Saudi Princess Speaks Out Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering

US5_2033By Patrick Roddie and Peter A. Kirby

At the recent Istanbul Security Conference (Dec. 3-5), our intrepid citizen journalist Patrick Roddie caught up with a Saudi royal by the full name of HRH Princess Basmah Bint Saud bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud. She more casually goes by the name of Princess Basmah Bint Saud. She is the daughter of King Saud and the granddaughter of King Abdel Aziz, the founder of the modern state of Saudi Arabia. She spoke at the conference on Dec., 5 where she gave a keynote speech.

The great thing about this woman is that, from a position of world power, she is speaking out against chemtrails and geoengineering.


In her brief talk with Patrick, she described the ongoing geoengineering program as a weapon of mass destruction; a method of slow poisoning which threatens all life on Earth. She is aware of what is going on. She is concerned about the biological impacts. She laments the cloud cover generated overhead. She is uneasy about what kind of world we will leave for our children. She has eyes. She sees. She has a brain. She thinks. About this, how can one remain silent? Here is the video:

This is not her first time speaking out about difficult issues. The Princess is an activist. She advocates for reform in Saudi Arabia. She travels the world attending social issue conferences. We commend the Princess. The world would be a much better place if more prominent people such as her spoke out about these outrageous crimes against Humanity.

Natural and Non-Toxic Products. Up to 50% Off – Every Day (Ad)

Patrick, our interviewer, also presented at the Istanbul conference. The Princess was in the audience. Here is video of Patrick’s presentation:

Here is a video of all the presenters at the “Atmospheric Manipulation; Opportunities and Threats” Climate Modification Technology Workshop. HRH Princess Basmah attended the workshop and asked several questions:

Princess Basmah Bint Saud’s website:
http://basmahbintsaud.com/home/

Istanbul Security Conference website:
http://istanbulguvenlikkonferansi.org/index.php/en/

Patrick Roddie is a San Francisco, CA researcher, writer, and globetrotting activist. Check out Patrick’s website:
http://stopsprayingus-sf.com/

Visit Patrick Roddie’s Facebook page at:
https://www.facebook.com/PatrickRoddie

Peter Kirby is a San Rafael, CA researcher, writer, and activist. Check out his ebook Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project

Follow Peter on Twitter @PeterAKirby

  • Peter A. Kirby

    DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER!!!

    Please log in to up-vote constructive comments and down-vote those of the shills. Thanks.

    • Paceride

      The truth is not a popularity contest.

  • sdfasdga

    I’m a pilot. Seriously,when the “#¤% is this redicilous idea bout ‘chemtrails’ going to end?

    First: Clouds are crerated when warm air rises and is cooled off..and guess what: engines on planes heats the air, and also the friction from the wings, thus if a plane passes through an area of a little moist air then it will be warmed up and cooled off: this creates the clouds, not ‘chemtrails’ wake up retards!

    • blue579

      If there is a simple explanation for the unusual and persistent “contrails” now commonly witnessed and noted by hundreds of millions of people and why aluminum, barium, and strontium levels are high in sprayed areas, then why doesn’t the MSM sponsor a series of printed and televised reports explaining why the patterns are clearly different than they were decades ago? New fuel?

      The reason TPTB have refused to squarely address the geonengineering “controversy” is the same reason they never dove deeply into the research of the 9/11 Truth movement nor allow Cass Sunstein to publicly debate someone like Richard Gage or David Ray Griffin. They don’t want the zombie masses to become engaged.

      • Paceride

        Aluminum barium and strontium levels are not “high in sprayed areas”. You sound like a parrot. And a truther, too, what a surprise.

        • blue579

          Water and air samples analyzed by geonengineering activists, including biologists and physicians, prove this point, as does the research of Dr. J Marvin Herndon and testing confirmed by whistle blower Kristen Meghan, former USAF senior environmental specialist. Your knowledge base on these issues, including 9/11, is a black hole – no light escaping. C’est dommage.

          • Paceride

            The activists tested sludge.
            Herndon paper was retracted.
            Kristen Meghan said her whistle-blowing had nothing to do with chemtrails (which is what you mean by geoengineering.)

            C’est dommage that u are so gullible.

          • blue579

            The Herndon paper was retracted for the same reasons the Seralini and Wakefield papers were – political targeting against faulty dogma. I know, I researched all three. Based on SCIENTIFIC MERIT, the attack on the Seralini paper was the most absurd, egregious, and completely unjustified based I’ve ever come across. It was completely clean. Next would be Herndon’s paper, also clean. You can “parrot” what disinfo shills are passing off as arguments I judging by your poor communication skills, I’m sure you don’t have the skill to discern the fraud. I’ve seen many far weaker and downright bad science papers slide through the circle jerk of peer reviewed medical science, yet nobody bothers to deconstruct them for public consumption.

          • Paceride

            “I know, I researched all three.” Well let me just swallow that whole, like you’ve swallowed the whole chemtrails fantasy. I can’t wait for the results of the “paraglider” samples, LOL.

          • blue579

            I read the original journal publications and reviewed the criticism, carefully deconstructing each one. In the Wakefield paper, I looked at the notes and conclusions of the independent medical scientist who reviewed the pathology reports, the source of the contention, and found that the diagnoses of colitis were consistent with standard protocol, thus the independent researcher concluded the paper was clean and conforming to scientific methods. The Seralini paper was a simple construct as was Herndon’s (which I consider simply an early hypothesis and first paper). Surely you didn’t misunderstand that to mean I actually was a participating researcher? Poor wittle bunny wabbit. LOL

    • Peter A. Kirby

      “I’m a pilot. Seriously, when the “#¤% is this redicilous idea bout ‘chemtrails’ going to end?” This is an unsubstantiated appeal to authority followed by useless rhetoric.

      Your banter about how contrails are formed is a bunch of baloney and the standard shill topic. Never mind that there is a huge, chronologically coherent history of this Project. Never mind that aluminum and barium are showing up in massive amounts in rainwater samples from all over the world. Never mind that respiratory diseases and diseases caused by aluminum exposure have gone through the roof. Never mind that the world’s most powerful scientific organizations are all advocating for this. Never mind that one of their climate gurus has already admitted the program. We’re simply supposed to believe some nobody on the Internet vomiting out convoluted garbage about contrails.

      I’m kind of sensing some bot activity here.

      • I.M. Pistoff

        I don’t anyone who spells ‘ridiculous’ as ‘redicilous’ flying any plane i’m on.

    • mooney7

      “I’m a pilot”?
      Pilots are detail orientated, their lives depend on it.
      Real pilots can actually spell words correctly.

    • Di

      Con trails dissipate quickly and do not hang in the skies spreading out. Chem trails do stay for a long period and spread out. I have seen dozens crossing in all directions in the sky at one time. This is hardly the path of a commercial airliner. Dont dare tell me I did not see what I saw. I had 2 chemtrails over my home one evening that were so low that I could almost reach up and touch them. I know it is a conspiracy theory…the 2 words used by the 1 per cent to inhibit those from thinking outside the box. I am a senior citizen and if what you said were true I would have been seeing them 30 years ago and they were not there then.

  • dale ruff

    I have often on these pages reported (only to be smeared as a “paid shill” of some nefarious force never identified) that chemtrails are a propaganda ploy by the fossil fuel oligarchs (just like the anti-global warming campaign) to divert attention from the massive harm done by fossil fuel production and consumption (not to mention resource wars that have killed millions) to human health and the environment, not to mention climate change.

    I have suggested that chemtrails is a way to shift focus from the actual cause of global warming and environmental devastation, not to mention hundreds of millions sickened by pollution, from the obvious sources to a mythical force which no actual atmospheric scientist has ever accepted as logical or valid.

    This article featuring the views of a member of the Saudi elite, the very fossil fuel oligarchy to which I have referred, makes visible the propaganda campaign I have previously exposed. As the second leading producer of fossil fuels in the world, the Saudi oligarchy has a vested interest in thwarting efforts to regulate fossil fuel emissions and reduce environmental/health damage, for the sole purpose of protecting its trilliions in profit, in a system where the trillions in damage is shifted from the producers to the public.

    Here is the naked propaganda message: do not be concerned about the hundreds of millions sickened, the billions in lost wages, or the trillions in environmental damage caused by the fossil fuel industry; instead look up and interpret the normal contrails of millions of flights a year as a nefarious plot to modify the weather or kill off billions of unnecessary people. Do not listen to the actual atmospheric scientists who have explained the reality of contrails and the absence of scientific evidence for “chemtrails.” Instead, listen to the fossil fuel oligarchs who tell you global warming is a hoax and the real threat to your health is not the lethal pollution of fossil fuels but a conspiracy to “modify the weather” and/or target populations for death………………..”

    This message resonates with a small percentage of people who are scientifically illiterate and predisposed to distrust the government. What they do not realize is who is behind this message and that it aims to shift blame from the actual criminals who are poisoning the planet for massive profits while blocking the development of clean energy, lying to the public, and paying off politicians to thwart efforts to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Chemtrails, etc is an example of a cynical conspiracy theory with the dual purpose of diverting attention from the real, visible problem and of poisoning the well of valid conspiracy allegations, in order to protect the actual guilty parties.

    Whether it is the fascist Saudi monarchy, the Koch brothers, or Exxon, the promoters of such theories reliy on millions of useful and ignorant idiots to create a way to block doing something about the massive harm these polluters are doing.

    I will again be called a paid shill (the accusers never say of whom) and castigatged for pointing out the deception behind the chemtrails mythology. But consider whether a member of the Saudi elite, billionaires whose fortune is based on maintaining fossil fuels as the primary energy source (and thus crushing clean energy initiiatives), are not the paid shills spreading lies to keep the public and governments from acting to reduce the killing pollution the current system, backed by massive military force and widespread propaganda campaigns, is based on.

    Chemtrails has nothing to do with such weather modification as cloud seeding to produce rain (which native Americans practiced), nor would chemtrails, any more than actual contrails, reduce global warming, since the cirrus clouds caused by frozen vapors from jets actually warm the atmosphere, a fact which the EPa (demonized by the fossil fuel billionaires) has recognized and is seeking approval to regulate ordinary jet emissions just as it regulates ground level emissions.

    I too distrust the government but not for spraying to modify the weather but rather for criminal wars in 7 Muslim nations and selling 100 billion in arms to the world’s most oppressive state, a fascist monarchy, in Saudi Arabia, for whom the woman quoted in the above article speaks. I also distrust the fossil fuel industry, given that Exxon, the world’s richest corporation, has now been exposed as having concluded from its own research in the 70’s that global warming, caused by burning fossil fuels, was real…..and then spending tens of millions to fund climate denial propaganda. EPA regulations.

    For instance, as a child, trips to Los Angeles (with 1/4 the people of today) was a painful experience of burning eyes and sore throats for days afterwards, as well as flu like symptoms. Today, LA air is much cleaner due to smog regulations, despite having 5 times more cars.

    ” Back in the 1950s and ’60s, people in Los Angeles breathed some of the dirtiest air in the world.

    Los Angeles still has smog, of course, but it’s not nearly as bad as it used to be. How did the city get its act together?

    It took decades. Los Angeles had its first real smog attack during World War II, a smog strong enough that some people suspected a Japanese chemical attack. But it wasn’t until 1975 that the U.S. required new cars to have catalytic converters, “the key piece of technology that allowed everything to change,”

    If you go further back to the late 1900’s, LA was a mecca of electric vehicles with an electric mass transit system, but the fossil fuel industry crushed this development, which threatened to exclude them.

    Today, fossil fuel corporations are working hard, bribing politicians, etc, to block efforts to reduce pollution. For instance,recently in California the industry worked to block efforts to slightly raise standards for release of ozone, claiming that cleaning up the air would “hurt business.”

    Just a few weeks ago, the Republican Congress voted to strike down the new rules to limit emissions from power plants. “Senators voted 52-46 to stop the carbon dioxide limits for existing power plants, which mandate a 32 percent cut in the power sector’s carbon emissions by 2030. The move to block the related carbon rule for newly built power plants passed by the same vote.
    Together, the regulations are the biggest part of Obama’s pledge going into the talks to reduce the United States’ greenhouse gases 26 percent to 28 percent.”

    The worst polluters are coal plants, which worldwide kill

    “A 2010 study by the Clean Air Task Force estimated that air pollution from coal-fired power plants accounts for more than 13,000 premature deaths, 20,000 heart attacks, and 1.6 million lost workdays in the U.S. each year. The total monetary cost of these health impacts is over $100 billion annually.”
    All these costs are shifted to the public and the government, which the coal industry paints as the villain.

    “25 MARCH 2014 | GENEVA – In new estimates released today, WHO reports that in 2012 around 7 million people died – one in eight of total global deaths – as a result of air pollution exposure. This finding more than doubles previous estimates and confirms that air pollution is now the world’s largest single environmental health risk.”

    Efforts to shift attention from the real cause of the the “world’s largest single environmental health risk.”

    include the propaganda campaign to dismiss the findings of climate science and to paint the government (including the UN) not as the agencies capable of reducing these risks but as perpetrators of lies and programs to increase the risk through such alleged programs as “chemtrails.”

    This is clever but deadly. I now await the typical kill the messenger (and I am just reporting) smears of “paid shill” etc etc. I am used to it. Those without any evidence to support their position (ie the brainwashed) will call those reporting evidence all kinds of bad names.

    Why would Saudi Arabia want to support the mythology of chemtrails? Think about it.

    • Sparky McBiff

      CO2 is NOT “pollution”. It is necessary for life on the planet.
      If it drops below 150 ppm plants die then the rest of life on the planet will eventually follow.
      The earth at the moment is at very depleted level of CO2 and is only at about 390 ppm which is actually minutely small and is only 0.039%.
      In the history of the planet the C O2 level has been as high as 7000ppm and the temperatures weren’t much different than they are today. CO2 also has absolutely nothing to do with the temperature and the earth has previously gone into ice ages when the CO2 level was as high as 4000ppm!
      If you’re so concerned about “global warming” then you should start a fight against water since water vapour is 2000 times more effective as a “greenhouse gas” than CO2.

      • dale ruff

        I usually say “pollution and greenhouse emissions” to satisfy trolls like you but I will say pollution is defined as any harmful emissions, and CO2 in the atmosphere is certainly harmful in that as a greenhouse gas, it warms the atmosphere and produces many harmful extreme weather events like record floods (North Carolina), record droughts (California), record decrease in snowpack (which provides water) up to 95%, record melting of glaciers in 90% of world’s glaciers (also leading to water crises), record rainfall (as in the Pacific Northwest) and of course record heat, as on all continents this last summer, including the Artic. This week, record heat waves in the frigid December Northeast have temps 10-30 degrees above normal. All this is a result of an increase of 40% of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1800 when massive burning of fossil fuels began.

        CO2 in the ground or ocean or at ground level is not the same as in the atmosphere, where it acts as a warming greenhouse gas. The CO2 level today is at the highest level in 800,000years, and while millions or billions of years ago, it is now higher than ever since human beings began to populate the earth.

        Water vapor is greenhouse gas but your ignorance shows when you do not recognize that as CO2 in the atmosphere warms it up, that also produces more water vapor in what is called a positive feedback loop. To reduce water vapor, we have to reduce greenhouse gases. Also, CO2 lasts in the atmosphere for decades while water vapor lasts for hours or days. You need to do a little more study so you understand these relationships and why all climate scientists recognize global warming an an empirical reality, with human activity as the only logical cause.

        Climate central reports: “The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere, modern humans didn’t exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world’s seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.

        Carbon dioxide is the most important long-lived global warming gas, and once it is emitted by burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil, a single CO2 molecule can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Global CO2 emissionsreached a record high of 35.6 billion tonnes in 2012, up 2.6 percent from 2011. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases warm the planet by absorbing the sun’s energy and preventing heat from escaping back into space.

        For a 2009 study, published in the journal Science, scientists analyzed shells in deep sea sediments to estimate past CO2 levels, and found that CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now for at least the past 10 to 15 million years, during the Miocene epoch.

        “This was a time when global temperatures were substantially warmer than today, and there was very little ice around anywhere on the planet. And so sea level was considerably higher — around 100 feet higher — than it is today,”

        The claim that CO2 over 1500% higher than today and the temperatures were the dame is impossible, given the fact that greenhouse gases heat up the atmosphere which increases water vapor, which in turn heats up the temperature even more.

        The claim that greenhouse gases like CO2 has no effect on the temperature is rejected by 100% of actual climate scientists as absurd. Why are you promoting absurdities? Climate denial is promoted by fossil fuel corporations whose own research proves it is real (Exxon, Koch funded Berkeley Earth Project). Greenhouse gases by definition heat the atmosphere so the claim there is no connection is a sign of scientific illiteracy.

        I suggest you read https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

        to understand the context of the high CO2 concentrations millions of years ago.

        skepticalscience reports: “The Ordovician glaciation was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions. It is completely consistent with climate science.”

        This is 444 million years ago and “In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.”

        I recommend this article by the author of the above skepticalscience article:

        Bord, R.J.; O’Connor; Fisher (1998). “Public perceptions of global warming: United States and international perspectives”. Climate Research 11 (1): 75–84.

        Real science is shaped by research and efforts by other scientists to find flaws in theories, methodology and data. Public perceptions are shaped by corporate propaganda and media sensationalism. I urge you to stick with the real science.

      • dale ruff

        Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change. Since 1800 CO2 has increased by 40%, higher than in the past 800,000 years. There is no such thing as “a depleted level of CO2” at this time, since there is 40% more than 200 years ago. With CO2 rising concerns about it dropping below 150ppm is a red herring. The danger is that with more greenhouse gases, the increased temperature and moisture in the atmosphere triggers severe weather events including rapid melting of ice caps (raising sea level) and glaciers (90% are melting, threatening world’s water supply).

        The current level of 400 ppm is in one sense minute but in another a powerful cause of global warming. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heating, the more water vapor, and so more heating: positive feedback loop. Look it up and consider that if greenhouse gases cause adverse change they are rightly considered pollution. In addition they are released along with the lethal particulate pollution which kills millions each year.

        The worst offender is coal. “Burning coal gives off tiny particles that are five times more deadly to the heart than burning oil, natural gas or wood,To conduct the study (published online Wednesday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives ), researchers examined data collected between 1982 and 2004 of more than 450,000 adults across the U.S. in 100 different metro areas. They found that exposure to tiny particles found in fossil fuel emissions is linked with an increased risk of death from heart disease, including from a heart attack, and quantified the toxicity of such particles as contributing more this mortality risk than other forms of air pollution.”

        The reduction of pollutants which are release together in the burning of fossil fuels, must include both greenhouse gases and particulants. ‘The Coal industry is fighting regulation, claiming it would cost jobs, despite the fact that the US coal industry employs 80,000 people (down 10% from the previous year) and that building equipment to reduce emissions would create new jobs. And the renewable energy industry is growing fast, and now employs, in the US alone, about ten times as many:

        “According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), renewable energy employment in the United States reached 724,000 jobs in 2014, a 16 percent increase from the previous year (IRENA does not include large-scale hydropower in their estimates). This also does not include green energy industries such as electric vehicles, green building construction, and mandated energy efficient appliances, which combined employ another 2.7 million.

        According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), renewable energy employment in the United States reached 724,000 jobs in 2014, a 16 percent increase from the previous year (IRENA does not include large-scale hydropower in their estimates).

        In the UK, green energy jobs are growing 7 times faster than the national average, and in the US 10 times faster (google it at renewableenergy.com)

        In the same year, the coal industry lost 10,000 jobs, solar added 23,000 and wind added 22,500 (energy.gov).

        Usgbc.org reports: “WASHINGTON, D.C. – (Sept. 16, 2015) – The green building sector is outpacing overall construction growth in the U.S. and will account for more than 2.3 million American jobs this year, according to a newU.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) study from Booz Allen Hamilton (NYSE:BAH).

        The 2015 Green Building Economic Impact Study, released today by USGBC and prepared by Booz Allen, finds the green building industry contributes more than $134.3 billion in labor income to working Americans. The study also found that green construction’s growth rate is rapidly outpacing that of conventional construction and will continue to rise.”

        As we reduce coal production, saving the environment, the climate, and human lives, coal workers, who suffer severe health problems in addition to a fatality rate 6 times higher than in the average private sector job. The rate of days lost due to illness is twice the average of the private sector (31 days a year).http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/osar0012.htm

        Coal is the worst emitter of greenhouse gases. A 2009 study found that

        “Previous research that examined specific forms of mortality in coal mining areas found that chronic forms of heart, respiratory, and kidney disease, as well as lung cancer, remained elevated after adjusting for socioeconomic and behavioral factors.16,18,19 Elevated adjusted mortality occurred in both males and females, suggesting that the effects were not due to occupational exposure, as almost all coal miners are men. These illnesses are consistent with a hypothesis of exposure to water and air pollution from mining activities. There is evidence that the coal mining industry is a significant source of both air and water pollution.45–50 In the current study, the adjusted VSL costs indicate that the potential environmental impacts of mining exceed the economic benefits of mining.

        Eliminating the mortality disparity in coal mining areas would result in savings of an estimated 3,975 to 10,923 lives per year based on choice of comparison group.”

        A tax carbon would result in reducing reliance on coal and increasing the green energy industry, thus saving lives, the environment, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions which cause severe weather events. The 80,000 coal miners who die young, along with their families, could be subsidized with training to work in the fast growing green energy industry. Coal miners could be retrained to enter a growing industry instead of slowing dying in an industry where jobs are being replaced over 10% year with automation.

        A carbon tax on coal would not only help reduce emissions (through innovation to avoid the tax) but would gradually end the coal mining industry, to be replaced with non-polluting energy sources; a portion of it could be used to train coal miners who are being eliminated by the industry anyway to work in the green energy industry, which is the fastest growing in the nation. They would thus have a future and prospects of living a healthier longer life. Coal is a killer. It has the worst particulate pollution and the worst greenhouse gas emissions along with being the most dangerous and unhealthy of energy jobs.

        Carbon taxes can save lives, as well as reduce global warming, in addition to funding training for people who are losing their jobs (mostly independent of any governmental intervention). It is simple to write a law mandating that all revenue from carbon taxes be used for dividends to consumers, research and development, promotion of clean energy, and retraining those who might lose their jobs in dirty energy facilities.

        Medicare is able to administer payments for 50 million clients with a 2% overhead (compared to 20% for private insurers) and so it is reasonable to assume that carbon taxes (like payroll taxes) can be administered at the same 2% level, leaving 98% of the revenues for the benefits described above. There is no evidence in other nations with carbon taxes of waste or fraud…so these are simply propaganda lies promoted by the billionaire polluters who put obscene profits above human health and concern for protecting the environment.

        • Jas

          lol….You are a paid shill! No one would spend as much time and have a books worth of misleading information unless they were being paid. CO2 is at the lowest levels in the history of our planet, we could use more. CO2 is NOT the main greenhouse gas, water vapor is by a huge margin, so they whole debate about CO2 is itself a rousse. The Global Warming Hoax is all about money and control through Agenda 21.

    • Peter A. Kirby

      Yes computer, anyone who has been paying attention here is aware of your long-winded and convoluted conspiracy theories about how big oil created the chemtrail myth. The facts of the matter are that big oil is a big funder of your global warming nonsense and big oil is heavily invested in the so-called ‘green alternatives’ to hydrocarbon fuel. What your feeble microprocessor fails to grasp is that the global warming rip-off is much bigger than the oil companies. And yes, I will continue to personally attack you because you are a spawn of satan designed to help usher in a new dark age of eco-tyranny. Humanity rejects you in no uncertain terms. Like John Hancock, write my name the biggest.

      • dale ruff

        Your sarcasm masks a lack of knowledge. What you call long-winded is a full measure of evidence. “The facts of the matter are that big oil is a big funder of your global warming nonsense and big oil is heavily invested in the so-called ‘green alternatives’ to hydrocarbon fuel.”

        That is blatant nonsense. It is refuted by the facts and is illogical, since Big Oil profits from a lack of regulations which allows them to externalize costs.

        Koch, Exxon. BP etc all openly funded climate denial for years.

        July 15/2015 the Guardian reported: “ExxonMobil gave more than $2.3m to members of Congress and a corporate lobbying group that deny climate change and block efforts to fight climate change – eight years after pledging to stop its funding of climate denial, the Guardian has learned.”

        A Greenpeace study based on documented evidence found that “The Koch Brothers have sent at least $79,048,951 to groups denying climate change science since 1997.Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch have a vested interest in delaying climate action: they’ve made billions from their ownership and control of Koch Industries, an oil corporation that is the second largest privately-held company in America.The Koch brothers, their family members, and their employees direct a web of financing that supports conservative special interest groups and think-tanks, with a strong focus onfighting environmental regulation, opposing clean energy legislation, and easing limits on industrial pollution. This money is typically funneled through one of three “charitable” foundations the Kochs have set up: the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation; theCharles G. Koch Charitable Foundation; and the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation.”

        Wikpedia reports (with primary sources) “They actively fund and support organizations that contribute significantly to Republican candidates, and that lobby against efforts to expand government’s role in health care and combat global warming.” (see primary source)

        Scientificamerican reports: “In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
        Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.

        The study was published Friday in the journal Climatic Change.”

        Due to adverse publicity Koch, Exxon, etc no longer openly fund climate denial organizations but do it through subsidiaries, a common method for masking financial dealings.

        From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were “heavily involved” in funding climate change denial efforts. But Exxon hasn’t made a publically traceable contribution since 2008, and Koch’s efforts dramatically declined, Brulle said.

        Coinciding with a decline in traceable funding, Brulle found a dramatic rise in the cash flowing to denial organizations from DonorsTrust, a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation, the assessment found, now accounts for 25 percent of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations promoting the systematic denial of climate change.

        The largest of these organizations is Donors Trust. Sourcewatch.org reported:

        “DT and DCF made grants of over $148 million in 2011 and 2012, and according to a report byDeSmog Blog the two funds granted almost $311 million between 2002 and 2010′.[5] The Koch brothers and other ultra-wealthy industrial ideologues appear to be cloaking an untold amount of their donations to conservative political outlets through DT and DCF. The obscure Knowledge and Progress Fund, controlled by Charles G. Koch, with Richard Fink as president, has given only to Donors since 2005…”

        “We do know that the Koch brothers have made significant contributions to Donors Trust through their foundation called the Knowledge and Progress Fund. They gave $1.25 million in 2007, $1.25 million in 2008, and then $2 million in 2010 to Donors.”

        Robert Brulle: Inside the Climate Change “Countermovement”, PBS Frontline, October 23, 2012.

        To claim that the Koch brothers and Exxon are funding “global warming nonsense” is totally absurd, given the hundreds of millions they have given to deny it. The reason they have promoted the denial movement is thwart govt efforts to reduce greenhouse gases which legislation would cut into their profits as they would no longer be able to shift the costs of damage to the public.

        Your total lack of evidence and logic, combined with your personal attacks (you call me “a spawn of satan) shows not only a mind brainwashed by the Big Oil/Coal propaganda but a demented mind which has the psychopathic arrogance to speak for “Humanity.”

        You are a sad case of a useful idiot of the fossil fuel propagandists imagining he speaks for Humanity.

        • Jas

          The E-mail scandal exposed that the pro GW scientists are in fact being paid by Shell and other funders, and yes major oil companies and their executives and share holders are vested in green energy. You are a shill of the highest order, or is it ‘lowest’ order you Satan worshiping pedophiles are after? Also, nobody cares about the Koch brothers, they aren’t even in the top ten of the most money given to political causes, only liberals and shills bring them up.

          • blue579

            The Kochs run in global elite circles. For instance, David was on the board of directors for the Earth Watch Institute, described by some as a pro Agenda 21 sustainability organization. He is currently on the boards of the globalist Aspen Institute (formerly headed by Club of Rome and UN superwonk Maurice Strong) and the Rockefeller University Trustees. The Kochs have always played both sides and are heavy into the dialectic, going back to the days their father Fred co-opted the John Birch Society. Fred developed a close relationship with Stalin and his sons donate to environmentalist DINOs in congress. It’s a complete fog, gotta rely on common sense.

          • Jas

            Common sense? Yes, all these rich guys are in on it together against we the lower class. I’m just sick of brain dead liberals whining endlessly about the Koch brothers like they are the only ones funding the agenda/war against us. Just more divide and conquer tactics.

          • blue579

            Perfect spot on description.

    • Lisa Farkass

      Okay… I have been observing since 2009 the proliferation of the spray program. For anyone to deny the existence of “chem” trails at this point is insanity. Having worked in the airline industry for many years and just being a person of passionate curiosity, something has changed…. I don’t understand how I can observe TWO planes flying at the same time… I have years worths of pictures for my own satisfaction from all over the US, I have driven back and forth hundreds and hundreds of miles from MD to IN, watching, looking up. You have to study the sky… you just can’t look up once an hour for a minute and decide, you need hours and hours and days and weeks and months to notice the patterns, luckily I have time, cause I won’t sell my days for gold… one has a thick vapor trail that lasts, turns into swirls and expands over 30 minutes and a NORMAL contrail that dissipates at 15 to 30 seconds. So…. yes, you are a SHILL, paid or not, it doesn’t matter. Shills just talk and talk and talk,,,, diverting attention from the real issue. so, Blah, blah ,blah blah Have a nice day shilly.

      • dale ruff

        You have been observing normal contrails, which both pollute and warm the atmosphere. You are interpreting them as chemtrails with no evidence. No atmospheric scientists who actually study the atmosphere accepts the reality of chemtrails; so your position is that the experts who spend their lives doing research on the top are all insane, whereas you who has never taken even one class in atmospheric science, can SEE the chemtrails.

        Normal contrails can last a long time and spread out to form cirrus clouds slightly warming the atmosphere. They are carried by air currents for thousands of miles over months and dissipated by the millions finally fall to earth (2/3 in the ocean).

        You are denying the reality of a phenomenon all atmospheric scientists accept as an empirical fact: persistent contrails.

        Here is an excellent explanation of contrails (from pbs):

        “A contrail will form behind a jet if, as exhaust gases cool and mix with surrounding air, the humidity is high enough and the temperature low enough for liquid water to condense. The air needs to be supersaturated and the temperature generally below -40°F, something that typically occurs only in the upper troposphere, the atmospheric layer several miles up where airliners cruise. Under those conditions, water vapor from the jet’s exhaust and secondarily from the atmosphere condenses into water droplets. Within a few tens of feet behind the aircraft, these droplets freeze into the snow-white particles that bring the contrail to life.

        How long a newly formed condensation trail sticks around depends on the ambient humidity. If humidity is low, contrails will rapidly dissipate, looking like a comet’s tail. The ice particles sublimate—meaning go straight from ice to vapor—and you’re back to blue sky. If humidity is high, however, contrails can persist—

        f conditions are right, newly formed contrails will begin feeding off surrounding water vapor. Like vaporous cancers, they start growing and spreading. In time, they can expand horizontally to such an extent that they become indistinguishable from cirrus clouds, those thin, diaphanous sheets often seen way up high. These artificial cirrus clouds can last for many hours, and the amount of sky they end up covering can be astonishing. One study showed that contrails from just six aircraft expanded to shroud some 7,700 square miles.”

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/contrail-effect.html

        As I am citing the evidence of actual atmospheric scientists, I conclude that you are the paid shill of those seeking to delude the public. What you see above is not “talk and talk and talk’ (that is what your fact-free post is full of) but findings of atmospheric science. You can call actual science blah blah blah blah blah, but science is valid whether you accept it or not.

      • mooney7

        Dale Ruff also shills for smart meters and wireless.
        Looks like he’s now getting paid by the word.

  • rhondareichel

    She’s great…..I am very proud of her because our officials say nothing

  • rhondareichel

    Obama yells about climate change but doesn’t address this???

    • Johan Abelsson

      Of course not, time to teach about the world for real my friend.

  • blue579

    When an SPLC operative makes it a point to constantly attack geoengineering critics then we can surmise the powers-that-shouldn’t-be are worried their enslavement plan A (global carbon tax, to start) is in danger of unraveling. We KNOW what we are witnessing with our own eyes, we don’t need globalist billionaire “fossil fuel oligarchs” (Rockefellers, Kochs, Sauds, etc) to sanctify what we have been observing.

    I sincerely hope the Princess is not being used somehow, however, regardless of her stance or how it could be twisted later into a limited hangout (e.g. “AGW is taking place and TPTB are making the situation worse out of desperation…”), this battle must be explode from the bottom up – not top down.

    • Paceride

      What’s a SPLC operative?

      • Jas

        Southern Poverty Law Center

        • MA Deuce

          SPLC = Southern Preposterous Lie center

  • blue579

    Thank you for your valuable contributions, Peter and Patrick. BTW, radio host John B Wells (Caravan to Midnight) is highly sympathetic to geoengineering activism. It might be worth your time to share some of your work with him. Wells has been interviewing Patrick Wood and, in a comment, I referenced your work on Wood’s Technocracy.news.

    IMO, the scientism mindset of Technocracy is well reflected in the global promotion of geoengineering. Incidentally, a very good article “Rusticus” shared on Activist Post on Russia’s historical embrace of technocratic rule dovetails with an apparent decades long ambitious view of geoengineering in Russia going back to 1960 expressed in a book by two Russian meteorologists:

    “Today we are merely on the threshold of the conquest of nature. But if … the reader is convinced that man can really be the master of this planet and that the future is in his hands, then the authors will consider that they have fulfilled their purpose.”

    theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/24/why-geoengineering-suits-russias-carbon-agenda

    In a 2013 request to the IPCC, Russia formally asked that geoengineering be considered as a possible solution to stabilize the climate. However, like the rest of the world, Russia’s ruling elite haven’t been waiting for the IPCC’s “green light” – they are already spraying.

    theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/19/russia-un-climate-report-geoengineering

    • blue579

      FWIW, an additional note relating to the issue in the second video of potential military applications, in a Dec. 10 Solari blog excerpt of a Clifford Carnicom interview the subject of particulates from global spraying being used as a surveillance system via LIDAR technology was discussed as another theoretical application and motive. solari.com/blog/

    • Peter A. Kirby

      Thanks for the thanks. Yes, I am aware of John B.. I dig his stuff. I don’t agree with him on everything, but he’s got a great voice and a great mind. I plan on asking to appear on his show when I am done with my book. Even if he asked me, I couldn’t do his show right now. I have to not do interviews right now because I have turned down some requests lately; telling them that I’m not doing interviews until the book is done. I don’t want to alienate the people who I have politely rejected thus far. The book might be done by the middle of next year.

      You provide me with some very interesting avenues of investigation. They have been duly noted and will be explored.

      • blue579

        I completely understand. I didn’t know who Wells was until recently stumbling onto the Wood technocracy interview. I’m always grateful people seem to be connecting somehow. Best of luck with the book.

  • BRAVO!!!

  • Ben

    The short of it, knowledge cannot be unlearned, nor taken away. Once you understand the ‘basics’, you build upon that and keep on keeping on. Knowledge gives you a huge inferno to light the darkest night, it is the ultimate equalizer, power. In surviving, knowing the basics, a good set of basics, is all you need. Once you have that, you can see past all the smoke and mirror riff raff and it all falls away.

  • Lisa Farkass

    Where did she come from?? How was she let out of SA? 🙁

  • Sadsz

    Environmental protection has been derailed to a large extent. If there were an environment al protection movement, then a main focus would also be to help Japan to stop contaminating the Pacific Ocean with leaking radioactive materials from Fukushima. Environmental clean up has been hijacked by neocons.

    • blue579

      Great observation but the blame goes beyond the neocons, the neolibs are just as much a part of the problem. Two sides of the same coin, both allowing or supporting geoengineering and more. The genuine aspects of the environmental movement were hijacked by the globalists.

      • Jas

        Yep, both shills for the banker gangsters. Both the neocons and the far left are communists walking hand in hand towards the NWO.

      • Di

        I saw Hillary advocating, on utube video, Gmo’s as safe when I have read numerous independent studies saying the opposite. This could be. along with CT, a depopulation agenda.

  • Paul Speed

    don’t lie that you don’t know who sprays! you know well – these are bodies who are funded by secret budgets of governments who involved with that!

  • Ben William

    Interesting. The Princess is a student of G.I. Gurdjieff

  • Bob Solo

    Is Patrick Roddie the creepiest conman on the internet? Very possibly.

  • blue579

    What erudition!

  • blue579

    The peak oil concept was formalized by a geophysicist named M. King Hubbert. “Coincidentally”, Hubbert was also a co-founder of the 1930s Technocracy movement which, almost exactly, describes the totalitarian energy rationing system the-powers-that-shouldn’t-be have been constructing behind the curtain, and to some extent, under our noses. Whether oil scarcity is even close to the peak oil theory is almost irrelevant at this point because the global elite (Rockefellers, etc) have been undermining decentralized forms of energy production for a very long time, esp. well documented is plant based fuels (alcohols). They want all of us dependent on centrally controlled energy sources. If you’re interested, there is an article in the link about Hubbert founding Technocracy, which is essentially an extension of the Scientific Society concept, and later promoted in the 1970s by Brzezinski (Technotronic Era). Note on link: the author Patrick Wood has the article on his website but it requires free registration to view (which is OK as there are other articles on Technocracy), so I’m sharing a link to a blog that is open viewing. anationbeguiled.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/carbon-currency-a-new-beginning-for-technocracy/ Check it out, TPTB aim to control every resource and put every human being on the planet in electronic cages / straight jackets.

    • Ben

      Thank you.

  • Frank frivilous

    Okay princess, you sound smart. Now take your clothes off!

  • blue579

    Thanks for that info, very helpful.

  • drbhelthi

    Is this the same Saudi Arabia that George H. W. Bush collaborated with since the 1960s, from which Osama bin Laden came, and which sent the 19 male decoys to Jeb Bush to later use to scapegoat Moslems for 9-11, covering for the MOSSAD´s destruction of the WTC? The same Saudi Arabia which has been a major financier of ISIS? One immediately tends to assume that this princess is a decoy to distract from the historical evil associated with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is currently organizing a massive army of Arab countries that have supported ISIL, and which will predictably support NATO, attack Syria and perhaps spark a war with Russia.

    An attractive, wealthy princess of Saudi Arabia, pursuing the topic of geoengineering is a neat distraction from Saudi involvement in activity that could lead to a nuclear war.

    • Di

      Who do you think is funding ISIS?

      • drbhelthi

        Is that a question, expecting an answer? Or, is it an interrogative statement ?

  • It is great to see such a prominent person bring the subject of chemtrails and geoengineering into the spot light! Long may it continue. Maybe now the sheeple will begin to awake?

  • Peter D

    Those who follow Mr Roddie’s crowd-funded holidays are amused. Mr Roddie does not belong at a science conference, but he does like to ‘attend’ to make himself appear part of the proceedings. All he’s done here is approach a woman who doesn’t have a clue what his ‘chemtrails’ delusion is about, but tries to be polite. Mr Roddie and Mr Bliss take crowd-fund money and play pretend-scientists. Disgraceful behaviour, they belong in jail, simple as that.

Thank you for sharing.
Follow us to receive the latest updates.

Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter