"People are right to be revolted and alarmed," says Matthew
Watson, the head of the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate
Engineering (Spice) team. "That's a good thing. It should not sound
easy. If we do this, it will be the clearest indication we have failed
as planetary stewards. It will be a desperate thing to do."
Critics of geoengineering claim the government started
modifying the environment years ago, through chemtrails. Critics have
been mocked as conspiracy theorists, however the concern is shared by
rational scientists and experts as well as many environmental
activists, for reasons that stretch back to the Vietnam War.
Between 1967 and 1972, the US air force carried out
"Operation Popeye", the first use of weather as an instrument of war.
Almost 3,000 flights were sent into the skies above the Ho Chi Minh
Trail, where planes seeded clouds with silver iodide particles,
causing storms and extending the monsoon season. "Popeye" turned the
strategic pass into a bog -- and appalled the international community.
In 1977, the Enmod (Environmental Modification Convention) treaty
outlawed weather warfare.
"The UN General Setting up must dust it down," points out
Jim Thomas of the ETC group, a company that advocates maintainable
development. The action team on Disintegration, Modern technology and
Concentration views any kind of technological best option to climate
modification as a "harmful interruption", taking focus away from typical
CO2 decrease methods, such as replenishable energy resources. A
"postponement needs to be called" on research, even in the lab, he says.
Except on that critical factor, the line between
underwriters of geoengineering and those that want it prohibited is
amazingly slim. While a handful of experts assume we should geoengineer
or encounter catastrophe, they form a minority. Geoengineering is "the
wrong answer", states Flavor's Matthew Watson, who blogs as the Hesitant
Geoengineer.
From computer system modelling, many researchers know
exactly how wrong geoengineering initiatives are. Spraying large amounts
of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere would, for instance, obscure
the visibility of the sun's rays and affect all life on Earth.
Rainfall patterns could also go haywire, the ozone layer could break up.
Dump iron filings into the sea and you might well kill off swathes of
marine life. There are far too many risks that exceed the benefits of
controlling a climate which many scientists don't even believe is a
problem anymore. It's a natural course for the Earth and all claims
regarding global warming have been exaggerated for political gain.
4 GEOENGINEERING PROJECTS DOOMED TO FAIL
1. STRATOSPHERIC AEROSOLS
The Technology: Scientists are already
trying to stop the sun's rays and heat from reaching the Earth's
atmosphere by reflecting some of the sun's rays back into space using
aerosals. They've been called chemtrails, aerial
spraying, aerosol emissions, cirrus clouds, among
many other terms. The largest reports come from
Canada and U.S. but it happens all over the world including
countries such as France, Germany, New Zealand, Australia, the
United Kingdom among many others. Thousands of planes
spray chemicals, salt or other particulates into
our atmosphere in an attempt to curb global warming
(so they say).
How Scientists Want to Play God: The
release of chemicals or particulates, like highly
polluting sulfur have been discussed for almost a decade by many
scientists worldwide waiting in the wings for
funding. They want to add more small reflecting particles in the upper
part of the atmosphere (the stratosphere which is
located between 15 and 50 kilometers above the
Earth’s surface). The goal is that these stratospheric aerosols will
be engineered to migrate to particular regions (e.g.
over the arctic) or to rise above the stratosphere.
A CFR geo-engineering meeting summary document from
1999 (PDF pages 12,13,14) also categorically stated
that the ultimate goal under “A technology strategy
for global warming” is the implementation of a
global Carbon Tax. So they want to play God and tax man at the
same time.
Why it Won't Work: This is among the
riskiest and most ridiculous of global warming fixes. Global weather
patterns could be drastically affected. Artificial weather
modification can impact all of us by reducing
water supplies, changing agricultural crop production cycles,
reducing crop production, and water availability. Since most
experimental weather modification programs use
chemicals released into the atmosphere the public
could be subjected increasingly toxic or unknown
substances that could adversely impact agricultural
crops and trees. If we artificially change the growing seasons, our
pollinators like bees and birds (many now in sharp
decline across the United States), may not survive,
leaving many flowers, native plants, agricultural
and trees crops that are not pollinated. Native
grasses, plants, trees, and agricultural losses could be devastated
not only in the United States but on a worldwide basis.
2. SPACE REFLECTORS
The Technology: Scientists would
assembling a giant glass sunshade in space then firing it into orbit
to reflect a small proportion of the sun's rays, according to
astronomer Roger Angel.
How Scientists Want to Play God: Scientists claim a reduction of just 2 percent in sunlight reaching the Earth would make warming more manageable.
Why it Won't Work: Asteroids, primarily.
Glass discs would be vulnerable to space debris, and maintenance of a
"space umbrella" requires time, expertise and money. Any attempts to
control the exterior perimeter of the Earth through God-like
intervention in space reflectors is an exercise in futility since any
type of technology, regardless of how advanced, would never withstand
the strength of even small asteroids and space debris which would
essentially render these reflectors useless.
3. OCEAN FERTILIZATION
The Technology: Dropping iron filings
into the ocean could theoretically generate blooms of carbon-absorbing
plankton. The plankton then take in CO2 at the surface, then carry it
with them as they drift to the ocean floor after death, creating
"carbon sinks".
How Scientists Want to Play God: Scientists
think that they can optimally fertilize the ocean (artificially) to
help restore lost/threatened ecosystems. They theoretically assume
iron infusions could preferentially favor certain species and alter
surface ecosystems even though they have no evidence on the overall
impact since the effects are unknown.
Why it Won't Work: Population explosions
of aquatic life that disturb the food chain may impact many wildlife
populations. This has already been shown to lead to an unnatural
imbalance between fish, whales and jellyfish.
A 2010 study
showed that iron enrichment stimulates toxic diatom production in
high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll areas which, the authors argue, raises
"serious concerns over the net benefit and sustainability of large-scale
iron fertilizations". It takes a long time for comparatively little
effect, and the impact on marine life could be devastating. Where
plankton blooms in contained water sources, fish can suffocate.
Fertilising the oceans would also marginally acidify them.
4. ARTIFICIAL TREES
The Technology: Advanced technology
already exists to extract CO2 from the air. Klaus Lackner of the
Columbia University Earth Institute has developed machinery that would
replace a tree and extract 1,000 times more CO2 a day from the
atmosphere than a natural tree.
How Scientists Want to Play God: Scientists
think that building these artificial tree systems around the world
could replace nature's blueprint with a more advanced form of extracting
CO2 from the atmosphere.
Why it Won't Work: 1) High cost: direct
air-capture measures like this would cost a minimum of $600 per tonne of
CO2 removed. 2) The effects of removing 1000 times more CO2 out of the
atmosphere than natural trees could have a detrimental effect on
ecosystems and upset he homeostatic equilibrium of these systems which
may dramatically affect the food chain.
Global Dimming
Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones,
Dr Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation.
"There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and
that really amazed me." Intrigued, he searched records from all around
the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked.
Sunlight was falling by 10% over the USA, nearly 30% in
parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in parts of the
British Isles.
Although the effect varied greatly from place to place,
overall the decline amounted to one to two per cent globally every
decade between the 1950s and the 1990s.
Dr Stanhill called it "global dimming", but his research, published in 2001, met a sceptical response from other scientists.
It was only recently, when his conclusions were
confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method
to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke
up to the reality of global dimming.
This visible air pollution created by geoengineering
reflects sunlight back into space, preventing it reaching the surface.
But the pollution also changes the optical properties of clouds.
Because the particles seed the formation of water
droplets, polluted clouds contain a larger number of droplets than
unpolluted clouds.
Recent research shows that this makes them more
reflective than they would otherwise be, again reflecting the Sun's
rays back into space.
Scientists are now worried that dimming, by shielding
the oceans from the full power of the Sun, may be disrupting the
pattern of the world's rainfall.
There are suggestions that dimming was behind the
droughts in sub-Saharan Africa which claimed hundreds of thousands of
lives in the 1970s and 80s.
Others have speculated that the UN's depopulation plan
(Agenda 21) is using geoengineering as one of its most effective
platforms.
There are disturbing hints the same thing may be happening today in Asia, home to half the world's population.
"My main concern is global dimming is also having a detrimental
impact on the Asian monsoon," says Professor Veerhabhadran
Ramanathan, professor of climate and atmospheric sciences at the
University of California, San Diego. "We are talking about billions of
people."
The Industrial-Military Complex For Complete Weather Control Against Global Warming
HAARP is a large 180 antennae grid that projects
powerful electromagnetic pulses to heat a specific point in the
earth's ionosphere. This has the effect of creating electromagnetic
frequencies that can be bounced back to earth at desired locations,
causing major disruption to weather and geophysical elements, even
deep underground. Up to 3.6 billion watts can be generated by HAARP,
heating the ionosphere to over 50 000 degrees and “lifting a 30
square kilometre area of the ionosphere, thereby changing localised
pressure systems or even altering the route of jet streams.”
The Case Orange report cites evidence that Raytheon
could develop the capacity to “exercise a form of complete “weather
control”, a situation bearing a marked similarity to the Monsanto
corporation's stated ambition “to control the food chain.” It is
noteworthy that there are currently more than 500 ‘climate ready’
genetically modified plant gene patents awaiting licensing approvals
in Washington and Brussels. ‘Climate Ready’ GM seeds and plants are
promised by their creators to be capable of producing a crop under
both flood and drought conditions.
The human rights and environmental watchdog 'ETC Group'
describes the atmospheric geoengineering developments as follows:
“The roll-out of 'Plan B' (a reference to the use of geoengineering
if other efforts to curtail emissions should be deemed ineffective)
is being skilfully executed: Prominent high level panels sponsored by
prestige groups, a spate of peer-reviewed articles in science
journals and a line up of panicked politicians in northern countries,
nodding nervously in agreement as scientists testify about the “need
to research Plan B.”
Rady Ananda states at the end of his paper: “Case Orange
ties-in a 1996 report by top military personnel in the US entitled
“Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” with
details such as government spraying schedules, chemical orders,
correct nomenclature used in airline operation manuals and calls for
geoengineering by economists, to support its notion of “heavy
involvement of governments at top level in climate control projects.”
Ananda continues: “Owning the Weather in 2025 provides a specific
time line for the use of En Mod technologies in cooperation with the
Weather Modification Association, a business-government group
promoting the '
beneficial' (my emphasis) uses of environmental modification:
2000-2025 Use chemicals for atmospheric seeding by civilian (as well as military) aviation
2004 Create smart clouds through nanotechnology, with exponential increase from 2010
2005 Introduce carbon black dust.”
The UN Enlisted In Geoengineering Military Combat Against Climate
In 2007, The World Meteorological Organisation (of the
United Nations) published a statement that included “Guidelines for
Planning of Weather Modification Activities.” This document clearly
implicates the UN in plans to conduct aerosol spraying activities on a
wide scale.
In a section of the Case Orange report dealing with 'the
bare necessities of geoengineering through cloud generation for the
survival of the planet' the authors state: “Our investigation team
comes to the conclusion that climate control programs, controlled by
the military but approved by governments, are silently implemented in
order to avoid the worst case scenario they obviously do not want.
The two basic instruments are temperature control through the
generation of artificial clouds and manipulation of the ionosphere
through ionosphere heaters.
“Both remain basically military combat systems with the option to go into the offensive if deemed necessary.
However,
since several ionospheric heaters are installed at various places
around the globe, one can assume that there is wide cooperation between
governments in order to reach climate targets by 2025: controlling
the weather and the planet.”
The spraying schemes seem to be organised in a logical
pattern so that the whole of Europe is covered in a 3 day period.
Coloured maps of Europe indicate when each regime is to take place.
In the report's section entitled “Recommendations”, the
authors state: “Persistent chemtrails have a devastating impact on
eco-systems on this planet and to quality of life in general.” The
authors call for the full disclosure of the current En Mod activities
to the public, as well as for all civil aviation laws to be abided
by.
Moratorium On Geoengineering Activities
Led Nowhere
In response to policy interest in geoengineering as a
means to control climate, a sub-committee of the United Nations
Convention of Biodiversity proposed, in May 2010, a moratorium on
geoengineering activities. This proposal was heard at the Tenth
Conference of Parties to the UN Convention of Biodiversity in Nagoya,
Japan but no outcome on curbing geoengineering initiatives were
concluded.
The Case Orange report further states that the US
permits open air testing of chemical and biological weapons, which
overrides the civil law mentioned earlier in this article. The authors
paraphrase the permissive law thus: “The Secretary of Defense may
conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and
biological agents on civilian populations.” It seems that ‘national
security’ concerns can be used by the President to overrule
environmental and public health considerations. Is the same true in
Europe?
Other significant reports include an important paper by
Dr Ilya Perlingieri, entitled “The Consequences of Toxic Metals and
Chemical Aerosols on Human Health”. She states: “Over the past
decade, independent testing of Chemtrails around the country have
shown a dangerous, extremely poisonous brew that includes: barium,
nano-aluminium coated fibreglass (known as CHAFF), radioactive
thorium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, dessicated blood, mould spores,
yellow fungal mycotoxins, ethylene dibromide and polymer fibres.
Barium can be compared to the toxicity of arsenic and is known to
adversely affect the heart. Aluminium has a history of damaging brain
function.”
Sources:
bbc.co.uk
i-sis.org.uk
independent.co.uk
preventdisease.com
Marco Torres
is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate
for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in
Public Health and Environmental Science
and is a professional speaker on topics
such as disease prevention, environmental toxins
and health policy.
