Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Please forgive us for our (measly) consumption of CO2. We will of course self-flagellate by way of plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below the 1990 levels by 2050. Minister Gawne appears to ignore the fact that China and India may well increase CO2 production levels on a huge scale that puts them in a completely different league. In other words, our painful path to 80% CO2 reduction probably has very little effect on global statistics.

However, the really puzzling, yet noteworthy, omission in this morning’s Manx Radio soundbites is that the usual references to climate change (going back millennia ) contain not one reference to ongoing global geoengineering programmes and the effects these have on the weather – and climate. While DEFA continues to scourge us with the climate change/CO2 whip the department appears to prefer to withhold mention of a very pertinent factor in any climate change.

The fact is that man is changing the climate  – intentionally. This is not only a possibility, or a theory, it is a very real and documented fact. While DEFA appears to have attempted to avoid discussion of this topic in the past, it must now not only be acknowledged but should be accompanied by the admission that while this practice continues unabated, unrestricted and unmonitored by any global authority, it has also been responsible for droughts in some countries while others enjoyed the necessary rainfall. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that some have suffered from drought while others have suffered from severe deluges. They tell us there are winners and losers in this game. But did they consult us about this? Did they obtain our consent? They spray and alter the weather accordingly and then omit to mention this when they resume the usual lashings of blame on the commuter, the traveller or the pensioner attempting to keep warm under whatever weather conditions have been imposed upon him.

The UK Met Office is certainly privy to what is going on. Is the public clued up? We are not only entitled to be informed it is the duty of those presently attempting to further restrict our life quality, by wielding the CO2 whip, to supply us with all available information and it is the duty of those responsible for weather manipulation to obtain our consent. Do you consent to this manipulation of global weather? And if, for instance, the bizarre snowfalls of 2013 were to be attributed  to weather manipulation, then who is to be held responsible – and by which means?

Is it really ok to harp on about CO2 production, while ignoring the very real and determined measures to alter weather and climate which are presently in use?

Met Office researchers have called for global oversight of the radical schemes after studies showed they could have huge and unintended impacts on some of the world’s most vulnerable people. ….The dangers arose in projects that cooled the planet unevenly. In some cases these caused devastating droughts across Africa; in others they increased rainfall in the region but left huge areas of Brazil parched.

And how are our environmental protectors affording us protection from the associated pollution?




Is the theory of man-made climate change a fanciful notion? This scary scenario is being sold to us from every imaginable source. Schoolchildren have been subjected to very graphic predictions of rising tides, causing unreasonable and unacceptable fear in some cases. Every weather event is now attributed to ‘climate change’. And the Isle of Man Government website has a brochure dedicated to predicted climate change related water shortage. Dream on!

However, man is definitely affecting weather, and hence climate, in devastating ways. Of that there is no doubt. Geooengineering projects are being carried out on a global scale. This is fact:

Strangely, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not appear to take this into consideration in their ‘models’. Instead the doom, gloom theorists prefer to put the blame on every one of us while ignoring the huge ongoing geoengineering programmes. Unsurprisingly, DEFA spokespersons concur with this theory. Those of us who do not are of course dubbed ‘climate change deniers.’ Would it be unkind or unfair to suggest that DEFA might require fewer personnel if CO2 were discovered to have little impact on things and that some might have a vested interest in perpetuating the theory?

While the innumerable, and to some extent unknown, (because there is no global database on who is spraying what) global geoengineering projects are undoubtedly affecting the weather it would seem that DARPA (Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency) and the US Navy have been tweaking the ionosphere, which can move the Jet Stream.

They can use [HAARP] to warm the upper atmosphere to lift it, to create domes [in the ionosphere]. …Once you’ve got the particulates via the chemtrails laid out in the sky, you can deposit heat in the atmosphere. And as you deposit it and warm the air you create a high pressure and if you continually pulse zone – grid by grid by grid, you can accentuate that high pressure that is in place and thereby diverting the jet stream north or south of that island of air.”

Scott Stevens former TV weather presenter.

How often have  exceptional weather events been attributed to Jet Stream displacement?

HAARP is to be decommissioned, but only because the US Military now has much more effective means of messing with the weather as disclosed in this video:

 Is the heavy aerial spraying an essential part of the new technology? It seems that some environmental agencies are working to discover what is going on. In the following video the speaker admits that the spraying is having a very negative on the planet.

It seems that our environmental agency has little interest in protecting the environment but huge interest in thrusting a theory down our throats. This is not acceptable.




Armed with the remote, the Pringles and the chilled drinks many television viewers seem unable to process or consider what they are being told. Why else would there have been no comment on the following detailed description of military aerial spraying and the resultant effect on satellite images of weather fronts?



Military aircraft are involved in the spraying of aluminium? Isn’t that the element implicated in Alzheimers and autism? Would this have an effect on the planet and forests and wildlife? Of course. Yet where are the protests from our environmental agencies? Yes, the footage does emanate from the US but with open skies policies and no monitoring of aircraft outside of a certain elevation, together with the fact that DEFA does not monitor air content apart from periodic tests of particle size, who knows what is in the air?

As the following BBC documentary shows, the British Government has previously adopted a very cavalier attitude towards the population and when the details of aerial spraying emerged we were told that the cadmium spray (yes, cadmium!) was harmless. Well, that will be fine then. Because we have an assurance from the British Government? References are made to the fact that this happened in the Cold War period. We discover that some police were in the know. Easily silenced under security regulations? How does this compare to today’s reaction to the supposed dire threat of terrorism ? (Just ignore the millions dying of cancer and other illnesses produced by pollution). It would also be very easy to silence those in the know.

If you care about your health and that of your family, why do you remain silent in face of substantial and mounting evidence that our air is being intentionally polluted? It is irrational and irresponsible to ignore what we are seeing and what we are being told.

PS This explains how little monitoring occurs.


So government would not spray us? Just like soldiers have never been used as lab rats?

The following document explains in detail just how some parts of the UK have been sprayed with chemicals in the past. Was permission sought to do this? Would anyone give permission to become a guinea pig? The document reveals in detail exactly how the spraying was calculated and carried out – in 1959.

With further ‘trials’ being carried out in 1963:

Scott Stevens, a former TV weatherman, has been very active in investigation of persistent contrails and weather manipulation:

Steven Martin, a senior meteorologist also questions weather patterns and is convinced that some storms are engineered.

Why should we believe denials from governments regarding aerial spraying when they also admit to not investigating the matter? We can see it has been done before – and more than once.  So is it really so ridiculous to question what is happening in the sky? It seems to me that the most irrational behaviour is to accept assurances that everything is just fine when we have evidence of the UK Government’s track record.

P.S. The photo in this document dates back to 1926.






Thank goodness some of our MHKs are keeping tabs on things in government. In a Liberal Vannin press release dated the 10th May Mrs Beecroft reveals some quite astounding details of a recent Accounts Committee Public Sitting. She states that:

“From the evidence I listened to this afternoon, it appears that this Government is arrogant beyond belief, has no regard for its own regulations and is totally out of control.”

The following media release regarding the appointment of consultants Ci65 contains references to government not adhering to its own regulations, a lack of ‘paper trail’ and the curious details of how the consultancy firm was incorporated on the 9th September 2013 just three days prior to being awarded the government contract. Furthermore, the website was set up one day before the date of incorporation, yet it contains testimonials dating back years before the company was formed.

A sum of £650,000 was awarded to this company. Government’s money? No, it came from you and me. Just like the funding for the Sefton setup deal and the Pinewood millions. The money wasted on harebrained bendy bus experiments etc. etc.  Yet, when the coffers are empty we are told that we must make sacrifices. Why should we? Accountability is urgently needed.

Press Release 10 May 2014

Arrogant and Out of Control

Kate Beecroft MHK, LibVan Leader, attended the Public Accounts Committee public sitting, Chaired by Alf Cannan MHK, on Wednesday when it took evidence from Ministers Teare and Robertshaw regarding the appointment of consultants Ci65 Limited who were paid in excess of £650,000 from the NI Fund. Kate later stated, “From the evidence I listened to this afternoon, it appears that this Government is arrogant beyond belief, has no regard for its own regulations and is totally out of control.” She continued, “It is somewhat ironic that Minister Robertshaw, nicknamed “The Enforcer”, whose role as the new Cabinet Minister is to enforce policy and reform across all departments, appeared to have so little regard for due process and indeed Tynwald itself that he had to be reminded of the correct procedures by Mrs Cannell MHK.”

There is much within the evidence that gives cause for concern including:
• Government’s own Chief Financial Officer admitted that Financial Regulations had not been adhered to
• There was no paper trail
• No FD8 waiver had been granted
• The Council of Ministers approved the appointment of Ci65 Limited and believe that they had the legal power to do this although the Public Accounts Committee had doubts about this and were awaiting a legal opinion
Even disregarding the above, there are grave concerns. On 12th September last year Ci65 Limited gave a presentation to the Council of Ministers and the decision was taken by the Council of Ministers to award them the second phase of the review without going out to public tender. As the Treasury Minister, Eddie Teare, was present at this meeting, this was classed as Treasury concurrence. This cannot be right !! We know that the proposed support for the Sefton Group was taken by Minister Shimmin to the Council of Ministers for discussion without Treasury concurrence and we know that the Treasury Minister, Eddie Teare, subsequently publicly defended the decision to go ahead with the support. We know that he had to under the rules of collective responsibility. What we don’t know is whether or not Treasury concurred with the decision to award Ci65 Limited the contract before it was discussed in the Council of Ministers meeting or even within that meeting. Whatever he says now has to be disregarded as he is now obliged to support and defend that decision.
Again, disregarding all of the above, we have to look at the basics. What due diligence was carried out on Ci65 Limited before the decision was made on 12th September 2013 to award them the contract? What due diligence could have been carried out if we look at the facts.
• Ci65 Limited was incorporated on 9th September 2013
• The website domain name was registered on 8th September 2013
• Testimonials on the website date back years before the company was formed
• The presentation to the Council of Ministers by Ci65 Limited and the decision to award them the contract was made by the Council of Ministers on 12th September 2013
We know from previous instances that due diligence is not something that this Government is particularly good at but this really is ridiculous. The most basic piece of due diligence should be a bankers reference. Are we expected to believe that Ci65 Limited was formed on the 9th September and in the two days prior to the presentation to the Council of Ministers, there was time for a back account to be opened and for Government to write for and receive a reference?

Does this Government really believe that we are that gullible?

Kate Beecroft MHK for Douglas South
Leader Liberal Vannin Party