sostanza, al punto 11, il Parlamento europeo considera il sistema militare statunitense di manipolazione ionosferica, HAARP, con sede in Alaska, solo come parte dello sviluppo di armi elettromagnetiche per la sicurezza sia interna che esterna.
Un esempio della più seria minaccia militare emergente per l’ambiente globale e la salute umana poiché cerca di manipolare la sezione altamente sensibile ed energetica della biosfera per scopi militari mentre tutte le sue conseguenze non sono chiare. Esorta inoltre il comitato, il consiglio e gli stati membri a esercitare pressioni sui governi di Stati Uniti, Russia e qualsiasi altro stato impegnato in tali attività affinché vi ponga fine e raggiunga una convenzione globale contro tali armi. Capite bene che questo comitato pone un problema di salute e sicurezza pubblica, e lo dice molto chiaramente in questo articolo 11, che è l'estrapolazione di un'argomentazione molto più ampia e profonda che invito tutti a leggere. Da cosa sono composte queste scie chimiche? Quindi abbiamo parlato del progetto HARPA, che è un progetto per la propagazione delle onde elettromagnetiche.
E secondo il generale Minnie, che è un generale dell'esercito attualmente in congedo, ne parleremo in una delle prossime puntate. Egli traccia una correlazione tra il progetto Harpa e la geoingegneria, che è la geoingegneria illegale, che, per dirla in breve, si chiama scie chimiche. Voglio prendere nota. Qualcuno, soprattutto dell'Aeronautica dove ho prestato servizio per 37 anni, ritiene che si tratti di scie di condensa. Ho chiesto al capitano dell'aeronautica che ha rilasciato un'intervista su questo argomento su YouTube, che ti manderò più tardi.
Vorrei chiedere come mai negli ultimi 21 giorni non vedo scie di condensa qui sul Salento. Eppure gli aerei commerciali ci sono e passano secondo quanto mi dice l’app Flightradar. Quindi significa che quelle scie di condensazione non sono scie di condensazione poiché il clima è lo stesso di 21 giorni fa. Quindi per quanto riguarda la tua domanda sugli studi clinici, e poi diremo anche in futuro chi ha fatto questi studi, questi studi dicono che queste scie chimiche sono composte da bario, alluminio, titanio, quarzo, cloruro di calcio, metalli, polimeri, silicati, virus, batteri, manganese, vari funghi, torio, rame, cadmio, silicio, litio, piombo, cobalto, ferro, etilene bromurato, cesio radioattivo e 3.000 alluminio per ghiaccio. Quindi capite bene che non sono certo sostanze che fanno bene alla salute.
E per quanto riguarda la geoingegneria, quali potrebbero essere gli scenari futuri? La Geoingegneria nasce come possibilità di gestire il clima per scopi positivi, per far piovere quando necessario o non far piovere già per il clima stesso. Ma questi scopi sono andati perduti perché con la geoingegneria si fa tutto tranne gli scopi per i quali erano stati prefissati. Ecco perché si chiama geoingegneria illegale perché si sta facendo qualcosa di negativo a scapito della salute. Ed è questo lo scopo di questa inchiesta, di questa inchiesta, che cercheremo di ricostruire passo dopo passo, episodio dopo episodio.
E ci sono persone autorevoli che parlano anche di questo. Grazie, Roberto Nuzzo, per essere stato con noi. Approfondiremo gli argomenti in seguito. Grazie. Fino alla prossima volta.
Magari si parlerà dell'inchiesta parlamentare del Senato. Ci vedremo invece molto presto dopo le previsioni del tempo.
Chemtrails: Distrust Drives Speculation
https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/chemtrails/
Search for: 91529 Choose a language English Español Français
☰
Chemtrails: Distrust Drives Speculation
The growth and popularity of online “chemtrails” discussion indicates an existing level of distrust with the powers that be. Many believe that geoengineering is already taking place. An unfortunate side effect of this distrust is that many of the materials available online concerning geoengineering are based on extensive speculation rather than research and facts.
While the chemtrails discourse reflects a legitimate malaise about transparency, the actual effect of it is to promote opposition to geoengineering based on unfounded assertions, discrediting opposition to these practices in the eyes of many.
There is plenty to oppose in the verified facts and research that we know about geoengineering; we should all start there.
Recent Posts
Don’t Geoengineer Africa! African civil society mobilising against new threats to Mother Earth
Arctic ice management and other marine geoengineering projects should remain science fiction
Carbon market-driven experiments in the open ocean endanger the marine environment
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter
Geoengineering Monitor is a joint project of Biofuelwatch and ETC Group, with support from Heinrich Boell Foundation.
Search for:
Choose a language
Reasons to Oppose Geoengineering
https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/reasons-to-oppose/
Here are some of the key reasons to oppose geoengineering, which will be discussed in more depth below:
It doesn’t work: None of the technologies have a track record, all of them come with major risks and unknowns, and in some cases the effects would be obviously catastrophic.
Weaponization: Computer models show that geoengineering interventions can have regional winners and losers; to the extent that geoengineering successfully changes climate patterns in a predictable way, it will inevitably be weaponized.
Detracts from real solutions: By promising a quick fix, geoengineering threatens to delay the implementation of a transition away from fossil fuels, and could redirect funding and investments away from real climate solutions. Some geoengineering proposals require vast amounts of energy, which means less climate-friendly energy for everyone else.
Human rights and biodiversity: Many geoengineering proposals require the intensive exploitation of vast amounts of land (in the case of BECCS, twice the size of India!). Those projects would inevitably displace millions of people and potentially wipe out entire ecosystems.
The bottom line: geoengineering techniques do nothing to address the root causes of climate change, and evidence points to a high likelihood that rather than improving the climate, they would make things worse—potentially in catastrophic fashion.
Negative Impacts & Magical Claims
There have not been many real-world geoengineering experiments, becauseof the problem with scale. Testing on small scales does not necessarily reflect what will happen if done on a much larger scale. Testing on large scale is de facto geoengineering.
However, many researchers have attempted to model the potential effects these proposed measures could have on the weather, biodiversity, farms and ecosystems.
In some cases, like Solar Radiation Management (SRM), blocking sunlight by spraying chemicals like sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere or launching giant reflective parasols into orbit, could have a cooling effect. However, models show that such manipulations come with high-stakes risks: entire regions could face drought, and if SRM was started and then abandoned, global temperatures could rise very rapidly.
Ocean fertilization consists of dumping tonnes of iron-rich dust into the ocean to stimulate plankton growth in the hopes that it will absorb carbon and then sink to the bottom of the sea. Studies based on computer models suggest that it probably will not have the desired effect, and could create “dead zones” by removing oxygen from the water.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is considered a climate geoengineering technology in some cases. Its proponents claim that we can continue to burn fossil fuels if we just suck the carbon out of the air before it leaves the smokestack. CCS is extremely expensive and it’s not clear how well it actually works. If CCS becomes implemented at a large scale, where will the billions of tonnes of carbon be stored? Which communities and ecosystems will be put at risk of being poisoned when and if carbon dioxide, which can be lethal when concentrated, leaks? Furthermore, much of the current push to develop CCS is based on a desire to use captured CO2 for “enhanced oil recovery”.
So-called Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs) like Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) claim that we can increase energy production while decreasing emissions. These plans are based on growing and burning massive, country-sized quantities of biomass and they ignore the carbon emissions and ecological impacts caused by tearing up millions of hectares of land over and over again to create these plantations.
Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is based on the false claim that burning biomass is “carbon neutral”. Proponents claim that capturing and burying carbon from such a “neutral” process will make it carbon “negative”. This faulty logic ignores a growing literature showing that CO2 emissions from most bioenergy processes are large – even larger than for fossil fuels when the impacts on ecosystems and soils are taken into account. Millions of hectares of land would have to be converted to growing trees and crops for bioenergy to implement large-scale BECCS.
So-called Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs) are based on the wishful thinking that we can increase energy production while decreasing emissions. A wide range of technologies are being touted using this “win-win” rhetoric, including biofuels that result in biochar byproducts, using CO2 emissions to grow algae and various other processes. Some of these technologies have garnered much hype, but they are virtually nonexistant in reality.
The Technofix Approach vs. Addressing Root Causes
The mindset that embraces Technofixes assumes that solutions are somehow possible without addressing root causes. Each time we are threatened by a disaster that is caused by structural inequalities and abuse of concentrated power, those who are invested in and profit from those same structures say “we can fix it!” If we believe them, we can be temporarily fooled into taking a path that doesn’t address root causes and therefore only delays real solutions. Most of the time, technofixes don’t actually work; their real role is to be an effective, temporary distraction.
Geoengineering presents politicians and leaders with vested interests with an option to avoid making difficult choices. Rather than putting an end to combustion of fossil fuels, destructive industrial agriculture, and the pursuit of endless economic growth, they can take the less politically contentious path of offering support for a technofix.
But it is clear that climate change stems from multiple sources embedded in an economic system based on constant growth and ever-increasing consumption; it cannot be addressed by a “magic bullet” technofix.
Trillions of dollars in profit and infrastructure investments by oil companies could be devalued if emissions are regulated. Because of the vast profits and investments that could be lost if we truly address the root causes of climate change, geoengineering represents a dangerous moral hazard. If oil companies see geoengineering as a possibility, they can back a technofix and present it as a solution instead of powering down their operations.
That’s precisely what the fossil fuel industry is doing – quietly and behind the scenes, but with a lot of money.
The Geoengineering Clique
A number of commentators have pointed to the existence of a “geoengineering clique” that is promoting the technofix approach. The prominent voices on geoengineering that reappear again and again are actually a very small group of people. Most of them appear to be white men from rich countries, especially Europe and North America. Some of them have direct connections to the fossil fuel industry and many appear to have military connections. For example David Keith, one of the most prominent geoengineering proponents, has a private company funded by tar sands money. While the “geoengineering clique” project the image of reluctant advocates exploring geoengineering only as a “plan B” to reducing emissions, there are a range of motivations driving interest in geoengineering, including commercial and military interests.
In fact, some of the heavyweight backers of climate geoengineering were climate deniers or downplayers not so long ago. Some call this odd switch the “Lomborg Maneuver,” after the pro-corporate environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg, who poo-pooed the effects of climate change until he became a geoengineering proponent. Right-wing groups like the Heartland Institute and the American Enterprise Institute and politicians like Newt Gingrich have joined the geoengineering bandwagon as well.
Part of the threat of commercialization of geoengineering techniques is that it could create a much larger group of people with a vested interest in pursuing a technofix approach. If the geoengineering clique becomes several times larger, it will become even harder to make rational decisions about the climate.
Solutions to Climate Change Already Exist
Real, fundamental, low- to no-risk, beneficial, long-term solutions to climate change are already available. They include agroecology, reducing emissions and resource consumption, implementing hard emissions limits, investing in public transportation and liveable and workable communities, and stopping deforestation, among many many others. The problem is not that these solutions don’t work, it’s that they are incompatible with any goal or mandate for an ever-expanding economy based on the exploitation of finite natural resources. Reducing emissions provokes opposition from big oil; public transportation is curbed by car manufacturers; large-scale expansion of agroecology raises the ire of industrial agribusiness conglomerates.
For real solutions to work, the power of small farmers, communities and workers must increase in relation to that of investors and industry. The main barriers to their implementation are the polluting industries and their investors. A quick way to check the credibility and goodwill of any geoengineering proponent is to examine how much real effort they have put into advocating for real solutions to climate change – and to look at where their money is coming from.
Governance and Weaponization
One of the major problems with geoengineering is that large-scale projects can create winners and losers. If geoengineering schemes were implemented, some regions of the globe might see improved conditions, while other regions would see disastrous changes in rainfall or see their rivers dry up. Who decides what scheme is used and how it is implemented?
Certain geoengineering enthusiasts have hinted that geoengineering schemes could move forward with only a few superpowers on board, and that a global consensus would not be necessary. Will powerful countries attempt to ensure that the ill effects of geoengineering fall overseas? Anticipating the difficulty of a global decision on geoengineering governance, geoengineers have already said they do not need the consent of every country that will be affected.
Concern about unequal impacts raises a larger question: what’s to stop those who control geoengineering schemes from using them as a means of geopolitical manipulation and control –in other words, climate warfare? This is not without precedent: The United States has used cloud seeding as a weapon. Its government tried to extend the monsoon season in North Vietnam from 1967-72, and attempted to dry up Cuba’s sugar crop in 1969. What would stop this from happening again, on much larger scale?
But what, you may be asking, about chemtrails? Read our take here.
Recent Posts
Don’t Geoengineer Africa! African civil society mobilising against new threats to Mother Earth
Arctic ice management and other marine geoengineering projects should remain science fiction
Carbon market-driven experiments in the open ocean endanger the marine environment
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter
Geoengineering Monitor is a joint project of Biofuelwatch and ETC Group, with support from Heinrich Boell Foundation.
Transcribe Video to Text
https://restream.io/tools/transcribe-video-to-text
Fonte video:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/brTHkhphAfZru6iS/
We do love to talk about our weather, don't we? Now I'd like to talk about the state of the skies over the UK on Saturday. This weekend, the forecast was, apparently supposed to be glorious sunshine, and it was to a degree. But by Saturday afternoon, the UK sky looked as if someone had been particularly industrious with a bottle of Tipp Ex. I saw it with my own eyes, and I know it's neither normal or healthy.
Our sky was a whitened out toxic mess. I have received pictures from people in Scotland, Ireland, Wales, parts of the UK, including Cornwall, Wiltshire, and Kent. They told the same story, that of an enhanced and whitened sky with extensive crisscrossing that many people understand to be geoengineering. Now I appreciate that this topic that this topic rather is a tricky one. Geoengineering, the manipulation of our weather, is one of those subjects that people are ridiculed for talking about.
I've heard it all and for over a decade, I have interviewed many people to better inform myself on the subject. I've talked with pilots who say there is no such thing as chemtrails. They say they are contrails, which is the exhaust fumes that form from aircraft and leave trails in the sky. I've also talked with insiders and researchers who point me to known literature on the subject, including one acknowledged historic experiment with UK Geoengineering in the 19 fifties and which was documented in a BBC play or its radio 4 program, actually. It took place in Lynmouth, a village in Devon in 1952.
It was alleged that a rain making experiment aka geoengineering had taken place and was ultimately to blame for a landslide that killed 30 people on 15th August 1952. What we do know for fact is classified government files eventually released to the public confirm that these experiments did indeed take place. But it's not as if the British government is trying to hide it. Geo engineering is all over the government website. In 2010 the British government admitted to geoengineering data when it set out to both define and to regulate geoengineering in accord with framework laid down by the UN and in line with the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, the 2010 report recommended in quotes that the government review its policy on geoengineering to give it greater priority.
Then we should not forget the document from the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy about greenhouse gas removal aka Geoengineering. This clearly sets out the UK government's position on what can be done to counteract man made climate change in line with the Paris agreement. Now this is a subject I've long been interested in, and there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that our skies have indeed changed and in formation all across the UK at the same time. If it was simply contrails e. G.
The expected emissions from a plane, it would happen daily, but it does not. We have every right to ask questions about what is happening in our skies, and we have every right to receive straightforward answers. A more recent freedom of information request asked about cloud seed lip seeding. This is a troubling term for the UK government and they do everything they can to avoid discussion about it. This leads them into areas such such as aerosol spraying and wider agendas.
But the fact is, no matter what skeptics say, something has changed. People need to be looking up and asking what it is. We need to be able to ask questions and debate it without fear of be being called a conspiracy theorist for a subject that is long past its sell by date to be to be discussed. We will be tackling this topic topic rather in more depth as we move forward.
ITALIANO
Ci piace parlare del nostro tempo, vero? Ora vorrei parlare dello stato dei cieli nel Regno Unito sabato. Questo fine settimana, a quanto pare, le previsioni prevedevano un sole splendente, e in una certa misura lo è stato. Ma sabato pomeriggio, nel cielo del Regno Unito sembrava che qualcuno fosse stato particolarmente industrioso con una bottiglia di Tipp Ex. L'ho visto con i miei occhi e so che non è né normale né salutare.
Il nostro cielo era un pasticcio tossico sbiancato. Ho ricevuto foto da persone in Scozia, Irlanda, Galles, parti del Regno Unito, tra cui Cornovaglia, Wiltshire e Kent. Raccontavano la stessa storia, quella di un cielo migliorato e sbiancato con estesi incroci che molte persone interpretano come geoingegneria. Ora apprezzo che questo argomento, anzi questo argomento, sia complicato. La geoingegneria, la manipolazione del nostro clima, è uno di quegli argomenti di cui le persone vengono ridicolizzate quando parlano.
Ho sentito di tutto e per oltre un decennio ho intervistato molte persone per informarmi meglio sull'argomento. Ho parlato con i piloti che dicono che non esistono le scie chimiche. Dicono che siano scie di condensazione, cioè i fumi di scarico che si formano dagli aerei e lasciano scie nel cielo. Ho anche parlato con addetti ai lavori e ricercatori che mi hanno indirizzato alla letteratura conosciuta sull'argomento, incluso un esperimento storico riconosciuto con la geoingegneria britannica negli anni '50 e che è stato documentato in una commedia della BBC o nel suo programma su Radio 4, in realtà. È avvenuto a Lynmouth, un villaggio nel Devon nel 1952.
Si sosteneva che avesse avuto luogo un esperimento sulla produzione della pioggia, noto anche come geoingegneria, e che alla fine fu responsabile di una frana che uccise 30 persone il 15 agosto 1952. Ciò che sappiamo per fatto è che i file governativi riservati alla fine rilasciati al pubblico confermano che questi esperimenti hanno avuto luogo. infatti hanno luogo. Ma non è che il governo britannico stia cercando di nasconderlo. La geoingegneria è ovunque sul sito web del governo. Nel 2010 il governo britannico ha ammesso i dati della geoingegneria quando ha deciso di definire e regolamentare la geoingegneria in accordo con il quadro stabilito dalle Nazioni Unite e in linea con gli obiettivi di sviluppo sostenibile del 2030. politica sulla geoingegneria per darle maggiore priorità.
Poi non dovremmo dimenticare il documento del Dipartimento per l'energia aziendale e la strategia industriale sulla rimozione dei gas serra, ovvero la geoingegneria. Ciò definisce chiaramente la posizione del governo britannico su cosa si può fare per contrastare il cambiamento climatico provocato dall'uomo, in linea con l'accordo di Parigi. Ora, questo è un argomento che mi interessa da tempo, e ci sono molte prove che suggeriscono che i nostri cieli sono effettivamente cambiati e si stanno formando in tutto il Regno Unito allo stesso tempo. Se fossero semplicemente scie di condensazione e. G.
Le emissioni previste da un aereo si verificherebbero quotidianamente, ma non è così. Abbiamo tutto il diritto di porre domande su ciò che sta accadendo nei nostri cieli e abbiamo tutto il diritto di ricevere risposte semplici. Una richiesta più recente sulla libertà di informazione ha chiesto informazioni sulla semina delle labbra dei semi di nuvole. Questo è un termine preoccupante per il governo del Regno Unito e fa tutto il possibile per evitare discussioni al riguardo. Ciò li porta ad aree come la spruzzatura di aerosol e programmi più ampi.
Ma il fatto è che, qualunque cosa dicano gli scettici, qualcosa è cambiato. Le persone devono alzare lo sguardo e chiedersi di cosa si tratta. Dobbiamo essere in grado di porre domande e discuterne senza paura di essere chiamati teorici della cospirazione per un argomento che è ormai superato da tempo la data di scadenza per essere discusso. Affronteremo questo argomento in modo più approfondito man mano che andremo avanti.
