aerosol direct radiative forcing #drf #chemTrails research How else explain this lack of honesty? 2 B combined w earlier images in future post
Related Images:
aerosol direct radiative forcing #drf
“scattering aerosols alone in otherwise clear skies”
Images 2 B posted separately w related #chemTrails research
http://plus.google.com/112442901766336088164/posts/ShQBpq9vzyx

“Chemtrails” Research

The order in which I found. IDK what to make of all this, still digesting. Cognitive dissonance.

Rose 7 May 2015, White Peak

1

#NASA website as documentation for #Chemtrails Spraying activities?
NASA-Webseite als Dokumentation für Chemtrails-Sprühaktivitäten?
02 May 2015
There is a government site of NASA , with which possibly the chemtrail Sprüh aktivitäten be demonstrated around the world, back to the year 2013, namely daily.
This involves obviously the documented therein parameters of light reflecting through cloud layers and “aerosols”, which is important to calculate the climate impact of cloud-related technical “albedo”.
Such measurements of sunlight reflection of the earth have to do with “global warming”.
If you click in the box left to the Page Up the tab with the “Plus”, are displayed the various “Aerosol Layer” in the lower box and their optical depth specified.
Sceenshot NASA page
That the term probably not just “steam” is meant is clear when one scrolls down in the box on.
Since “Water Vapour Day” and “Water Vapour Night” is listed namely.
With aerosol layer is thus meant something else.
Could be the artificially introduced into the atmosphere substances?
Furthermore, it is precisely the parameter reflection by snow, temperatures below the cloud cover, CO2 concentration, carbon monoxide, nitric acid (nitric acid), sulfur dioxide amount, population density, levels of ozone etc, the one related to the “global warming” – performance – and geoengineering ,
The layers of cloud and aerosol layers are there documented worldwide on a daily basis and evaluated, even the individual layers.
So you can see there the development of cloud cover.
So you can follow the development of the cloud cover and may need to actually demonstrate how produce contrails / chemtrails cloud and surface covering veil of cloud ceiling.
These satellite images are therefore expected to be useful to uncover the global spray and weather control program.
The information provided here should therefore be widely as possible at the same time in the alternative media, to thereby inform as many people can.
The website http://www.Leyline.de
will promptly publish an article on this subject.
Source:
http://quer-denken.tv/index.php/1387-nasa-webseite-fuer-chemtrails-spruehaktivitaeten
2
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/drafts/fod/Ch07_FOD_Text_TSU_FINAL.pdf
3
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-5-3.html

4
Increasing aerosol optical depth associated with scattering aerosols alone in otherwise clear skies produces a larger fraction of diffuse radiation at the surface, which results in larger carbon assimilation into vegetation (and therefore greater transpiration) without a substantial reduction in the total surface solar radiation (Niyogi et al., 2004; Section 7.2.6.2).
5
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11175/radiative-forcing-of-climate-change-expanding-the-concept-and-addressing
6
pp. 43 – 44
The IPCC aviation report (Penner et al., 1999) identified the effects of
aircraft on upper tropospheric cirrus clouds as a potentially important
climate forcing. One aspect may be described as the direct effect due to the
formation of condensation contrails as a result of supersaturated air from
the aircraft. This effect can be non negligible as was found during the three day
grounding of all U.S. commercial aircraft following the September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks. An anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature
range over the United States was observed and partly attributed to
the absence of contrails from jet aircraft (Travis et al., 2002). Aerosols
emitted by the aircraft may also cause indirect effects associated with an
increase in ice nuclei in the upper troposphere. Evidence of a climate effect
of air traffic was first provided by Boucher (1999) who used ship-based
measurements of cloud cover together with fossil fuel consumption data for
aircraft to show that recent increases in air traffic fuel consumption are
accompanied by an increase in cirrus cloudiness. Recent studies (Lohmann
and Kärcher, 2002) suggest that the impact of aircraft sulfur emissions on
cirrus properties via homogeneous freezing of sulfate aerosols is probably
small. Hence the question has been raised whether aircraft-generated black
carbon particles serving as heterogeneous ice nuclei, as found by Ström and
Ohlsson (1998), may have a significant impact on cirrus cloudiness and
cirrus microphysical properties.
Aerosols can also modify latent and sensible heat fluxes at the surface,
thus exerting a nonradiative forcing on the hydrological cycle. Increasing
aerosol and cloud optical depth cause a reduction of solar radiation at the
surface. For the surface energy balance to reach a new equilibrium state, the
latent and sensible fluxes have to adjust. Because evaporation has to equal
precipitation on the global scale, a reduction in the latent heat flux leads to
a reduction in precipitation. As shown in model simulations by Liepert et
al. (2004), despite an increase in greenhouse gases, increases in optical
depth due to the direct and indirect anthropogenic aerosol effects can cause
a reduction in evaporation and precipitation. This mechanism is consistent
with observations of decreased evaporation from open pans of water over
the last 50 years. Roderick and Farquhar (2002) characterized steadily
decreasing pan evaporation due to decreases in solar irradiance resulting
from increasing cloud coverage and aerosol concentration. Increasing aerosol
optical depth associated with scattering aerosols alone in otherwise
clear skies has been shown to produce a larger fraction of diffuse radiation
at the surface, which results in greater carbon assimilation into vegetation
(and therefore greater transpiration) without a substantial reduction in the
total surface solar radiation (Niyogi et al., 2004).
7
Niyogi, D., H. I. Chang, V. K. Sexana, T. Holt, K. Alapaty, F. L. Booker, F. Chen,K. J.
Davies, B. Holben, T. Matsui, T. Meyers, W. C. Oechel, R. A. Pielke, R. Wells, K.
Wilson, and X. Yongkang. 2004.
Direct observations of the effects of aerosol loading on net ecosystem CO2 exchanges over different landscapes.
Geophysical Research Letters
31(l20506), DOI: 10.1029/2004GL020915.
8
p. 158
It is important to determine the degree to which global mean TOA forcings are additive and whether one can expect, for example, canceling effects on climate change from changes in greenhouse gases on the one hand and changes in reflective aerosols on the other.
9
Aircraft measurements have been made of the downward and upward solar irradiance under cloud-free conditions over a range of aerosol loadings in the summer haze plume off the East Coast of the United States during the Tropospheric Aerosol Radiative Forcing Observational Experiment (TARFOX). Optical properties calculated from measured aerosol microphysical and chemical properties have been used as input to a shortwave radiative transfer model. This model was used to calculate the diurnally averaged direct aerosol forcing and to compare with values deduced from the aircraft radiative measurements. The modeled and observed forcings agree well when the aerosol has a significant absorbing component.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98JD02021/abstract;jsessionid=AAABB9BB4F50E9D969F55C7BF8FCFA10.f02t01
10
Understanding sources of uncertainty in aerosol direct radiative forcing (DRF), the
difference in a given radiative flux component with and without aerosol, is essential to quantifying changes in Earth’s radiation budget.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD009170/abstract
11
Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate Impacts
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1437912613
Mian Chin – 2009
More generally, aerosols can alter the location of solar radiation absorption within the system, and this aspect alone can alter climate and precipitation even without producing any change in net radiation at the top of the atmosphere (the usual metric for climate impact).
By decreasing solar absorption at the surface, aerosols (from both the direct and indirect effects) reduce the energy available for evapotranspiration, potentially
resulting in a decrease in precipitation.
This effect has been suggested as the reason for the decrease in pan evaporation over the last 50 years (Roderick and Farquhar, 2002).
The decline in solar radiation at the surface appears to have ended in the 1990s (Wild et al., 2005), perhaps because of reduced aerosol emissions in industrial areas (Kruger and Grasl, 2002), although this issue is still not settled.
http://issuu.com/disclosureproject/docs/120802113940-ae1cd0199f5742ba9a19949c436d0045
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29545959/Chemtrail-PDF
12
Some BB warming can be understood in terms of the anticorrelation between instantaneous direct radiative forcing (DRF) changes and surface temperature changes in clouds containing absorbing aerosols.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/wildfires-play-bigger-role-than-thought-in-climate-change.html
13
THE PRACTICALITY OF GEOENGINEERING
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/practicality8NoFig3.pdf
Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering
Authors
Alan Robock,
Allison Marquardt,
Ben Kravitz,
Georgiy Stenchikov
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL039209/full
14
aerosol direct radiative forcing drf “stratospheric geoengineering”
15
andrewjlockley
10/3/13
Poster’s note : here’s some data on tropospheric aerosol which we’d need to replace with geoengineering if we don’t want to suffer warming from cleanup of factories, power plants, vehicles and stoves.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD018294/abstract
Citation
Su, W., N. G. Loeb, G. L. Schuster, M. Chin, and F. G. Rose (2013), Global all-sky shortwave direct radiative forcing of anthropogenic aerosols from combined satellite observations and GOCART simulations, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, 655–669, doi:10.1029/2012JD018294.
Keywords
aerosol;direct radiative effect;direct radiative forcing;clouds
16
http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/U6nvw6KYSxXpprs58RZk/full
Response to Commentaries on ‘Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar Radiation Management Geoengineering’
Toby Svoboda and Peter Irvine
a Department of Philosophy, Fairfield University, Fairfield, Connecticut, USAb Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam,Germany
Ethics, Policy & Environment
Volume 18, Issue 1, 2015, pages 103- 105
Published online: 24 Apr 2015
DOI: 10.1080/21550085.2015.1021948
We thank the commentators for their interesting and helpful feedback on our previously published target article (Svoboda & Irvine, 2014). One of our objectives in that article was to identify areas of uncertainty that would need to be addressed in crafting a just SRM compensation system. The commentators have indicated some possible ways of reducing such uncertainty. Although we cannot respond to all their points due to limitations of space, we wish to address here the more pressing criticisms the commentators have offered.
Response to Reynolds
Jesse Reynolds suggests that the ‘primary problem’ in our paper is that we treat ‘the shortcomings of SRM and of compensation for its potential negative secondary effects as if they were sui generis.’ But it is not our view that SRM compensation is a sui generis problem, nor do we state that it is in our paper. Setting aside the technical challenges, it may well be true that the ethical challenges faced by SRM compensation are already faced in other domains, such as socially organized responses to complex problems, other instances of providing compensation, and climate change (to take Reynold’s examples).
Our claim was that providing compensation for SRM-related harm faces some difficult challenges. If Reynolds is right, many or all of these same challenges arise in other domains. Our argument is not undermined by the fact (if it is one) that there are parallels among these different domains, for the challenges to SRM compensation remain challenges even if they are not unique to SRM. Reynolds writes that ‘SRM might be especially complex, in large part of its global nature, but that does not make it entirely novel.’ We can agree with this, because we did not claim that SRM is entirely novel. Moreover, as the issue of SRM compensation is particularly complex, it is worth investigating whether we can disentangle the many issues involved and reduce uncertainty regarding them.
Reynolds also suggests that we ‘stack the deck against SRM’ by focusing too much on the potential harms of SRM (Horton raises a similar concern), but we think this is due to a misunderstanding of what our paper aims to do. Although we noted throughout the paper that SRM could have many benefits, we did not emphasize these potential benefits because the issue under investigation was compensation provision for harms due to SRM. This focus will tend to emphasize potential harms, as our primary question was how such harms should be remunerated. Given that question, it would be odd to emphasize the potential benefits of SRM, although we certainly acknowledge them.
Likewise, it is important to note that we were not addressing whether some form of SRM should be deployed in the future. As we wrote, ‘We conclude that establishing a just SRM compensation system faces severe difficulties. This does not necessarily imply that SRM ought never to be deployed, as there might be satisfactory ways to resolve these difficulties. Furthermore, even if these difficulties are not fully surmounted, it does not necessarily follow that SRM deployment would be impermissible.’ We certainly don’t think the challenges of SRM compensation should create ‘paralysis among policy makers,’ as Reynolds implies, but we do think these challenges are worth considering.
Response to Horton
On the basis of recent modeling studies, Joshua Horton suggests that SRM deployment might make no region of the world worse off relative to pre-industrial conditions, in which case there would not be regional ‘losers’ as a result of SRM. But regions themselves are not moral patients, so it does not strictly matter for ethical purposes whether some region itself is made better or worse off. What matters is whether persons are harmed or benefited. Even if there are no regional ‘losers’ due to SRM, it is virtually certain that there will be individuals made worse off within those regions, and such individuals may deserve compensation.
Horton suggests more than once that the benefits of SRM might outweigh its costs. He notes that ‘historically, societies have adopted systems of compensation for hazardous activities precisely because the benefits are believed to outweigh the costs’ (Horton, 2014, p. 176). While the overall balance of costs and benefits of SRM and attendant compensation is no doubt important, justice also concerns the distribution of costs and benefits among persons. That being the case, even if SRM in tandem with compensation passes a cost–benefit test, it does not follow that SRM would be just (although it could be). We are not suggesting that Horton would deny that justice involves more than the balance of overall costs and benefits, but he seems to overlook the importance of how costs and benefits are to be allocated among persons rather than regions.
Finally, Horton thinks we imply that ethical certainty is required ‘for compensation to be regarded as just’ (Horton, 2104, p. 176). This is not our view. First, certainty or uncertainty regarding whether some compensation system is just is an epistemic matter, and this is distinct from whether some compensation system actually is just. Some compensation system could be just, and correctly regarded as such, even if we are not certain of that fact. Second, our goal in flagging cases of ethical uncertainty regarding SRM compensation was to identify points regarding which further consideration may be worthwhile, but this does not entail that ethical certainty is a necessary condition for just SRM compensation. We are only committed to the view that, all else being equal, it would be better to reduce such uncertainty, for that puts us in an improved position to judge what sorts of SRM compensation would be just or unjust.
Response to Garcia
Robert Garcia focuses on a small part of our paper, in which we raise some questions regarding whether the polluter pays principle (PPP) is the appropriate ethical principle for determining who ought to provide SRM compensation. If successful, Garcia’s commentary would show that PPP is somewhat more promising than we explicitly recognized. To clarify, we did not take ourselves to be offering ‘allegations’ to the effect that PPP is not a reasonable principle. We think Garcia succeeds in showing that reasonable responses are available to some of our questions, but his responses can also be reasonably contested.
To take one example, we noted that it would seem unfair for an impoverished state that is part of an SRM coalition to be required to pay compensation, as PPP would seem to do. Relying on a macro-version of PPP, Garcia replies that a party is responsible for providing an amount of compensation that is proportionate to the amount of pollution it has caused, which can be measured by the financial contribution of each party to the polluting activity. As an impoverished state’s financial contribution to SRM is likely to be small, that state will likely be responsible for providing a proportionately small amount of compensation, and Garcia argues that this does not appear to be unfairly burdensome.
However, we still think that PPP could render unfair verdicts even here. As the direct costs of some SRM techniques appear to be low (Barrett, 2008) but the damages could be quite high (e.g., due to abrupt termination of SRM), paying an amount of compensation that is proportionate to a relatively low financial contribution to SRM may nonetheless be debilitating and perhaps unfairly burdensome. This is because the total compensation required might be far greater than the total direct costs of deployment. This is not to deny that PPP should be used to determine who ought to provide SRM compensation. Our point was only that PPP is controversial, and this engenders uncertainty regarding whether it should be used as part of an SRM compensation system.

17
Michael Hayes
Apr 30
Re: [geo] Re: Warning over aerosol climate fix – BBC News
Andrew et. al.,
Ocean up-take should be our primary point of CO2 capture, which sets up a wealth of downstream critical commodities through proper utilization and sequestration. The technology needed for vast scale mid-oceanic farming of marine biomass is well developed yet the suite of technologies have simply never been assimilated for such a mission.
Concerning the statement of: “You’d have to keep sulphur emissions constant for this to happen, though”; That technical ramp-down strategy is useful. Yet, sulfur/BC are a secondary issue(s) and not fundamentally dependant upon SAI for that balancing act.
Concerning the statement of: Choosing whether to maintain sulphur protection is one of the ways to ‘get the camel’s nose in the tent’, as far as SRM acceptability goes.”; I assume you are using SRM as simply meaning SAI? As I’m sure you recall, the Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) SRM regimen has no primary/secondary connection to sulfur/BC.
The MCB regimen is a highly predictable form od SRM, controllable on short wave deployment status and does not generate Polar Stratspheric Clouds (PSC) and thus trigger Clathrate Gun Hypothesis (CGH) like effects etc. Yet, MCB, being primarily associated with the hydraulic loop, can thus trump SAIs claim to hydraulic cycle modulation superiority due to the far heavier cost per polar (in-)stability.
In many ways, the SAI protocol seems to be a well designed regimen to increase PCS/CGH effects. By all accounts, the SAI protocol is directed at creating a physically ‘equitable’ atmosphere which does insure increased vulnerability to PSC/CGH threats.
The lack of delta-T in the atmospheric dynamics (a.k.a. an equitable atmosphere), does destabilize many aspects of the climate and creating an equitable atmosphere is the stated goal of the SAI strategy. An equitable atmosphere…is…the primary threat vector, at this time, presented by global warming….and SAI.
As atmospheric moisture is a secondary issue, we need to look to the primary systemic issues (CO2 capture/utilization/sequestration) for central technical points upon which a (bio) geoengineering metastrategy can be built upon. Marine biomass production, on vast scale, with support from protocols such as MCB, biochar, olivine, AWL etc. represents a robust bio-geoengineering regimen which does not increase the PSC/CGH threat level and can help maintain a balanced (non-equitable atmospheric based) planetary climate.
John, your statement of; “SRM-type geoengineering is the only kind of intervention which could cool the planet straightaway” seems to ignore MCB and that SAI does not offer polar cooling! Also, the Arctic methane issue may be best served by use of the methane within cultivation systems as well as used for ice production.
In brief, SAI will warm the polar regions simply due to the expected increase in PSC. Your AMEG group is actually supporting the warming of the polar regions through supporting SAI. Is that the AMEG group’s actual intentions?
Doug, thank you for the plots. I believe a great deal of attention needs to be paid to that type of data as such data may be seen as a strong indicator for net negative global emissions (per RCP 2.6). As can easily be deduces from the SAI protocol, it simply does…zero…in getting us to RCP 2.6.
I was not able to find the Cao et al, 2011 paper. Can you send a link?
Parminder, as biologists often remind use, nature often pivots upon the swing of a few percentages within critical relationships. The carbon capture, utilization and sequestration relationships in nature does offer important instructions for us in getting to RCP.2.6. within a “self-organizing, complex, adaptive system”. The IPCC supported Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (BECCS) path is seemingy the best fit with such a highly dynamic matrix.
In conclusion; To quote Dr. Sallie Chisholm on her views concerning geoengineering as it is most popularly defined (SAI?); “Proponents of research on geoengineering simply keep ignoring the fact that the biosphere is a player in what ever we do, and its trajectory cannot be predicted. It is a living breathing collection of organisms that are evolving every second-a ‘self-organizing, complex, adaptive system’. These types of systems have emergent properties that simply cannot be predicted. We all know this! Yet proponents of geoengineering research leave that out of the discussion.”.
Bio-geoengineering, through marine biomass production/biochar/olivine/bio-energy/MCB etc., does not neglect the above obvious reality, as so well put forth by Dr. Chisholm, as the bio-geoengineering suite of technologies are all flexible enough to keep pace with a self-organizing, adaptive and vastly complex planetary system(s)…..while also achieving RCP 2.6.
Whereas, SAI does profoundly neglect the emergent/evolutionary properties of nature and does so at a fundamentally critical level….sunlight!!! And, SAI does nothing towards assistance in our critical need to achieve the RCP 2.6 scenario.
Thus, SAI, under its current deployment protocol, must be viewed at the policy, socioeconomic and environmental levels as being highly un-necessarily un-safe and the claim that SAI is “The only thing a politician can do to start the planet cooling is solar geoengineering’ is simply not supportable at the STEM/policy levels….on the face of it..
Best regards,
Michael
Michael Hayes
“How inadequate it is to term this planet “Earth”, as it is evident that is should be called “Ocean”. Arthur C. Clarke.
“If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.” Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. La Ciudadela
The IMBECS Protocol Draft: A Marine Centric Biogeoengineering Thesis
The Blue Biochar Initiative (BBI) website


18
Climate Change: Climate Engineering Through Stratospheric Aerosol Injection
http://www.academia.edu/1577460/Climate_engineering_through_stratospheric_aerosol_injection_a_review
19
Perhaps the most promising geoengineering technique is stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), which reflects incoming solar radiation, thereby lowering surface
temperatures. This paper analyzes a scenario in which SAI brings great harm on its own. The scenario is based on the issue of SAI intermittency, in which aerosol injection is halted, sending temperatures rapidly back toward where they would have been without SAI.
http://sethbaum.com/ac/2013_DoubleCatastrophe.pdf
20
sai “stratospheric aerosol injection”
21
A great many of our most brilliant scientists have taken the lessons of past engineering failures to heart, including the failure of foresight represented by climate change itself, which is one of the primary reasons there is still so much resistance to geoengineering among biologists and climate scientists.
To quote Sallie Chisholm, a world-renowned expert on marine microbes at MIT, “Proponents of research on geoengineering simply keep ignoring the fact that the biosphere is a player (not just a responder) in whatever we do, and its trajectory cannot be predicted. It is a living breathing collection of organisms (mostly microorganisms) that are evolving every second—a ‘self-organizing, complex, adaptive system’ (the strict term).
These types of systems have emergent properties that simply cannot be predicted. We all know this! Yet proponents of geoengineering research leave that out of the discussion,”[22]
Indeed in my time spent among the would-be geoengineers, I have been repeatedly struck by how the hard-won lessons about humility before nature that have reshaped modern science, particularly the fields of chaos and complexity theory, do not appear to have penetrated this particular bubble.
On the contrary, the Geoclique is crammed with overconfident men prone to complimenting each other on their fearsome brainpower.
At one end you have Bill Gates, the movement’s sugar daddy, who once remarked that it was difficult for him to decide which was more important, his work on computer software or inoculations, because they both rank “right up there with the printing press and fire.”
At the other end is Russ George, the U.S. entrepreneur who has been labeled a “rogue geoengineer” for dumping some one hundred tons of iron sulphate off the coast of British Columbia in 2012.
“I am the champion of this on the planet,” he declared after the experiment was exposed, the only one with the guts to “step forward to save the oceans.”
In the middle are scientists like David Keith, who often comes off as deeply conflicted about “opening up Pandora’s Box”—but once said of the threat of weakened monsoons from Solar Radiation Management that “hydrological stresses” can be managed “a little bit by irrigation.”[23] 
The ancients called this hubris; the great American philosopher, farmer and poet Wendell Berry calls it “arrogant ignorance,” adding, “We identify arrogant ignorance by its willingness to work on too big a scale, and thus to put too much at risk.”*[24]
http://www.scribd.com/book/238704340/This-Changes-Everything-Capitalism-vs-The-Climate
END
My Take So Far
I must confess there are times when I'm observing the “chemtrail” spraying that the process seems “other worldly” almost magical.
Then I remind myself that the U.S. Government and other governments have concealed an advanced space program from the masses.
So what might seem like a technology too far advanced for 2015 may indeed be perfectly suited to the present if only our government had prepared us.
So, given all of that, what I got out of the above, knowing full damn well the aerosol “spraying” has been going on for years, even decades, is …
Our government has been “scattering aerosols”
because they discovered after Nine Eleven when all aircraft were grounded that without the jet contrails our planet warmed considerably.
And the greener we become, the more we need the “aerosols” to replace the aerosols that had been there in an earlier, dirtier world?
Do I have that right?
Look, I want to give my government the benefit of the doubt. And I don't want to believe my government is poisoning me.
But how else explain this lack of honesty, especially where toxic heavy metals are concerned?
Hair Analysis
http://chemtrailsaroundtheworld.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/geoengineering-climate-engineering-hair-analysis-what-heavy-metals-and-other-toxins-are-in-your-body-dr-doug-levine-lifeaftercancernetwork-org/
No wonder a growing portion of our fellow citizens no longer believes their government cares about them:
"becomes necessary 4 we the people 2 do things"
1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-M58ACA2bY
2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5rBV_uo8Kw
3
http://www.musictimes.com/articles/34542/20150406/kendrick-lamar-reebok-be-ventilated-short-film-to-pimp-a-butterfly.htm
#chemTrails #GOP

Reply · Report Post