Sep 302012
 

Take old and new scientific disciplines, mix in energy security, economics and geopolitics. Sprinkle some political ideologies seasoned with ulterior motives, and simmer for 20 years. And what you get is the climate change debate marinated in plenty of confusion, misinformation and divisiveness. The 2012 UN Climate Change Conference, COP 18/CMP is just around the corner scheduled to take place in Qatar (November 26th  – December 7th . Christiana Figueres, Executive Director of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) seems optimistic that governments around the world are inching ever closer to reaching an agreement to agree. Yes we have heard it all before and yet here we are 18 years later with mounting pressure to finalise the treaty process, after years of failed attempt to materialise an agreement. With billions at stake for carbon traders (whose markets expire with the Kyoto protocol), global warming science and policy campaigners, developed/developing nations and subsidised industries, will all came together to push for a new treaty. However given the current economic climate the question on every one’s mind is going to be will it impose crippling costs and regulations that will choke off any hope for economic recovery, while doing little to alter the climate. But despite the politically correct rhetoric and sound bites, we also see an emergence of a ‘Global Climate Crisis Management Team’, ready to ‘Geo-engineer’ us out of the mess.

Christiana Figueres, Executive Director, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 25 Sep 2012 – The next steps on the climate change agenda

What is Geo-engineering?

Geo-engineering is defined as the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system, in order to moderate global warming. It is is generally divided into two basic categories:

  • (CDR) Carbon Dioxide Removal techniques, which remove CO2 from the atmosphere and
  • (SRM) Solar Radiation Management, which aims to reflect a percentage of the sun’s light and heat back into space.

Geo-engineering is fast becoming the new ‘buzz word’ among scientist and policy makers and is currently leveraged by some quarters to whip public opinion, along with political muscle into accepting measures that by comparison may seem less iniquitous. The President of the Royal Society explains:  “Most nations now recognise the need to shift to a low-carbon economy, and nothing should divert us from the main priority of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. But if such reductions achieve too little, too late, there will surely be pressure to consider a ‘plan B’—to seek ways to counteract the climatic effects of greenhouse gas emissions by ‘Geo-engineering’.” (from Lord Rees of Ludlow OM ForwardGeo-engineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty The Royal Society Geo-engineering the Climate September 2009)

Injecting reflecting Aluminium particles into earth orbit.

John Holdren, Barack Obama’s advisor on science and technology said: “There are a variety of schemes that have been discussed for Geo-engineering, a classic example is injecting reflecting particles into earth orbit.” I don’t know about ‘classic’ but as it turns out ‘injecting reflecting particles’ – one of the Solar Radiation Management methods proposed, seems like the only realistic option on the table, when considering both cost and existing technologies. David Keith a Geo-engineer from the University of Calgary told the audience attending the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (San Diego Feb 2010). “Aerosol Geo-engineering looks like it is going to be so cheap, that the cost is not going to be an issue.” He went on to say that initially sulphate was considered, however, aluminium is more effective, by adding ten to twenty mega-tons per year into the stratosphere.  When Challenged about the environmental and health impact of the use of aluminium, he first dismissed it saying experts found “it is not even close to being an issue.” But when Dane Wigington a solar expert persisted by saying “So let me clarify, 10 megatons of aluminium dumped into the atmosphere would have no human health impacts? David Keith answered: “let me be more carful here, we have not done anything serious on aluminium. Aluminium, we have only began to research it and published nothing, so it could be something terrible we are going to find tomorrow, that we have not looked at.” (air force research laboratory, in Vitro toxicity of aluminium nanoparticles in rats Alveolar Macrophages Andre Wagner, Charles Bleckmann, England. Air force institute of technology ) In ‘Asilomar’ an International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies (March 2010 California), proposals for ‘disaster management’ or ‘climate intervention’ also narrowed down to experiments of aerosols injections of sulphate and or other materials with global or regional coverage in the troposphere, stratosphere and atmosphere. Other Solar Radiation Management techniques include: satellite deflection of solar radiation; cloud brightening on a global or regional scale by sea salt or dimethyl sulfide (DMS) injection; ‘ocean brightening’ as another means to deflect solar radiation; arctic intervention and specific regional intervention relating to hurricane modification and redirection of storms, among others. Typical evening sky in London Hang on… Spraying the stratosphere?! Hurricane modification and redirection of storms?! Until recently, suggestions that this kind of experiments were being considered, or that they are already going on, were dismissed as delusions of global conspiracy theorists!

How long has this been going on?

Geo-engineering may sound like a new term, The Royal Society’s study on ‘Geo-engineering the Climate’, published in Sept 2009 certainly gives that impression. But in reality those ideas have been around for over 40 years and possibly longer. Reading the Livermore National Lab report ‘Geo-engineering the climate’ published over 20 years ago (June 1991), one can’t but help noticing that the science, at least as presented to the public has not progressed to offer anything new in the last 20 years. The report starts with a disclaimer which tells us the report was commissioned by a government agency: “Both the government and the authors could not be held responsible for anything within the report”. Reminds me of the pharmaceutical industry, pushing to vaccinate the world but refusing to take any legal responsibility should anything go wrong… On page 5 p2, the report warns that orbiting layer of scattered particles would be hard to keep in orbit and will pollute near earth orbit, with virtually no means of reversing the impact. It goes on to say this information was inspired by research going back as far as the early 70’s. The idea of using reflective stratospheric aerosols using sulphate goes back to 1971. Adding Sulphate to jet fuel to be emitted by commercial airliner is referenced to Boroecker (1985). The down side mentioned – reducing the effectiveness of solar power and that astronomers might object due to loss of visibility but “the public might appreciate the enhanced colours of sunsets.” Another side effect left to last; “If this method is deployed it would likely deplete the stratospheric ozone.”

 

Public Perception

Regardless of whether one prescribes to the notion that global warming or cooling as the case may be, is man made or not, we can all agree that pollution is not a good thing for Human Beings or the planet as a whole. So to anyone with a bit of common sense the idea of replacing one sort of pollution with another, is not going to be appealing. Indeed, those dreaming up these ideas; along with those who help implement at them, know this only too well and spend considerable effort to circumvent this common sense instinct. “Public attitudes towards Geo-engineering, and public engagement in the development of individual methods proposed, will have a critical bearing on its future. Perception of the risks involved, levels of trust in those undertaking research or implementation, and the transparency of actions, purposes and vested interests, will determine the political feasibility of Geo-engineering. If Geo-engineering is to play a role in reducing climate change an active and international programme of public and civil society dialogue will be required to identify and address concerns about potential environmental, social and economic impacts and unintended consequences.” (The Royal Society Report) The report’s key recommendation was to initiate a process of dialogue and engagement to explore public and civil society attitudes, concerns and uncertainties about Geo-engineering as a response to climate change. Their advice was followed up and in March 2010, The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) carried out a ‘public dialogue’ exercise on Geo-engineering, in order to assess public opinion on how future research should be directed, conducted and communicated. By August 2010, Ipsos MORI published finding and recommendations in a report titled ‘Experiment Earth? a Public Dialogue on Geo-engineering’ Reading this report I wonder was this exercise undertaken to educate the public on the issues at hand, or done to assess the public’s attitudes and perceptions in order to come up with effective ways to manipulate public opinion to accept the intended solutions? Here are some quotes from the report itself: “This report provides decision makers and others who use the findings with qualitative insightinto the emotions, thoughts and feelings with which the public approach Geo-engineering. Public dialogue is a qualitative research method which aims to explore how people conceptualise issues and trade-off different ideas and priorities. “ “The detail of mitigation plans was also outside the scope of the dialogue. Geo-engineering was presented as a new element that could be added to the mixture of approaches to tackle climate change, which includes mitigation and adaptation. It was not explicitly stated that Geo-engineering was a ‘Plan B’ that could be implemented if mitigation ‘failed’, but such an implication could be inferred.” “Key to dialogue is capturing how public perceptions of an issue mutate and shift, as more, and different, information is provided. This enables dialogue to capture both spontaneous, and mostly uninformed, views towards an issue as well as more considered responses and trade-offs. Information can be delivered through the dialogue in a variety of ways, including hard-copy fact-sheets, scenarios, face-to-face contact with scientists and expert-witness films.”

Sulphates Vs Aluminium

It is also interesting to note that when analysing people’s priorities and concerns one thing keeps coming up, Experiment Earth explains: “Naturalness was an important theme underpinning many of the principles. Most participants believed that natural systems are balanced and self-contained and that Geo-engineering should be considered in terms of how well it preserves natural systems.” For that reason the use of Sulphate particles was considered more acceptable means of Geo-engineering: “Sulphate Particles were considered more seriously as they were seen as one of the more predictable technologies of those presented. Participants were informed that scientists had evidence on the potential effects of sulphates in the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions (such as Mount Pinatubo). This reassured participants that the components had been, to some extent, researched, and made this technology appear less risky.” The use of far from natural, nano sized aluminium particles, has not been mentioned although it seems to be the preferred option since it is considered to be more effective, being 4 times more reflective, Aluminium particles are 16 times more capable to stick together and stay suspended in the air for longer. There are many other indicators that the overall intention is to use aluminium particles rather then sulphates. However a more pertinent question would be IS IT ALREADY BEING USED? And if so what are the implications, in terms of environmental and public health impact? Mgranger Morgan from the department of engineering and public policy, Carnegie Mellon University said: “We do stuff in the stratosphere all the time of course, so it is not like the stratosphere is absolutely pristine, but you don’t want people going off doing things that involve large radio enforcing or provide lots of reactive surfaces that could result in significant Ozone destruction.” In an address to a House Committee on Science and Technology Hearing (USA) titled ‘Geo-engineering: Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention’ (Nov 2009) Professor Alan Robock from the Department of Environmental Sciences Rutgers University told the committee: “I know of no viable Geo-engineering strategies. None have been shown to work to control the climate. None have been shown to be safe. However, the ones that have the most potential, and which need further research, would include stratospheric aerosols and brightening of marine tropospheric clouds, as well as carbon capture and sequestration.” Outlining the risks of Geo-engineering, Robock warned “We list 17 potential risks… I would say that the potential weakening of the Asian and African summer monsoon, with a reduction in precipitation and threat to the food and water supply for more than two billion people, should be at the top of the list. Potential risks of Geo-engineering includes: 1. Drought in Africa and Asia 2. Continued ocean acidification from CO2 3. Ozone depletion 4. No more blue skies 5. Less solar power 6. Environmental impact of implementation 7. Rapid warming if stopped 8. Can not stop effects quickly 9. Human error 10. Unexpected consequences 11. Commercial control 12.Military use of the technology 13. Conflict with current treaties 14. Whose hand is on the thermostat? 15. Ruin terrestrial optical astronomy 16. Moral hazard- the prospect of it working would reduce drive for mitigation 17. Moral authority – Do we have the right to do so? [Table 1 from Robock et al., 2009; Supplementary Material 9] In June 2001, President Bush directed the Secretary of Energy along with other Agencies and Departments to formulate an implementation plan for the National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI). It resulted in a white paper titled ‘Response Options to limit Rapid or Severe Climate Change’. This report explores those themes in detail: “Stratospheric aerosols are long-lived (1-5 years, depending on injection altitude and latitude) compared to tropospheric aerosols (ca. 1 week), and hence requires a far lower injection rate to sustain a given aerosol loading and scattering capacity…. Aerosol composition might be liquid or solid (e.g., metal oxide or metal); spherical or non-spherical; or even specially shaped to confer special scattering characteristics. [section 3.2a. Deliberately Introduced Stratospheric Aerosol] “Mass, shape and size-optimized particles of a single chemical composition (e.g., sulphate) are one end of a spectrum of increasing sophistication of engineered scatters… Examples of possible materials for achieving these effects include 1-D and 2-D metallic chaff, particles with spatially-varying compositions, and both single and multiple connected macroscopic structures… Alternatively, NAS (1992) suggested a relatively inexpensive technique using large artillery; more modern types of projectile-launching systems (e.g., electromagnetic ‘guns’) might offer significant advantages with respect to cost and collateral environmental impacts.”… Associated deployment costs across most of the classes of engineered scatterers appear to be of the order of one billion dollars per year to achieve a 1% change in effective solar insolation…” [3.2b. Engineered Stratospheric Scatterers] It outlined the need ”to better understand how best to optimise the amount, location(s) and timing of the injection of each of the several different kinds of these scattering materials, the details of the estimated response of the climate system, and the significance of unwanted changes that could result.” The potential and future of Engineered Scatterers does not end with intentions to reduce temperatures, oh no there are far more ambitious plans in that pipeline… Meddling with tropospheric chemistry, wavelength-selective Scatterers filtering UV, to name a few…

What in the world are they spraying?

The way forward, the report suggests, will start with scoping calculations, evaluation of historical analogs and comprehensive climate modelling. And only after all of that, the final benchmark and pilot scale tests for candidate approaches that continue to appear promising after the first 3 steps have been completed. Robock writes: “Without market incentives, Geo-engineering schemes to reflect solar heat are still largely confined to creative thought and artists’ renderings.” [June 2008 ‘Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’] But is this indeed the case? Scientists and politicians, vehemently deny any knowledge of the existence of any scale experiments, or deployment programs to do with weather modification. Are we to believe that in the last 40 years, these topics remained exclusively in the realm of pontificating desk bound, paper shuffling scientists? Or were there any experiments small, or large done to assess, or take advantage of any of it? Since the beginning of time, humans upon the earth have been looking up to the sky with wonder. Those of us who still look up to gaze at the sky, have been wondering what are those lingering and expanding white trails covering the sky in all directions? ‘What in the world are they spraying? The Chemtrail/Geo-Engineering Cover-up’ documentary makers say – it is a rapidly developing industry, altering the chemical composition of soil and water. “Evidence is abundant that they have been underway since about 1990 – and the effect has been devastating to crops, wildlife, and human health. We are being sprayed with toxic substances without our consent and, to add insult to injury, they are lying to us about it.”

G. Edward Griffin a co-producer of the film said: “The spraying appears to be mostly in nato countries, I have seen it in the United States, I have seen it in England, in Scotland, in Canada, and I have reports from people who live in France. There is a political grouping here of some sort – it is international in scope, anyone investigating this will find a political grouping and motivation.” Mauro Oliveira from GeoEngineeringwatch.org said “This is a very delicate moment for the Powers that Be, because they are taking a covered up operation like the chemtrail project and they are taking it over into a Geo-engineering scientific shield, to deflect sunlight because global warming is at hand. So in this very moment the belly of beast is right above us with no armour. Whether people believe in Chemtrails or not, Geo- engineering should be scary enough.” The fact that aircrafts of all kinds are seen emitting white trails that linger and expanding for days, is un-disputable. And surly what goes up must come down at some stage? And wouldn’t that be proof of what is being sprayed? Dane Wigington, a renewable energy expert who owns land in the Mount Shasta area claims:  “there is a mountain of toxic material falling on us. And we have the tests to prove we are being inundated with levels of aluminium and particulates that are literarily tens of thousands of times of what would already be considered high.” Francis Mangels a USDA Biologist shows lab reports on tested snow water samples from Mount Shasta. It was tested for Aluminium, Barium and Strontium. It shows aluminium at a level of over 61,000 parts per million, He said: “remember Government action is required at a 1000 parts per million, this is 61 times over the government limit and our hikers are drinking this poisonous water.”  Mangels has been also collecting data of soil Ph samples, which show over 10 times increases in Ph as a result of high levels of Aluminium. Results of tested water from a spring fed fish pond on Dane Wigington’s land also shows the Aluminum level at 375,000 pp million. This material was not there 5 years ago and the spring water feeding this pond was tested for Aluminium at 0, the only other source of water feeding this pond is rain water. Dr Lenny Thyme PhD stated: “The major toxin in this chem trail is aluminium, and the level we are looking at from Mount Shasta is totally, totally unacceptable” “As Aluminium accumulates over time it causes major neurological damage because it ends up as Aluminium oxides that get stuck in place and can’t be flushed out” The effects are devastating. Trees are dying, forest fires are increasing, and the change of acidity in the soil means repeated crop failure.

Aluminium Resistant genetically modified seeds patents

Some say if you want to know the truth follow the money. That may be true, but it seems like following patent registration proves to be equally enlightening and Aluminium keeps coming up again and again… Here are two very telling patent registrations. The first, “comprises the step of seeding the greenhouse gas layer with a quantity of tiny particles of materials characterised by wavelength – dependent emissivity or reflectivity… Such material can include a class of materials known as Welsbach materials. The oxides of metals e.g: aluminium oxide, are also suitable for the purpose.” United States Patent 5003186 dated march 1991 The other is forAluminium Resistant gene patent # 7582809 granted sep 1 2009 developed in Cornell University NY Patent assigned to US department of agriculture and Brazilian Enterprise for Agricultural research. Multiple aluminium – resistance mechanisms in Wheat Toxicity-Resistant Crops Researchers have engineered aluminium-tolerant crops. October 2, 2008 By Mason Inman 

What the future may hold

So there you have it, problem solved! Industries will keep on using and inventing polluting technologies, while being taxed on Co2 emissions. Spraying aluminium will be openly admitted and implemented globally.  Aluminium resistant genetically engineered seeds will be the only seeds able to grow in the chemically induced environment. Humans will have a shorter life span. They will be chronically ill, drug dependent during their productive life and drop dead on the first day of retirement. Oh yes, I almost forgot, it will be one degree cooler so we are all going to be much happier! Yes and as we are on the subject of the future… Here is another thing to think about – Commissioned by the UK Government ‘Fast Future’ analysed future trends, such as population growth and climate change, alongside developments in science and technology, to create a list of 20 potential jobs of the future. The UK Prime Minister at the time Gordon Brown said: “A priority for this Government is to prepare Britain for the economy of the future and to make sure our young people can seize the opportunities that innovations in science and technology will bring. The shape of jobs to come shows what might be on offer for the next generation. I hope it will inspire young people to gain the skills and training they will need to succeed.” Science and Innovation Minister, Lord Drayson said: “These jobs are no longer the stuff of dreams. Today’s school children could become our first generation of scientists to build a flying car or help reverse climate change! Science is moving at an incredible pace. My message to them is be part of it!” So what are those “stuff of dreams” jobs? Among the 20 top jobs of the future are :Body part maker, Nano-medic, Memory augmentation surgeon and… Weather modification police – The act of seeding clouds to create rain is already happening in some parts of the world, and is altering weather patterns thousands of miles away. Weather modification police will need to control and monitor who is allowed to shoot rockets containing silver iodine into the air – a way to provoke rainfall from passing clouds. Quarantine enforcer – If a deadly virus starts spreading rapidly, few countries, and few people, will be prepared. Nurses will be in short supply. Moreover, as mortality rates rise, and neighbourhoods are shut down, someone will have to guard the gates. Fast Future CEO, Rohit Talwar, who conducted the study said: “The list of future jobs highlights the vast array of exciting things today’s school children could be doing in 20 years time, all made possible by fields of science and innovation in which Britain has real expertise.”

http://tna.europarchive.org/20100630051843/http://sciencesowhat.direct.gov.uk/

http://www.theschoolrun.com/articles/butcher-baker-body-part-maker-%E2%80%93-the-jobs-of-the-future-revealed-3460

  Active Climate Stabilization: Practical Physics-Based Approaches to Prevention of Climate Change (pdf) Edward Teller, Roderick Hyde and Lowell Wood | US Department of Energy  Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (April 18 2002) 20 Reasons why Geoengineering may be a bad idea Alan Robock  | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists MAY/JUNE 2008 Multiple Aluminum-Resistance Mechanisms in Wheat Didier M. Pellet, Lisa A. Papernik, and Leon V. Kochian | US Plant, Soil, and Nutrition Laboratory, United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultura1 Research Service, Cornell University 1996 Geoengineering the Climate Michael C. MacCracken | Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory June 1991 Stratospheric Chemistry of Alumininum Oxide particles Roger Meads, Darryl Spencer and Mario J. Molina | MIT June 1994 Global and Arctic climate engineering: numerical model studies Ken Caldeira and Lowell Wood | Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution USA / Hoover Institution, Stanford, USA | 2008 The Royal Society Launch of new Fast Future Foresight Study on ‘The shape of jobs to come’ Commissioned by [So what? So everything] Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering Ipsos MORI for The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) on geoengineering | August 2010 Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention Professor Alan Robock for the House Committee on Science and Technology Hearing | November 5, 2009 Geoengineering the climate – Science, governance and uncertainty The Royal Society September 2009 A Test for Geoengineering? ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE Alan Robock, Martin Bunzl, Ben Kravitz, Georgiy L. Stenchikov VOL 327 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org | 29 JANUARY 2010 Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy Kelsi Bracmort, Richard K. Lattanzio, Emily C. Barbour | Congressional Research Service | August 16, 2010