1

‘We’re Destroying Our Life-Support Systems’: Study Suggests the Amazon Now Contributes to Warming

By Jessica Corbett | Common Dreams

While recent research has raised the alarm that tropical forests including the Amazon could soon stop serving as carbon sinks, a first-of-its-kind study from 30 experts that takes into account other greenhouse gases suggests the world’s largest rainforest may already be contributing to the warming of the planet.

The new analysis, published Thursday in the journal Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, considers not only carbon dioxide (CO2) and its impact on the global climate but also that of methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), black carbon, biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs), aerosols, evapotranspiration, and albedo.

“What the authors do that’s important is to expand the conversation beyond carbon dioxide, which is what 90% of public conversation is centered around,” Patrick Megonigal, associate director of research at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, told National Geographic.

“CO2 is not a lone actor,” added Megonigal, who was cited in but not involved with the research, which was funded by the National Geographic Society. “When you consider the whole cast of other characters, the outlook in the Amazon is that the impacts of human activities will be worse than we realize.”

As 15-year-old climate activist Alexandria Villaseñor put it in a tweet about the study: “We’re destroying our life-support systems. We’re running out of time.”

The study notes that “after a transient period of reduced deforestation and increased optimism, rising agricultural conversion and illegal logging activities are again accelerating Amazonian forest loss. This resurgence has renewed concerns that the region is rapidly approaching a catastrophic ‘tipping point.'”

Data from the Rainforest Foundation Norway revealed Monday that human activities have destroyed 34% of old-growth tropical rainforests and degraded 30% worldwide. Over half of that destruction since 2002 has been in the Amazon and neighboring South American rainforests. Under Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro—whose country is home to the majority of the Amazon—deforestation hit a 12-year high in 2020.

“Cutting the forest is interfering with its carbon uptake; that’s a problem,” Kristofer Covey, lead author of the new study and a professor of environmental studies at Skidmore College, told National Geographic. “But when you start to look at these other factors alongside CO2, it gets really hard to see how the net effect isn’t that the Amazon as a whole is really warming global climate.”

The study says that despite some uncertainty, “we conclude that current warming from non-CO2 agents (especially CH4 and N2O) in the Amazon Basin largely offsets—and most likely exceeds—the climate service provided by atmospheric CO2 uptake. We also find that the majority of anthropogenic impacts act to increase the radiative forcing potential of the basin.”

“Given the large contribution of less-recognized agents,” the paper continues—noting that Amazonian trees alone emit about 3.5% of all global CH4—focusing strictly on carbon uptake and storage “is incompatible with genuine efforts to understand and manage the biogeochemistry of climate in a rapidly changing Amazon Basin.”

Covey and his colleagues told National Geographic that reversing the damage that’s already been done will require halting emissions from fossil fuels around the world and rein in Amazon deforestation, “along with reducing dam building and increasing efforts to replant trees.”

The Amazon is among the most biodiverse places on the planet. The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the importance of conserving and restoring rainforests not only because of the climate emergency but also to prevent future zoonotic disease outbreaks.

As the pandemic—officially declared a year ago Thursday—has killed more than 2.6 million people and sickened over 119 million worldwide, experts from across the globe have repeatedly called on humanity to heal its “broken relationship with nature.”




Humanity Is Waging War on Nature

By Climate Nexus | The Defender

A pair of United Nations (UN) reports released Wednesday detail the dire state of the planet’s heating caused by the chasm between expected fossil fuel use and the dramatic reductions needed to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.

2020 is set to be the third-warmest year since the industrial revolution, just behind 2016 and 2019, according to the “State of the Global Climate” report released by the UN World Meteorological Office (WMO) and other UN agencies. Global temperatures are expected to average 1.2°C above the pre-industrial baseline, with a 20% chance of hitting the critical 1.5°C thresholds outlined in the Paris Agreement by 2024.

The WMO warnings are heightened by the parallel “Production Gap” report, released by the UN Environment Program and four NGOs, finding that instead of cutting fossil fuel extraction by 6% per year over the next decade, countries are planning to increase extraction by 2% annually.

“Humanity is waging war on nature. This is suicidal,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in an address on the release of the WMO report. “Nature always strikes back — and it is already doing so with growing force and fury.”

Published with permission from Climate Nexus.




Affordable Ways to Live Sustainably

With global warming increasingly becoming an alarming issue, it is time to make drastic changes to our lifestyles. This may seem like a difficult and expensive task, but it doesn’t have to be. There are many ways to bring sustainability into your life without breaking your budget — in fact, it can even help you save money.

From breaking bad habits around the house to making upgrades in your home, you can live guilt-free and keep your newly saved dollar bills while making a positive impact on the environment.

Waste Not

If you’re looking for an easy place to start, head to your kitchen. Whether or not you’ve already begun a personal boycott against plastic silverware and paper plates, look around and count the disposable items around the area. Maybe you can replace Ziploc bags and plastic containers with Mason jars, which can have many surprising uses. For example, you can use them as to-go containers or make them into DIY air fresheners.

Composting is the future of recycling. As more cities across the US fund programs to promote the practice of transforming leftovers into nutrient-rich soil, it is easier than ever to get started. More and more cities are gifting their residents with composting bins to accompany their trash and recycling bins, complete with curbside service. Even if your city is not quite there yet, you can still learn to compost at home.

To take it a step further, replace any disposable products in the kitchen with compostable ones. This can combine the convenience of plastic forks and cups with the responsibility of taking care of the environment.

Related Article: HomeBiogas Device Turns Food Waste Into Clean Cooking Fuel And Nutrient-Rich Fertilizer

Options for Tiny Homes

Tiny homes are a trending way to limit your environmental footprint. Many have been able to live comfortably in functional and stylish tiny homes. This solution is great for those looking to downsize and aren’t bothered by a little less elbow room. Some sellers, like City Design Inc, even sell their these small homes on Etsy. Their smallest model costs less than $20,000 and includes a bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and living space in 180 square feet.

Compared to a small house, this home could save most people hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, that may still be too expensive for some, as the home will require land to stay on, and those building their own tiny home will have to navigate building regulations. If you’re looking live sustainably while avoiding these potential issues, living in an RV might be right for you.

Related Article: Tiny House Must-See – Couple Converts a School Bus So Well You Won’t Believe It’s a Bus

Affordable Solar Power

A staple in sustainable living, solar power may be what your mind wanders to first, only to be struck down because of the cost. It’s true that converting your home to solar power can be quite an investment, but before you turn away from this alternative source of energy, you may want to look into the available options that can make this change an affordable one.

Funding this endeavor should be the first thing you look into, and grants, rebates, and tax refunds should make up a huge part of your research, which can save you thousands of dollars. Though initially this might take more money upfront, you can also rest assured knowing that your electricity bill payments won’t fund anti-clean energy bills. Reports have found a portion of utility profits help fund companies that, among other things, promote fracking and spread misinformation about climate change.

Though sometimes it seems like we are only getting further from our goal of practicing kindness to our planet, there are many ways to do your part. Whether you start composting, move into a tiny home, or upgrade your energy source, every small victory in sustainable living is a victory for the planet.

Related Article: This Portable, Off-Grid Solar System Is Powerful Enough to Be Your Emergency Back Up

About the Author

Brooke Faulkner is a green-souled writer from the pacific northwest. If pressed, she’ll tell you that her green soul is made up of ferns, recycled goods, and a love of the “shop local” movement. When she’s not writing, she can usually be found gallivanting around the woods behind her house. To read more of her work, follow @faulknercreek.




What’s the Difference Between Global Warming and Climate Change?

By Mark Mancini | EcoWatch

On Aug. 18, Iceland held a funeral for the first glacier lost to climate change. The deceased party was Okjökull, a historic body of ice that covered 14.6 square miles (38 square kilometers) in the Icelandic Highlands at the turn of the 20th century. But its glory days are long gone. In 2014, having dwindled to less than 1/15 its former size, Okjökull lost its status as an official glacier.

A plaque was later commissioned to honor the vanishing landmark. At the somber installation ceremony, around 100 people gathered to pay their respects, including hikers, scientists and Iceland’s Prime Minister, Katrín Jakobsdóttir. Speaking to the press, Jakobsdóttir warned that if current trends continue, her country stands to lose even more of its iconic glaciers in the near future.

The evidence is overwhelming: Greenhouse gas emissions (and other human activities) are radically transforming the planet on which we live. As a result, California’s wildfire season is getting longer; thawing permafrost has destabilized Russian infrastructure; and yes, most of the world’s glaciers are swiftly retreating.

With public concern on the rise, two relevant terms have entered the lexicon: “Climate change” and “global warming.” These are often treated as synonyms, but they have different meanings.

Climate and Weather

Before proceeding further, there’s another bit of terminology that we probably should clear up. The difference between climate and weather. Weather is the short-term state of the atmosphere in a specific corner of the world. Humidity, temperature, wind speed, atmospheric pressure, and visibility are all factors that help dictate the weather at a particular moment in time.

In other words, the weather doesn’t last very long. It unfolds over the course of days, hours or even minutes. Therefore, it’s liable to change quickly — which is why so many of us yearn for constant updates. Whenever you ask if your hometown is “supposed to get any rain” on a given day, you’re inquiring about the weather.

Don’t confuse weather with climate. The latter is far broader in scope. Basically, climate reflects an area’s long-term weather averages and trends. Those are often established by decades (at least) of meticulous observation. Given the difference in scale, it makes sense that the climate is much slower to change than the weather.

And yet changes do occur. Averaged together, all the world’s regional climates form what scientists know as the “global climate.” This is liable to evolve and fluctuate over time — as are its regional components.

So far, 2018 is the fourth hottest year on record. Higher than normal temperatures are shown in red and lower than normal temperatures are shown in blue. Ralf Goebel / GEMA 

Times Change

Ok, so what exactly does the term “climate change” mean? By the broadest definition, climate change includes any and all long-term fluctuations in one or more climate-related variables — such as average rainfall — within the same location.

Note that this applies to both regional climates and the global climate itself. So let’s say northern Europe saw a dramatic spike in rainstorms and the trend continued for decades on end. That hypothetical scenario would count as an example of regional climate change, no matter what happened elsewhere in the world.

On the other hand, global warming is — well, global. More to the point, the term refers to an increase in a planet’s average surface temperature. And here on Earth, that’s definitely been climbing.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that between the years 1880 and 2016, our home planet’s average surface temperatures increased to the tune of 1.71 degrees Fahrenheit (0.95 degrees Celsius).

Mind you, this is nothing to sneeze at. A planet-wide temperature shift of only a few degrees can have enormous ramifications. Fifteen thousand years ago, in a geologically-recent ice age, our world was only about 9 degrees Fahrenheit cooler (5 degrees Celsius) than it is today. And yet, that temperature was enough to keep almost a third of the planet’s surface blanketed in ice.

Ah, but we’re getting off-track. The main takeaway here is that global warming is a form of climate change — but climate change doesn’t always manifest itself as global warming.

An Unprecedented Problem

Strange as it may sound, the recent warming caused by our greenhouse gas emissions may be provoking an increase in both flooding and droughts. While certain areas across the globe now receive enhanced precipitation, soils in some dryer parts of the world stand to lose a great deal of moisture.

To learn more, we reached out to Dr. Nathan Steiger. An atmospheric scientist at Columbia University, Steiger studies the effects that variations in climate have had — and still have — on human civilizations.

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE…




Leaked UN Draft Report Warns Rising, Warming Oceans ‘Poised to Unleash Misery’ Worldwide

By Jessica Corbett | Common Dreams

A draft United Nations report warns “the same oceans that nourished human evolution are poised to unleash misery on a global scale unless the carbon pollution destabilizing Earth’s marine environment is brought to heel,” according to Agence France-Presse, which exclusively reported on the 900-page scientific assessment Thursday.

The forthcoming report from a U.N. body that assesses science related to the human-caused planetary emergency is due to be released to the public Sep. 25, after diplomats and experts, meet in Monaco to approve the final Summary for Policymakers.

AFP, which obtained a draft of the U.N. assessment, reported:

Destructive changes already set in motion could see a steady decline in fish stocks, a hundred-fold or more increase in the damages caused by superstorms, and hundreds of millions of people displaced by rising seas, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “special report” on oceans and Earth’s frozen zones, known as the cryosphere.

As the 21st century unfolds, melting glaciers will first give too much and then too little to billions who depend on them for freshwater, it finds.

Without deep cuts to manmade emissions, at least 30 percent of the northern hemisphere’s surface permafrost could melt by century’s end, unleashing billions of tonnes of carbon and accelerating global warming even more.

The Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate will follow the IPCC’s recent reports about what the world would look like with 1.5°C of warming above pre-industrial levels—the lower target of the global Paris climate agreement—and the need for transformative changes to land use to address both planetary heating and hunger.

In a statement earlier this year, Debra Roberts, co-chair of IPCC Working Group II—which focuses on the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to the climate crisis—noted that the U.N. body’s October report showed the broad benefits to people and natural ecosystems of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

“The Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate takes this story one step further by evaluating how human and natural communities with being affected by the impacts of climate change on two earth systems that touch all of our lives directly or indirectly, the ocean and the frozen areas of the world,” Roberts said. “It also assesses how we can set the course for a more sustainable and equitable future by reducing or better managing this impact.”

While those working on the IPCC’s ocean report aim to provide the international community with yet another tool to help avert the most catastrophic potential consequences of rising temperatures, AFP pointed out that the crucial advice for policymakers will be released “too late to be considered by world leaders gathering two days earlier for a summit convened by U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to extract stronger national commitments in confronting the climate crisis.”

When it comes to the September summit, which is focused on the key goals of the Paris accord, AFP reported that “Guterres may be disappointed by what the world’s major greenhouse gas emitters put on the table, according to experts tracking climate politics in China, the United States, the European Union, and India.”

“The Big Four—accounting for nearly 60 percent of global fossil fuel-based emissions—all face the devastating ocean- and ice-related impacts, but none seem prepared just announce more ambitious goals for purging carbon from their economies,” AFPcontinued, detailing some of those impacts based on the IPCC draft.

By 2050, many low-lying megacities and small island nations will experience “extreme sea-level events” every year, even under the most optimistic emissions reduction scenarios, the report concludes.

By 2100, “annual flood damages are expected to increase by two to three orders of magnitude,” or 100 to 1,000 fold, the draft summary for policymakers says.

Even if the world manages to cap global warming at 2°C, the global ocean waterline will rise enough to displace more than a quarter of a billion people.

Experts are divided on the anticipated timeline for such mass displacement due to sea-level rise. However, Ben Strauss, CEO and chief scientist of the U.S.-based research group Climate Central, told AFP that “even if the number is 100 or 50 million by 2100, that’s still a major disruption and a lot of human misery.”

Strauss, whose research informs some of the IPCC report’s conclusions, added that “if we warm the planet by 2°C by 2100 we will only be at the beginning of a runaway train ride of sea-level rise.”

In an op-ed published Thursday by Reuters, Greenpeace International executive director Jennifer Morgan declared that “tackling the climate emergency and protecting our oceans go hand-in-hand,” noting that “the oceans naturally take in huge amounts of carbon dioxide and are a key defense against the worsening impacts of climate change.

Morgan called on world leaders attending the U.N. summit in September to “commit to adopting a strong Global Ocean Treaty in 2020.” She wrote:

The scope of this new global agreement could be huge: almost half of the planet. The High Seas, oceans beyond borders, cover more space on our planet than all continents combined. Sadly, today these international waters are being ruthlessly exploited. In addition to climate change, pressures from overfishing, deep-sea mining exploration, oil drilling, and plastic pollution are pushing our oceans to the verge of collapse. Only around 1 percent of the global seas are properly protected. There is no effective legal instrument that allows the creation of ocean sanctuaries—areas off-limits to harmful human activities—on international waters.

“Scientists are clear that we need to protect at least 30 percent of our global oceans by 2030 if we are to safeguard wildlife and to help mitigate the impacts of climate change,” Morgan added. “But that will only happen if an ambitious ocean treaty is adopted fast and opens the door to creating effective ocean sanctuaries in international waters.”

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Read more great articles at Common Dreams.




‘What Could Be More Important?’: World Leaders, Media Ignore Biodiversity Report Detailing Mass Extinction Event Now Underway

Scientists at the UN’s Intergovernmental Science‑Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) released a study showing that a million species are at risk for extinction earlier this month—but the report was largely ignored by the corporate news media. (Photo: Danny Perez Photography/flickr/cc)

By Julia Conley | Common Dreams

Scientists at the United Nations’ intergovernmental body focusing on biodiversity sounded alarms earlier this month with its report on the looming potential extinction of one million species—but few heard their calls, according to a German newspaper report.

Deutsche Welle reported Thursday that partially because the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) released its report on what it called nature’s “unprecedented” decline on the same day that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex had their first child, news reports on the study’s grave implications were few and far between.

While some international and progressive outlets—including Common Dreams—published high-profile stories on the report when it was released, just two of Britain’s national newspapers included any reporting about biodiversity on their front pages on May 7, the day after the royal baby was born to Meghan Markle and Prince Harry.

Deutsche Welle’s report was mirrored by revelations in a Media Matters report published earlier this week which showed that ABC News devoted more time to covering the royal baby’s birth in the week after the child was born than it had to stories about the climate crisis in all of 2018—even as organizers like 16-year-old Greta Thunberg led worldwide climate strikes.

“Where [is] the breaking news?” tweeted Thunberg the day after IPBES released its report. “The extra news broadcasts? The front pages? Where are the emergency meetings? The crisis summits? What could be more important?”

IPBES’s report detailed how “The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever,” the panel’s chairman, Sir Robert Watson said in a statement.

By rapidly expanding livestock and crop production, degrading land, concentrating activity in urban areas at more than double the rate than two decades ago, and increasing pollution by tenfold since 1980, humans are “eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide,” Watson said.

“If we continue to lose biodiversity, if we continue to fragment our ecosystems, then human well-being will indeed suffer. This is something the average American should care about.” —Sir Robert Watson, IPBES

In addition to the potential loss of one million species, the biodiversity crisis carries substantial risks for world economies, food security, and the spread of disease, scientists warn.

The report calls on policymakers to take immediate concrete action to protect nature by promoting sustainable agricultural practices, inclusive and equitable water management, renewable energy sources and other reforms.

On Wednesday, Democrats in the U.S. House attempted to call attention to the ecological crisis which is causing the rapid loss of life among millions of species, with a House Natural Resources Subcommittee holding a hearing on the issue, including testimony from Watson and other IPBES officials.

Biodiversity, Watson told the subcommittee, “is the substance behind food security, water security, it does control our climate in part, it does control pollination, it does control storm surges. These are things that affect everyday Americans. If we continue to lose biodiversity, if we continue to fragment our ecosystems, then human well-being will indeed suffer.”

“This is something the average American should care about,” he added.

But as The Guardian reported, lawmakers at the hearing also heard from climate science deniers who had been invited to testify by Republican committee members, diluting the urgency of IPBES’s message.

Scientists have published more than 20,000 articles in 45 languages on the subject of biodiversity loss in recent years, Deutsche Welle reported.

Without the media reporting on and lawmakers expressing the urgency of the biodiversity crisis, the public has found little reason to become interested in the issue. The same day most news outlets devoted their coverage to the royal baby, Google searches for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle outnumbered those for biodiversity by 14 and 31 to one, respectively.

Deutsche Welle reported that while politicians and the news media have slightly increased the attention they’ve given to the climate crisis recently, under pressure from campaigners, the same consideration has not been given to biodiversity.

“Nature’s unprecedented decline, which has quietly sped up, is, in isolation, less dramatic than extreme weather events brought by global warmings—such as flash floods and wildfires. Its contributions to humans are also hard to grasp,” reported Ajit Niranjan in the newspaper. “An obscure earthworm may form part of an ecosystem that keeps soil fertile and helps put food on our plates. But its death rarely stirs hearts the way a polar bear on melting ice does.”

With its latest report, IPBES aimed to change that perception.

“One of the great things about the report is that it highlights…the different ways we value nature,” environmental scientist Kathryn Williams told the outlet. “Not just tangible ways like food and clean air, but also the ways that we relate on a more emotional level.”

Read more great articles at Common Dreams.




Former Military Meteorologist Admits Military Aircraft Spray Aluminum Into The Atmosphere

By Isabelle Z. | Natural News

(Natural News) It’s getting harder to convince people that chemtrails are merely a conspiracy theory when even meteorologists are discussing geoengineering on TV while giving their forecasts.

Geoengineering entails spraying materials like aluminum, barium, strontium and plastics into the atmosphere on the pretense of protecting the planet from global warming. A few years ago, if you questioned the white lines streaking across the sky and theorized they were chemicals, you would be mocked; now, you are expected to believe that injecting aerosols into the atmosphere can save the planet.

Even meteorologists are openly admitting that this takes place, with one saying in a West Coast weather report on a station only identified as News 10 that can be viewed on YouTube:

Then you see these bands of very distinct cloud cover moving into the region. That is not rain, that is not snow. Believe it or not, military aircraft flying through the region was dropping chaff – small bits of aluminum. Sometimes it’s made of plastic or even metallicized paper products, but it’s used as an anti-radar issue and obviously they’re practicing.

He added: “Now they won’t confirm that, but I was in the Marine Corps for many years and I’ll tell you right now, that’s what it is.”

In another video from Florida, a meteorologist points to a large area of blue on the map and says: “That’s what we call military chaff, and the military releases some things in the atmosphere… I know.”

Yet another video shows a Southern California meteorologist saying that chaff has been sprayed over the area and is interfering with their satellite data.

What is floating around in the air we breathe?

What is most striking is how the meteorologists talk about it so casually, as if it were the most natural thing in the world. High exposure to aluminum can cause problems in the digestive system, bones, kidneys and muscles, and it has been linked to Alzheimer’s disease and other brain-related problems – hardly the sort of thing you want floating around in the air that you breathe on a daily basis.

Solar geoengineering could create more problems than it solves

Little by little, we are being encouraged to believe that this is something that is actually good for us, and perhaps these nonchalant mentions of it are meant to allay people’s fears about geoengineering.

However, spraying sulfur dioxide into our atmosphere it is not the panacea for the planet’s problems that some claim it to be, as you might expect. A panel of the National Academy of Sciences reported last week that solar geoengineering simply cannot be considered a substitute for reducing greenhouse gas emissions because it doesn’t address the root causes of climate disruption and won’t counteract acidification of the oceans.

Moreover, once it starts, it will have to continue for centuries or it could have serious repercussions for life on our planet and possibly even collapse the Amazon rainforest and drive some species toward extinction. Moreover, an international body would have to oversee it to make sure it is adhered to because abruptly stopping it would be devastating to life as we know it.

Read Geoengineering.news for more coverage of geoengineering activities.

Sources for this article include:

WakingTimes.com

USAToday.com

YouTube.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Read more great articles at Natural News.




Australian Research Study Suggests Global Warming Is Almost Completely Natural and CO2 Is Not the Cause

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

By Bob Yirka | Phys.org

Australian biologist Jennifer Marohasy and computer scientist John Abbot have published a paper in the journal GeoResJ outlining their study of climate change using neural network technology—their results show that the climate changes the world is now experiencing are almost completely natural. Marohasy offers an additional explanation and outline of their work on her blog. Also, alt-right news site Breitbart offers a take on the work.

Most scientists around the world have reached a consensus on global warming—it is happening, and it is happening because humans have ejected so much CO2 into the atmosphere. But Marohasy and Abbot claim that this consensus is built on a faulty base, one decided upon almost a century ago, when work was done to learn about the heat absorption potential of carbon dioxide. They suggest further that so little work has been done since that time applying the principles globally that it is impossible to prove that carbon dioxide has the ability to impact world temperatures. For that reason, they began collecting data from prior studies that offered a means of temperature reading over the past 2000 years—tree rings, coral cores etc. They fed that data into a  that Abbot has been using to predict rainfall patterns in Australia for the past several years. The network functions by looking at patterns and learning about given situations—in this case,  patterns over the course of 2000 years, and then offers predictions.

The researchers report that the computer predicted temperatures rising in roughly the same way as they have based on real-world measures—in the absence of added carbon dioxide—which suggests that carbon dioxide is not the cause. They also note that there was a time known as the Medieval Warm Period that ran from approximately 986 to 1234, when temperatures were roughly equal to those today. This, the two researchers suggest, offers evidence that the planet would have heated to the degree it has regardless of whether humans pumped  into the atmosphere for a hundred years or not. They note that their results also showed global temperature averages declining after 1980, which coincides with the slowdown noted by other mainstream scientists, but not fully explained. They suggest the warming we are now experiencing is mostly naturally occurring and that it will likely abate just as it has done in the past.

Read more great articles at Phys.org




Global Warming Bombshell: Temperature Data Altered – Systematic Science Fraud Exposed

Video Source: TheHealthRanger

(Natural News) A rational review of global warming data has unveiled systematic scientific fraud to alter temperature data in support of the global warming false narrative. This is the largest discovery of scientific fraud in the history of science, and it shows that “global warming” and “climate change” are elaborate science hoaxes rooted in fraud, not fact.

The purpose of the widespread fraud has been to achieve “consensus” by exposing scientists to fake data that appear to show a catastrophic rise in average global temperatures. It’s all being done to support the moneymaking scam of carbon taxes that enrich fraudulent science hoaxers like Al Gore who are raking in billions of dollars from carbon tax schemes and oppressive government regulation of carbon emissions.

The fraudulent warming data are then used as a basis for climate modeling software systems that extrapolate the fraudulent data to predict “climate doomsday” for the planet. This is where delusional scientists like Stephen Hawking lose their minds and claim that Earth will be transformed into Venus with temperatures over 800 degrees (F) and sulfuric acid rain. In truth, humanity couldn’t achieve such large-scale terraforming outcomes even if we tried.

The entire climate change / global warming narrative is an elaborate science hoax that’s being continually faked through the ongoing, systematic alteration of temperature data in order to “conform” with the false narrative. Many scientists are deliberately participating in the fraud, knowingly working to alter temperature data in order to prop up their delusional narratives that collapse under the slightest scrutiny. This is why all rational skepticism about climate change is shamed and silenced: Because the fake science narrative cannot withstand scientific scrutiny. Thus, its proponents declare “the science is settled,” meaning no discussion or dissent shall be allowed (because if it were, the fraud would be quickly exposed).

This is how “science” got hijacked by climate change cultists who share more in common with dogmatic, tyrannical CULTS than anything that could be honestly labeled “science.”




Brand New Elite Whistleblower Smashes Global Warming Science

By Jon Rappoport | Activist Post

Awarded climate medal by Obama—now he finds enormous fraud and exposes it.

Memo to President Trump and Steve Bannon: Here it is. Set the table, put the napkins in your lap and feast on this revelation.

A highly respected, medal-winning climate scientist just wound up and threw a giant monkey wrench into global warming science.

His name? John Bates. His target? A recent fraudulent study that claimed the uncomfortable “pause” in warming was really no pause at all. That study, pretending warming had never stopped, was timed to help negotiating nations at the Climate Summit in Paris. It was timed to help them enact draconian economic measures to reduce warming.

But, Bates reveals, that study was cooked on several counts. It was such a mess no self-respecting scientist would sign on to it. However, scientists did sign on to it. And a prestigious journal, Science, published it. Apparently, the brains at Science were on vacation. Or they were determined to play ball and assist the Globalist plan to drastically reduce CO2-producing energy production in nations across the globe, thus escalating poverty, in order to “save us” all from frying.

Related Article: Rising CO2 Levels Are Making The Earth Greener, Says New Scientific Study

Here are choice quotes from David Rose’s exclusive Daily Mail article that exposes the far-reaching deception:

“The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.”

“A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed [fraudulent] report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.”

“The [fraudulent] report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.”

“But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.”

“It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.”

“His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the [fraudulent] Pausebuster paper.”

“His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.”

“In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation…in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.”

“Both datasets [used in the fraudulent study] were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.”

“The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.”

“The paper [fraudulent study] relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.”

“None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.”

“Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.”

“Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.”

“The [fraudulent] paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’, the document said the widely reported [warming] ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.”

“But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.”

“Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer’.”

“Moreover, the…software [used in the fraudulent study] was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results.”

“Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure’.”

“The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the [fraudulent] Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.”


Get it? Fraud all the way along the line. And a cover-up, to make an examination of the fraud-details impossible.

The perfect worst-case scenario.

Can we now, at last, have a few criminal indictments?

Even a prosecuting attorney fresh out of law school, wet behind the ears, with zero courtroom experience, would be able to secure a proper verdict.

Guilty on all counts.

Guilty of fraud, and aiding and abetting a far-reaching scheme to reduce energy production in America (and other nations), on the premise that warming is rising and must be stopped.

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, imagine this. The powers-that-be want to cut the production of energy in this country. Anyone can see the result of such a plan. We all become strapped. We all become poorer. But we’re told this is necessary to save us from the destruction of life on Earth. We’re told we have to go along with the plan, because producing energy releases carbon dioxide, which in turn keeps raising the temperature of the planet. Recently, a key scientific study was published, and this study bolsters the whole idea that global warming is on the rise. But a key expert insider will show that this study was false and a fraud and a lie, and the people who wrote it are guilty of deceiving you and me and everyone. Find these people guilty, once and for all, and send them to prison, where they belong…”

Related Article: Activists Talk Chemtrails at Climate Change Conference

I could try this case in court. You could try this case in court. Three guys in a bar could try this case. And win.

Are you ready, Mr. Trump? Send out the hounds from the Department of Justice and put these liars under arrest.

And let’s see their trial in open court, every minute of it, on camera, on television, online.

Let’s see it in New York and Chicago and Los Angeles and Toronto and London and Paris and Rome and Kabul and Tehran and Sydney and Tokyo and Rio and Durban and Nuuk and Tierra del Fuego…

At long last, put official science and its enablers in the dock.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, andPOWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Read more great articles at Activist Post.




Global Warming – Obama’s Statements in Paris Ridiculous

ObamaClimateTalks-gcn

By Dr. Mark Sircus |International Medical Veritas  Association

The headlines read at Reuters, ‘Who’s the dumb one? Obama reacts to Trump.’ President Barack Obama defended his remarks about the threat posed by climate change, saying Republicans, including U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump, was the “one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard in politics.”

“But, look, here’s what we know: 99.5 percent of scientists in the world say this is a really urgent problem,” Obama said. Obama was among more than 150 world leaders in Paris this week at the start of a U.N. conference, which aims to reach an agreement to curb global warming, which is something that is not happening except in the wild imaginations of certain people.

Over thirty years of intense (and extremely expensive) research has totally failed to produce any evidence that human emissions of CO2 are driving climate. CO2 is not a danger to but a benefit for all life on our planet but politicians do not see it that way.

In today’s world, science is created out of thin air just by saying something. Obama does not know what he is talking about when he says 99.5 percent of scientists in the world say this is a really urgent problem. Here is a list of 169 scientists who challenge the political propaganda on global warming. In addition, here is a list 31,487 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs, who also challenge the global warming scenario.

Related Article: Global Warming? No, Actually We’re Cooling, Claim Scientists

“It is a pack of lies, a word-salad of delusional nonsense which if implemented spells grave danger to the world economy and a full scale assault on living standards of ordinary people in the West and the developing world and a godsend to multinationals and dodgy dictatorships and Governments the world over. It is not science but politics,” writes world-renowned weatherman Piers Corbyn.

After the climate change accord in Paris Obama said, “I believe this moment can be a turning point for the world.” The agreement, “Offers the best chance we have to save the one planet we have.” That sounds strange coming from a president that has done everything possible to destabilize the world risking WWIII in the process.

Related Article: Internationalists Are Pushing The World Towards Globally Engineered Economic Warfare

https://youtu.be/GujLcfdovE8

For all the money and carbon spent in Paris and all the world saving wishful thinking India still plans to double coal output by 2020 and rely on the resource for decades afterwards, a senior official said on Monday, days after rich and poor countries agreed in Paris to curb carbon emissions blamed for global warming.

In addition, less than a week since signing the global climate deal in Paris, Japan and South Korea are pressing ahead with plans to open scores of new coal-fired power plants, casting doubt on the strength of their commitment to cutting CO2 emissions.

The climate is changing, as it always has done, but recently scientists are again warning that this time the change is toward radical cooling not warming. The sun is cooling, the solar winds are diminishing, sun spot activity is halting and the conveyer belts on the sun are slowing, according to NASA. According to astrophysicists, and anyone with any sense, the sun is responsible for keeping us warm, not carbon dioxide gas. Increase solar activity and it gets warmer decrease it and it gets cooler. It is easy to see that global warming fanatics are without a shred of truth on their side because they never mention or include the sun in their calculations.

Related Article: Media Matrix: An Ancient Perspective on Modern Media

Western news is an Artificial Concoction

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/14/article-2420783-1BD2956A000005DC-553_634x376.jpg

The Global warming fraud is one of the greatest examples of human madness and a world without truth and justice. In this video see what the global warming agenda is brining—a complete loss of freedom of speech.

Dr. Ulfakatte recently made an appearance on RT news: “I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years, and I was educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public. But seeing right now within the last months how the German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia — this is a point of no return and I’m going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do and have done in the past because they are bribed to betray the people, not only in Germany, all over Europe.”

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE…




Climatologist Exposes Fallacy of Consensus that Climate Change Is Entirely Caused By Mankind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8

Video Source: corbettreport

Dr. Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The above video shows the testimony she delivered to last week’s US Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate.”
Related Article: The Top 6 Climate Change Problems
Here’s a transcript of her testimony:
I thank the Chairman and the ranking members for the opportunity to offer testimony today.
Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was the responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument: “Don’t trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of a thousand scientists has said, after years of careful deliberation.” That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.
I starting speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reached conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives. The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American: Climate Heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues.
I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink. I had accepted the consensus based on 2nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy.
What have I concluded from this assessment?
Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is ‘dangerous’.
Related Article: Big Oil Faces Historic Human Rights Inquiry for ‘Complicity in Climate Change’
The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by humans versus natural climate variability. Research effort and funding has focused on understanding human causes of climate change. However we have been misled in our quest to understand climate change, by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate change, in particular from the sun and from the long-term oscillations in ocean circulations.
Why do scientists disagree about climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There is disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models. There is disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance.
How then, and why, have climate scientists come to a consensus about a very complex scientific problem that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties?
Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate that has polarized the scientific community. As a result of my analyses that challenge IPCC conclusions, I have been called a denier by other climate scientists, and most recently by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. My motives have been questioned by Representative Grijalva, in a recent letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech.
There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests.
Related Article: Big Oil Faces Historic Human Rights Inquiry for ‘Complicity in Climate Change’
In this politicized environment, advocating for CO2 emissions reductions is becoming the default, expected position for climate scientists. This advocacy extends to the professional societies that publish journals and organize conferences. Policy advocacy, combined with understating the uncertainties, risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty and objectivity – without which scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group.
I would like to thank the committee for raising the issue of data versus dogma in support of improving the integrity of climate science.
This concludes my testimony.



Project Censored #19: “Most Comprehensive” Assessment of Geoengineering Risks

By Elora West, Rob Williams, &Ian Baldwin | *

government-spraying-chemtrails

Editor’s Note: While there will come a day when we will reach a critical mass of people believing that geoengineering/chemtrails have been falling upon us for years as a grand, but deadly, experiment in biological and biochemical warfare upon citizens by their elected (but not truly “representative”) leaders. In the meantime, the media played make-believe in 2014 and 2015 and put “geoengineering” out as a potential tool to fight global warming. This article talks about the short-shrift given to the stories that shot this down as a bad idea.

A comprehensive pair of reports by dozens of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) offered “a damning critique of geoengineering,” according to Tim McDonnell of Mother Jones. Highly controversial, geoengineering refers to technological efforts to counteract global warming by altering the atmosphere’s chemical composition.

The first of the two NAS reports found that most proposals to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere—through processes such as fertilizing the ocean with iron to dissolve carbon dioxide—are too expensive to be widely implemented.76 However, as Robinson Meyer reported in Atlantic, a February 2015 University of Oxford study found that reforestation—planting trees—is among the “most promising” short-term responses to climate change.

The Academy’s second report evaluated proposals to seed the atmosphere with particles to reflect sunlight back into space, a process known as albedo modification. According to the NAS study, albedo modification is inexpensive, compared with carbon dixode removal proposals, but involves unknown risks. Implementing technologies to block solar radiation would entail “significant potential for unanticipated, unmanageable, and regrettable consequences in multiple human dimensions . . . including political, social, legal, economic, and ethical dimensions,” according to the authors of the NAS study.

[Read more here]

Originally entitled: “#19 ‘Most Comprehensive’ Assessment Yet Warns against Geoengineering Risks”

Sources:

Tim McDonnell, “Scientists Are Pretty Terrified about These Last-Minute Fixes to Global Warming,” Mother Jones, February 10, 2015, https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/02/scientists-geoengineering-climate-bad-idea.

Robinson Meyer, “The Best Technology for Fighting Climate Change? Trees,” Atlantic, February 9, 2015, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/02/the-best-technology-for-fighting-climate-change-trees/385304/.

Jeremy Schulman, “We Could Stop Global Warming With This Fix—But It’s Probably a Terrible Idea,” Mother Jones, March 27, 2015, https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/03/geoengineering-caldeira-climate-change.

 

Robert O'Leary 150x150Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products and modalities since the early 1970’s, and he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist and father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive and safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield (MA), New England and “virtually” the world, through his new website, www.romayasoundhealthandbeauty.com. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.com




Big News: Chemtrail Activist Speaks to Congress

By Patrick Roddie | Aircrap

USCapitolBuilding-15337958_m-680x380

Here’s the testimony I just presented to the EPA. It’s already available on C-SPAN if someone wants to track it down.

—————

My name’s Patrick Roddie, I’m a San Francisco-based anti-geoengineering activist who runs https://StopSprayingUs-SF.com

Today’s hearing is supposed to address whether greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft endanger public health. When you mention greenhouse gas, most people think of carbon dioxide – a trace gas essential to all life on earth.

But CO2 represents just 3% of the planet¹s greenhouse gas ­- 95% of it is water. Even preschoolers know
overcast skies make the nights warmer and days cooler. Clouds insulate, trapping heat and reducing the temperature range from the night¹s lows to the day¹s highs.

Which brings me to persistent contrails. All but the willfully ignorant know our skies have changed dramatically over the past few decades. The dark blue skies of our childhood have been replaced with a milky white haze,  criss-crossed with fast expanding persistent contrails, stretching from  horizon to horizon and spreading out to cover the sky. These trails can stretch for thousands of miles and can be seen by anyone visiting NASA.gov. These trails persist regardless of altitude, temperature, humidity or other atmospheric conditions. Persistent contrails used to be rare, but have now become an everyday phenomenon all over the world. If physics hasn’t changed, what has?

So what makes these trails form, persist for hours and stretch thousands of miles? Which condensation nuclei are they forming on and are these harmful to human health?

Geoengineers propose spraying tens of millions of tons of reflective particles into the atmosphere in an attempt to reflect sunlight back into space and reduce global warming. This is known as Solar Radiation  Management, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection or Albedo Modification. This process, patented by defense contractor Raytheon, is quite simple. Tiny particles sprayed from jets would act as condensation nuclei, attracting atmospheric water vapor to form persistent artificially nucleated contrails which would then spread out to form artificial cirrus cloud cover.

When geoengineers discuss Solar Radiation Management in public, the only substances they say they’d consider spraying are sulfates or sulfuric acid. However, their own literature concludes that sulfates have limited effectiveness and that highly toxic nano particles of aluminum and barium should be used instead. And when confronted, they doggedly refuse to address the human health impacts of their proposals. Other geoengineers are more candid about their plans to poison the sky. Stanford’s Ken Caldeira admitted in 2006 that he discussed putting pathogens in clouds to wage chemical and germ warfare on civilian populations when he worked at a government weapons lab. It’s no surprise the public doubts these scientists have their best interests at heart.

Last month I brought a paper to the Paris Climate Conference addressing the adverse human health effects of proposed geoengineering solutions. I formally request it be entered into the record. It documents the dramatic increase of Alzheimer’s and respiratory failure since the 1990s when persistent contrails became commonplace around the world. I conclude that these persistent contrails are in fact artificially nucleated with the toxic particulate metals outlined in Raytheon’s patent and that a Solar Radiation Management program has been deployed since at least the 1990s.

Weather modification research is nothing new; the earliest patent dates back to 1920. Raytheon’s patent proposes reducing global warming by injecting aluminum, thorium and other metallic oxides in the 10-100 micron range into the stratosphere using jet exhaust.

The US Navy patented another delivery method which forms artificially nucleated contrails from metal oxides with a 0.3 micron particle size. Other methods include airships, rockets, chimneys and slurry pipes.

The best known proponent of Solar Radiation Management is Dr. David Keith. He told the 2010 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that aluminum oxide has four times the volumetric radiative forcing for small particles as does sulfur and 16 times less the coagulation rate. Sulfur particles stick together and quickly fall out of the stratosphere and are much less effective per unit mass. He also said a nano fabrication study proved it was very simple to spray high quality alumina particles from a plane by injecting alumina vapor into the exhaust.

His 2010 paper, “Photophoretic levitation of engineered aerosols for geoengineering,” proposes spraying 50nm thick discs of aluminum, barium, titanium and ferrite instead of sulfates.

Pope et al also concluded aluminum nano particles were much more effective than sulfates in a 2010 perspective in Nature Climate Change.

The Material Safety Data Sheet for nano particulate aluminum oxide states it¹s an irritant to the respiratory system, is implicated in Alzheimer¹s disease, can cause pulmonary disease, tumors and neoplasms and should also not be released into the environment without proper governmental permits.

Alzheimer¹s disease rose to the 6th leading cause of death in the US from the 8th between 1999 and 2013. In 1994, it didn¹t even make the top ten. Now people in their 20s are showing signs of Alzheimer¹s.

Research shows that aluminum accumulates in the brain, bones and kidneys, is a neurotoxin, accelerates brain aging, increases oxidative stress and inflammation of the brain and is seven times more bioavailable when inhaled than when ingested orally.

Barium is much deadlier. According to its Material Safety Data Sheet, exposure to barium salts can cause pulmonary arrest, vomiting, diarrhea, convulsive tremors, muscular paralysis, shock, convulsions and sudden cardiac failure. Barium targets the cardiovascular, nervous, gastrointestinal, hematology, respiratory, reproductive and renal systems as well as the adrenal glands and liver. It is also an irritant to the skin and eyes and should not be released into the environment.

In 2011, respiratory failure overtook stroke to become the third leading cause of death in the United States, at a time when smoking was at an all-time low, emissions standards on vehicles and power plants were at their strictest and heavy industry had relocated to China.

[Read more here]

Robert O'Leary 150x150Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield (MA), New England & “virtually” the world, with his website, www.romayasoundhealthandbeauty.com. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealth andbeauty@gmail.com.  



5 Reasons We Should Not Ignore Chemtrails on Earth Day

By Robert O’Leary J.D., BARA

MakeEverydayEarthDay-38122851_m-680x380

In this article, I will be discussing 5 reasons why Earth Day and chemtrails/geoengineering go together and that each Earth Day should include education and development of strategies around this issue.

The fact that the date for the International March Against Chemtrails [See https://globalmarchagainstchemtrailsandgeoengineering. com/events.html] this year occurs the weekend after Earth Day seems to me to be very appropriate. If geoengineering/chemtrail activists are right, that a toxic chemical cocktail is being allowed to rain down upon us, then this phenomenon not only affects our air, but also our land and seas.

  1. Earth Day is about protecting our Air, Land & Sea:

Since geoengineering/chemtrails are in the air, land and sea, it follows that it would then become part of the ecosystem and the circle of life – running through and potentially affecting all the creatures on Earth. Each of the alleged chemicals inside, among them reportedly aluminum, barium and strontium, each have their toxic levels.

In Europe, they have something called the “Precautionary Principle” which goes as follows: “The Precautionary Principle is a guiding framework for decision-making that anticipates how our actions will affect the environment and health of future generations. The Principle emphasizes public participation and stakeholder collaboration in long-term environmental health and ecological policies and programs.“ It is said to be “a paradigm shift in decision-making [and aims to] prevent irreversible damage to people and nature. See https://www.environmentalcommons.org/precaution.html  There are said to be Five Key Elements within the Precautionary Principle, as follows:

1.Anticipatory Action: There is a duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm. Government, business, and community groups, as well as the general public, share this responsibility.

2.Right to Know: The community has a right to know complete and accurate information on potential human health and environmental impacts associated with the selection of products, services, operations, or plans. The burden to supply this information lies with the proponent, not with the general public.

3.Alternatives Assessment: An obligation exists to examine a full range of alternatives and select the alternative with the least potential impact on human health and the environment, including the alternative of doing nothing.

4.Full Cost Accounting: When evaluating potential alternatives, there is a duty to consider all the reasonably foreseeable costs, including raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, use, cleanup, eventual disposal, and health costs even if such costs are not reflected in the initial price. Short and long-term benefits and time thresholds should be considered when making decisions.

5.Participatory Decision Process: Decisions applying the Precautionary Principle must be transparent, participatory, and informed by the best available science and other relevant information. This principle is why GMOs are not allowed in many EU countries. So, they are not taking any chances while the science figures out and verifies how GMOs are really affecting us. See https://www.environmentalcommons.org/precaution.html

While our authorities, like the FDA & CDC, seem to prefer to patent, license, and then approve new chemicals and medicines – sometimes over their own scientists’ objections – just to have ½ of them recalled within 5 years, we would do well to do the prudent thing and actually exercise this principle around GMOs…and chemtrails.

On Earth Day, we talk about the health of the environment. So anything that potentially affects the environment must perforce be discussed and shared with others. Earth Day also encourages us to motivate others, including our leaders, to do proactive things for the environment.

So, if we are to be precautionary, prudent and honor Earth Day’s full educational and advocacy potential, we need to bring chemtrails and geoengineering into the discussion each Earth Day.

If you are interested in taking part in the International March Against Chemtrails, on April 25, 2015, you can check out the link at https://globalmarchagainstchemtrailsandgeoengineering.com/events.html for a march taking place near you.

  1. Aluminum Hurts Our Plants & Trees:

According to the website, www.spectrumanalytic.com,”[e]xcess soluble/available aluminum (Al+++) is toxic to plants and causes multiple other problems. Some of the more important problems include…

  • Direct toxicity, primarily seen as stunted roots
  • Reduces the availability of phosphorus (P), through the formation of Al-P compounds
  • Reduces the availability of sulfur (S), through the formation of Al-S compounds
  • Reduces the availability of other nutrient cations through competitive interaction

The primary damage caused by excess Al+++ is in damage to plant roots, as seen in these wheat seedlings. Diagnosing this type of damage requires that growers inspect the root systems of their crops or other plants. Of course, when plants have damaged root systems, many other above-ground symptoms are likely. One of the most common will be P-deficiency. However, since Al-toxicity occurs in strongly acid soils, plants may also exhibit deficiency symptoms of calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), or other nutrients. They might also show symptoms of manganese (Mn) toxicity, which is common when the soil pH is too low. Finally, poor root development reduces the plants ability to absorb water. Plant problems that damage the roots are difficult to diagnose with leaf analysis. This is because the uptake of these toxins is somewhat self-limiting, due to the root damage that they cause. This is most common with Al and copper (Cu) toxicities. https://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/Soil_Aluminum_and_test_interpretation.htm

In addition, the website, www.compleatpatriop.blogspot.com, tells us that:

Artificial weather modification through the use of chemicals can impact us by reducing water supplies, causing dry snows, less rainfall, changing agricultural crop production cycles, reducing crop production, and water availability. Since most experimental weather modification programs use chemicals released into the atmosphere the public could be subjected increasingly toxic or unknown substances that could adversely impact agricultural crops and trees, not to mention our personal health. Global dimming and persistent contrails and chemtrails that produce man-made clouds, may have serious impacts on crop production, trees in our forests, and our trees on our private property, and Idaho’s Whitebark Pine. The dead and dying trees all around us are being attacked by beetles, and we have a tender box sitting waiting for the lighting strike to ignite and off she burns. I wonder at the governments answer all the time, well huh, it’s the beetles, and lack of moisture. Well did any of you brilliant government stooges do any soil testing for chemicals, like barium and or other chemical man made agents, gather some ring samples maybe, how about a water sample in these area’s. Never mind, I think I will get some samples myself for my own documentation, never needed you guys any way. See “The chemtrails are killing the trees”, October 31, 2009. https://compleatpatriot.blogspot.com/2009/10/chemtrails-are-killing-trees.html

Not only have whistleblowers, like Kristen Meghan, testified to the fact that aluminum, barium, and strontium are in the chemtrails (based on ingredients she saw in military documentation and based upon testing of soil samples), certain weathermen have stated that what they called “chaff” was coming out of commercial airlines with had aluminum in them [See https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/tv-weatherman-exposes-covert-aerosol-chaff-program-covert-geoengineering/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev1Z67pXCxA#t=56 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvPZ4Ed5LrE].

Too much aluminum in soil, as you might suspect, changes the chemical properties of soil. In fact, some experts tell us that it makes it very hard to grow things. Interestingly and one might say suspiciously, Monsanto reportedly has had (for years) GMO seed varieties that can grow despite the high presence of aluminum in soil.

For those of us who wish to plant seeds as God/Source/Our Creator intended, aluminum coming down from planes on to our farmland and gardens is harmful to our future as it would be likely to affect our food supply – which is already being affected by neonicotinoids (affecting bees and butterflies – our pollinators); leaving us to pay Monsanto exorbitant prices every year for the only seeds that work – seeds that may have the same glyphosate treatment that the WHO [not the cool rock group celebrating 50 years this year (rock on, guys, I love ya!] but the World Health Organization] just declared is “probably carcinogenic”.

So, this issue could be one of the most important of our time and Earth Day is a great time to begin the discussion.

  1. Reducing Our Carbon Footprint:

Another issue at the heart of Earth Day is reducing our so-called carbon footprint. The day is used to educate and advocate for cleaner burning fuels and alternative energy methods. This is a great opportunity for people try out new and neat scientific ideas to bring us the energy we need more consciously, effectively and safely.

And certainly there is a lot of debate over whether there is global warming or not. There are most certainly vested interests on either side. There are companies that wish to save money and the politicians they pay to say that there is no problem. Then there are people (and their advocates) on the other side that have money invested in the carbon tax or cap-and-trade initiatives; and hope that they will make big profits from them.

The rest of us, who are not getting paid now or in the future, would probably agree that there should be adequate safety emissions safeguards on all factories and that we should explore alternatives so that we do not put all our eggs in one basket. Investment of this sort also allows us to reduce our reliance on foreign oil companies who, we all can probably agree, seem to set gas prices on a whim and do not care about us, but just about our money.

Factories are in our towns and cities. They could be near our homes, our children’s’ school or playgrounds so we would be fools not to want to keep our air as clean as possible for our generation and future generations.

If we can all agree that too many toxic emissions are bad, then it is not so hard to appreciate the concerns of advocates in the chemtrail/geoengineering effort. Imagine having the perfect balance of laws and regulations to get the perfect compromise of business need and public safety in our factories, but still having other toxic chemicals raining down from us every day or every other day before a rain storm?

  1. It’s happening in your neighborhood without your permission

Aside from chemtrails potentially causing potential harm to our health, the notion of having things enter our property without our permission or a law permitting it can give rise to what is called a “nuisance” (and no we are not talking about an annoying neighbor). Wikipedia.org has this to say about the Law of Nuisance:

Nuisance in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into two torts; private nuisance, where the actions of the defendant are “causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a [claimant]’s land or his use or enjoyment of that land”,[1] and public nuisance, where the defendant’s actions “materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects”;[2] public nuisance is also a crime. Both torts have been present from the time of Henry III, being affected by a variety of philosophical shifts through the years which saw them become first looser and then far more stringent and less protecting of an individual’s rights. Each tort requires the claimant to prove that the defendant’s actions caused interference, which was unreasonable, and in some situations the intention of the defendant may also be taken into account. A significant difference is that private nuisance does not allow a claimant to claim for any personal injury suffered, while public nuisance does.

Private nuisance has received a range of criticism, with academics arguing that its concepts are poorly defined and open to judicial manipulation; Conor Gearty has written that “Private nuisance has, if anything, become even more confused and confusing. Its chapter lies neglected in the standard works, little changed over the years, its modest message overwhelmed by the excitements to be found elsewhere in tort. Any sense of direction which may have existed in the old days is long gone”.[3] In addition, it has been claimed that the tort of private nuisance has “lost its separate identity as a strict liability tort and been assimilated in all but name into the fault-based tort of negligence”,[4] and that private and public nuisance “have little in common except the accident of sharing the same name”.[3] See “Nuisance”,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuisance_in_English_law

This generally means that if you constructed a catapult in your backyard, put trash bags in it and ejected the family’s trash into a neighbor’s yard, they could sue you for you having caused a nuisance. Because of this we have zoning laws and ordinances to ensure that there is some public oversight over where our government and companies put a toxic dump or factory. Quite often there will be public meetings, with mandatory postings of date and time, providing you with opportunities to make your voice heard.

A rather shocking recent video, dated January 25, 2015 by Joe Wayne, shows that, apparently, geoengineering companies such as Geoengineers, Inc. and Parametrics have been hired at least as far back as 1997 (in one community) and as recently as 2007 (in another community), to do some sort of geoengineering work. While we cannot be sure of the specifics of what type of work was being commissioned, it was obvious that geoengineering contracts were being made with these companies. It seemed that these were not meetings in which the county leaders made sure the public could participate.

Check out the video, entitled “Huge Breaking News…DEATH FROM ABOVE County Commissioners Ordering & Paying For Geoengineering”, by Joe Wayne, at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxPxlzTi9ts

The investigator makes the valuable point that this work is being done by our public servants with our tax money. If these contractors are doing work having to do with dropping toxic chemicals upon us, then we are actually paying public servants to wage a biochemical and biological warfare upon us. For  more about this, see my article “How Do We Erase Chemtrails from Our Sacred Skies” at https://consciouslifenews.com/better-job-erasing-chemtrails-sacred-skies/1178827/

At the very least, we should all delve into this more, call our county (or if you do not have a county government, then a state) government councils and check out meeting minutes to see about references to geoengineers Then, ask what these contracts regarded and if you can see those them and judge for yourself. Then share it with other so that we can further the public discussion about this important issue.

If we grab onto this suspicious thread and pull it enough, who knows what kind of information we will find.

Kristen Meghan has stated in a January 18, 2014 video, entitled “Geoengineering Whistleblower ~ Ex-Military ~ Kristen Meghan, Hauppauge, NY, January 18th, 2014”, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHm0XhtDyZA that she saw orders for aluminum, barium and strontium without naming the manufacturer and with other information missing or suspect. She was curious as to the fact that these items were in the form of aerosol sprays. Then she saw certain containers being loaded into planes. Finally, she saw soil samples with very high amounts of these and other chemicals.

When she inquired about these things, she was threatened and as she mentioned “demonized” by those around her in the U.S. Air Force. See Kristen Meghan, “Geoengineering Whistleblower ~ Ex-Military ~ Kristen Meghan, Hauppauge, NY, January 18th, 2014”, January 18, 2014,  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHm0XhtDyZA

Add to this that there was a Department of Defense handbook, released in the Fall,1990  entitled “Chemtrails” and said to be the “Chemistry 131 Manual, Fall 1990, Department of Chemistry, U.S. Air Force Academy”. Another manual was said to have been published for the 1991 school year, as well. This seems to suggest that new air force pilots were being trained about aerosol spraying. See Howard Saive, “Breaking: Air Force ‘Chemtrails’ Manual Available For Download” , March 31, 2013, https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03/31/breaking-air-force-chemtrails-manual-available-for-download/ It seems therefore that the DOD actually coined one of the very terms that we are using to characterize this phenomenon. It also makes us see how ironic it is that Ms. Meghan would be “demonized,” for asking questions about geoengineering, when a handbook had been written and an  instruction program had been held about 2 decades before she began asking questions.

A document from November, 1966, entitled “A Recommended National Program In Weather Modification A Report to the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences”,  shows that geoengineering research and applications were underway, undergoing further research and being funded by the U.S. Government nearly 50 years ago. See Homer E. Newell, Associate Administrator for Space Science and Application, National Aeronautics & Space Administration, Washington, DC, “A Recommended National Program In Weather Modification A Report to the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences”, November,1966 https://saive.com/WXMOD/NASA_National_and_Interdepartmental_Program_for_Weather_Modification_1966.pdf The document talks about well-meaning applications of geoengineering, but one can certainly see what types of damage might be wrought by the “weather modification” spoken of in the document.

Another document, just  eight (8) years later has the following weighty title:

“WEATHER MODIFICATIQN HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE[;] NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS[,] SECOND SESSION ON THE NEED FOR AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT PROHIBITING  THE USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOPHYSIOAL MODIFICATION AS WEAPONS OF WAR AND BRIEFING ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WEATHER MODIFICATION ACTIVITY JANUARY 25 AND MARCH 20, 1974 [Top Secret hearing held on March 20, 1974; made public on May 19, 19741” See https://www.virtual.vietnam.ttu.edu/cgi-bin/starfetch.exe?v4Y8f9vXJS1.hj.fF.KBBeY7exnjbmsbVEn398MlWXPiyU1m.RJxqzkk7dfVayB1ArT7OCZulszN5148G9gNxwTQwFHBuQ9AAHBCFrVmtwL05b3QyaTeRQ/2390601002A.pdf

The following is a quote from this document:

The objective of S. Res. 71 has been endorsed by several national

and international organizations. on: the international level, the North

Atlantic Assembly at its 18th meeting in November, 1972, recommended

a treaty to ban environmental or geophysical modification.

except for peaceful purposes. Domestically, in 1971, the National.

Academy of Sciences Committee on Atmospheric Sciences urged the

U.S. Government ‘to present for adoption by the United Nations

General Assembly a resolution, dedicating all weather-modification

efforts to peaceful purposes.’ ‘The President’s National Advisory

Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere in  its first annual report in

1972, strongly recommended that the United’ States seek international

arrangements to renounce hostile uses of weather modification. Again,

in 1972,the Sierra Club joined the Federation of American Scientists

in urging that, ‘The United States should henceforth dedicate all

geophysical and environmental research to peaceful purposes and

should actively seek the cooperation of other nations in programs of

joint research on geophysical phenomena, their control, and their

peaceful use.’

However, despite the wide support for this concept, the Administration

has failed to articulate a national policy on weather modification.

This is due primarily to the intransigence of the U.S. military

establishment. The military branches of our Government have stead-

fastly opposed the .development of any policy in order to keep all

their option open in the ‘field of environmental’ modification. This

response is, in my opinion, a shortsighted reflexive reaction. It does

not represent a carefully considered, weIl-developed national policy.

However, until such a policy surfaces, the military will have the

freedom to indiscriminately experiment and operationally use this

technology.

This situation which I find extremely distressing. If we do not

restrict the military use of current environmental modification

techniques, we risk the danger of the development of vastly more

dangerous techniques, whose consequences may be unknown or may

cause irreparable damage to our global environment.

Military use of such techniques will affect the very important

peaceful international scientific efforts now· underway under the

auspices of the World Meteorological Organization and the International

Council of Scientific Unions-such programs as the Global

Atmospheric Research Program [GARP] and “Earthwatch.”

Instead of its official silence and actions condoning a gradual drift

into environmental warfare, the administration should actively explore

the advantages of a renunciation of such operations and the possible

benefits stemming from an initiative for a multilateral “no first use”

agreement. It is imperative that the United States enunciate a

national policy on this subject, in no way blocking their development

and in no way moving forward in the enlargement of human Knowledge,

but simply dedicating these efforts to peaceful purpose.

I hope that these hearings will spur the administration into some form of action to develop such a policy, as well as enlarging the body of knowledge available to the American public as to what geophysical and weather modifications actually imply. [Emphasis added by bolding] See “WEATHER MODIFICATIQN HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE[;] NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS[,] SECOND SESSION ON THE NEED FOR AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT PROHIBITING  THE USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOPHYSIOAL MODIFICATION AS WEAPONS OF WAR AND BRIEFING ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WEATHER MODIFICATION ACTIVITY JANUARY 25 AND MARCH 20, 1974 [Top Secret hearing held on March 20, 1974; made public on May 19, 19741” at https://www.virtual.vietnam.ttu.edu/cgi-bin/starfetch.exe?v4Y8f9vXJS1.hj.fF.KBBeY7exnjbmsbVEn398MlWXPiyU1m.RJxqzkk7dfVayB1ArT7OCZulszN5148G9gNxwTQwFHBuQ9AAHBCFrVmtwL05b3QyaTeRQ/2390601002A.pdf, pp. 1-2

Against this backdrop, to say that geoengineering does not exist or that it is an issue that has no actual or potential effect on the Earth seems silly. The silence in mainstream media and dismissiveness of some of the legislators asked about this should make even the most trusting among us would probably agree that something fishy is going on here.

  1. Earth Day means we all come together to make a difference:

Two of the best things about Earth Day is that (a) we come together to acknowledge the benefits and blessing of having been provided with such an amazing place as the Earth and (b) we join together to bring about meaningful change. By coming together we talk and create a synergy that, hopefully, will last throughout the year and make the world a better place by this time next year.

Some of the linkages we should be making are with organizations such as Greenpeace. You may be a member in this organization or some of the countless other ones out there. This year you may consider  broaching this subject with your organizations. You may encounter some resistance from those who are not aware of these issues or are growing in their awareness.

You may even find some people that are passionately opposed to including this in the discussion. Be aware that there is some credible evidence that world banks and other powerful interests actually started the so-called “green movement.” This may be why we still see mercury being used in light bulbs and still see petroleum products being used in even green products even as we try to move away from using gasoline. Some also link these interests with the so-called Agenda 21 and suggest that sustainability is a code word for these interests to take more control over land, resources, and you. See The Watchman, “The Green Agenda,” https://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html

If all of this is true, do not be surprised if some of those challenging your interest in this subject are actually “plants or “trolls” to reinforce the interests of these companies in your organizations.

In any case, I urge you to keep bringing this subject up. Every effort has to start somewhere, but it is worth it in the end when we have the world at stake.

Other articles that you may find of interest:

“Groundbreaking Geoengineering Video Exposes Scientific Truth Regarding Chemtrail Chemical Composition”, ”https://consciouslifenews.com/groundbreaking-geoengineering-video-exposes-scientific-truth-regarding-chemtrail-chemical-composition/1182370/

“Chemtrails Exposed: A History of the https://consciouslifenews.com/chemtrails-exposed-history-new-manhattan-project/1181692/New Manhattan Project, ”https://consciouslifenews.com/chemtrails-exposed-history-new-manhattan-project/1181692/

“How Do We Erase Chemtrails from Our Sacred Skies” at https://consciouslifenews.com/better-job-erasing-chemtrails-sacred-skies/1178827/

 

Robert O'Leary 150x150Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield (MA), New England & “virtually” the world, with his website, www.romayasoundhealthandbeauty.com. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.com