“If we could experiment with the atmosphere and literally play God, it’s very tempting to a scientist.”
There have been many permutations in the intellectual war to prove the effects (or not) of man-made climate change since Al Gore released his film An Inconvenient Truth. While the scientific sides continue to challenge one another — very often injecting inflammatory and emotional rhetoric that seems less than scientific — it is an undeniable fact that man-made solutions are the inevitable outcropping of this “problem.” Enter geoengineering, or its “conspiracy” offshoot, chemtrails – the “solution.”
The idea that there are government programs to alter the climate is still roundly denied by certain circles, despite numerous White Papers from think tanks, official documents admitting to climate control plans, and many public admissions from scientists and politicians alike. However, geoengineering is officially entering the mainstream, but with the spin that was warned about by many in the alternative media and non-establishment scientists.
A new report from The Verge — one of the top 1,000 most visited websites in the world — is worth examining for its open discussion of some of the geoengineering plans and their associated spins and pitfalls. Also posted below is my article from early 2011 that covers a question asked by the UK’s elite think-tank, The Royal Society, “Who decides?”
As you’ll see, the question of who should be responsible for fixing our presumably broken climate is only intensifying.
The good news for those who have long attempted to expose the existence of geoengineering is that we are finally over that hurdle of denial for anyone with open eyes and an open mind. In fact, as Derrick Broze recently covered, geoengineering research is not only allowed, it is encouraged in international law. This has led to a new study which phrases the global race towards geoengineering as a “free for all,” where many treaties open the door for a global framework to address not only the possible dangers of geoengineering itself, but also the danger of leaving the power in the hands of local governments to test and impose their own solutions.
According to a recent congressional report: “The term “geoengineering” describes this array of technologies that aim, through large-scale and deliberate modifications of the Earth’s energy balance, to reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change. Most of these technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Moreover, very few studies have been published that document the cost, environmental effects, socio-political impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. If geoengineering technologies were to be deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects. (Source)
As Broze highlights, the complete study is set to be published in the Journal of Energy, Climate and the Environment around the same time that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change presents its Fifth Assessment Report in 2014.
The Verge titled their article, “Weather wars: who should be allowed to engineer our climate?” which has the subtitle, “Geoengineering could be the silver bullet in fighting climate change — or the start of something even worse.”
When they say “war,” they mean it literally — that is, if geoengineering’s leading proponent is correct. Harvard climate scientist, David Keith, likens geoengineering to nuclear weapons … and the subsequent race to acquire the technology. The threats are both global and personal…
Keith, who has grown into geoengineering’s leading advocate after his recent book on the topic, says the technology would be “as disruptive to the political order of the 21st century as nuclear weapons were for the 20th.” It’s an exciting, dangerous idea — and it already has its opponents. In the years that he’s been researching geoengineering, Keith says he’s received two death threats serious enough to warrant calls to the police.
The frenzy to find a solution for an assumed case-closed on runaway global warming is leading to a dangerous all-or-nothing mindset which may see the same type of testing without full knowledge of the consequences. Scientists were said to have not been 100% certain they wouldn’t ignite a chain reaction and kill the planet during weapons testing. Notice here the foregone conclusion of global warming, despite plenty of opposing views in the scientific community, plus the admission of aerial spraying and the fear of a “rogue nation” ….
In a world of catastrophic global warming, solar radiation management might be our only way to cool the planet and forestall the most damaging effects of climate change. The theory is simple: a plane sprays sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere, building a reflective layer that blocks a small portion of the sun’s energy, thus cooling the globe.
There’s plenty of support for the theory, including a few sulfate-spewing volcanoes which have cooled the globe in the past (maybe just let them continue to do their work then? – Ed.), but it’s still unclear how it would work in practice. It’s generally accepted that the sulfates would disappear from the atmosphere within a few years, but more complex effects remain unknown.
Most geoengineers think the technology should be used for a kind of “soft landing” as we phase out fossil fuels — but what if a country wanted to go further? The process is cheap enough that an island country like the Maldives, facing dire consequences from rising sea levels, might decide to kick off aggressive geoengineering on their own, daring other countries to stop them. The response would start with diplomacy, but it could escalate to the US shooting down their sulfur-spewing planes.
The next step is to test the idea in the atmosphere with small drops over the course of a few days, but that proposal is still extremely controversial. It’s easy to see why critics are nervous. In the wrong hands, solar radiation management has the potential to destroy the planet’s ecosystem entirely. (emphasis added) [Source]
The full article is a must-read, as it articulates the fear-based mindset that scientists and politicians either unwillingly or willingly delude themselves with, along with the rest of us. In a race to eliminate a threat, they create vastly more with their tinkering and unknowable outcomes. In pursuit of the rogue nation, the nation that reaches the target becomes the rogue itself.
The article below was my attempt to show why those who are currently at the helm should be held with the utmost suspicion as potential saviors of the human race — their track record is not a good one.
Your comments are welcome….
Masters Of The World Meet To Play God With The Climate
On a secluded estate in England, a small group from the elite UK think-tank, The Royal Society, are openly discussing control over the planet’s weather. The Orwellian nature of the discussion is stunning, as this select group seemingly wrings their hands over how to delegate the proper authority to research such godlike power. They begin by asking a rhetorical question, “Who decides?”
In a candid AP story, the entire agenda is laid bare as we are treated to a session that is “generally off the record.” This is the grand rollout to be sure: from research to implementation, they announce much of what is already provably in the works, as well as the road toward a future of unthinkable control by an inner circle of ideologues with the task to “save the planet.”
History is full of these great “experts” who have taken on the burden of saving the rest of us. Elites throughout the ages have insisted that the common man or woman is simply not up to the task . . . if left to our own devices, we might just destroy the place. So, let’s first recap how these elite thinkers have done so far based on the key indicators of human prosperity.
Peace: The “peace process” is apparently a long one. Since the War To End All Wars, there has been a steady string of significant wars, protracted conflicts, or “kinetic actions.” The central planners have failed fantastically when it comes to peace, and there is no sign of this trend reversing, as it openly has been announced that a Nobel Peace Prize can be given to the leader of the free world who has extended and declared wars that are unconstitutional and morally reprehensible. Rather, events are demonstrably leading straight to World War III. It seems like we would be better off without the humanitarian aid offered by such peaceniks.
Freedom: The Map of Freedom shows most of the global population living under some form of authoritarian control, especially when North America is evaluated honestly. Just about all of the rest lives under Democracy, which is nothing more than the soft version where two wolves and a sheep meet to decide what is for dinner. This is the globalist model, which prefers centralized control and a curtailing of individual freedom by mafia or mob rule, resulting in the sucking of all wealth and power toward a top ruling class. As Louis Brandeis, former Supreme Court Justice said, “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” Countries with a true free market of ideas and commerce are few and far between.
Economy: The model of centralized elite banking management has been an abject failure. All central banks in history that have used fiat money — most of which financed both sides of wars — have failed in that they have bankrupted their nations and only have enriched those in control. The current exposure of the U.S. Federal Reserve is finally reaching a crescendo, but our managers are already a step ahead discussing the endgame of a one-world currency to solve the inadequacies of the past. I think we have had enough examples of their central planning skills.
Health: Between the EPA, FDA, and USDA — just to cite U.S. agencies — our elite researchers, scientists, and policy makers have been responsible for millions of deaths, conservatively. And it is only getting worse, as this global health tyranny aims to criminalize the food and supplements that are actually proven to extend our lives. The key poisons they enable include: mercury, aspartame, MSG, (most) vaccines, and GMOs; all proven to reduce cognition, bodily health, and life expectancy.
Environment: Fukushima is only the latest in a long history of corporate/government mismanagement with global consequences. Experts claiming to show the benefits and safety of their advice continuously bombard us. Yet, our planet has now endured multiple nuclear meltdowns, oil spills, fracking-induced earthquakes, and global fallout from wars using depleted uranium — all of which have contaminated Earth and poisoned future generations beyond imagining. The only success these elites can document is the mass killing by dictators like Genghis Khan, Mao, Hitler, and Stalin who eliminated a conservative total of over 100 million people, thus reducing CO2. Well done if you are a nihilist.
With such a track record of desolation for all but the top directors, we had best pay attention to their own words about what direction they have in store for us next.
Most alarming about this semi-clandestine meeting is that the very premise upon which they base this need for global orchestration — Global Warming — has been thoroughly debunked by any climatologist not beholden to a government-sponsored think tank or agency. Their famously cited Plan B for inevitable climate change is nothing more than a wish list for those who wish to de-industrialize productive nations and consolidate control through wealth redistribution. Not a good way to start saving people.
With lies as the basis for what is to follow, we continue along our Orwellian path set forth by “scientists and scholars” toward a comprehensive new vision for the future which was framed by this elite roundtable normally hidden from public view, but brought to us by the Associated Propaganda news agency:
Provoking and parrying each other over questions never before raised in human history, the conferees were sensitive to how the outside world might react.
Science: “If we could experiment with the atmosphere and literally play God, it’s very tempting to a scientist,” Kenyan earth scientist Richard Odingo.
Well, we can give points for honesty here, but are we really to believe that this “experimentation” has not already begun? Their own words and observable facts prove otherwise. The top contender for geoengineering on a planetary scale, according to the panel, is “stratospheric aerosol particles.” In what sounds a whole lot like tin-foil hat conspiracy Chemtrails, these “particles would be sun-reflecting sulfates spewed into the lower stratosphere from aircraft, balloons or other devices.” The current evidence for such activity has already been exhaustively documented by researchers and popularized by films such as What In The World Are They Spraying? The panel actually calls this technique Sun Radiation Management (SRM). The problem with management is that managers are then necessary; and the ones that have been appointed should not be to our liking.
Law: “These scenarios create winners and losers . . . Who is going to decide?” John Shepherd of Britain’s Southhampton University, lead author of a 2009 Royal Society study of geoengineering.
The think tank warns that a “coalition of scientifically capable nations” should set world direction — led of course by the U.S. and Britain, two of the most egregious abusers of the planet — “perhaps inviting China, India, Brazil and others . . . ” But when in doubt just invoke the U.N to convince the masses that, “Many environmentalists categorically oppose intentional fiddling with Earth’s atmosphere, or at least insist that such important decisions rest in the hands of the U.N., since every nation on Earth has a stake in the skies above.” The United Nations; world police force and repository of incremental global control.
Politics: “One of the challenges is identifying intentions, one of which could be offensive military use.” — Indian development specialist Arunabha Ghosh referring to weather modification.
If the weather can truly be controlled, then one can surmise that we are entering a future of weather wars. And, yet, this already has been addressed in key white papers such as Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning The Weather By 2025. Perhaps the real concern is similar to that of all WMDs — to be sure that only the ruling elite can use them, while anyone who opposes or retaliates is marked with the cattle brand of terrorist.
Philosophy: “There’s the ‘slippery slope’ view that as soon as you start to do this research, you say it’s OK to think about things you shouldn’t be thinking about.” — Steve Rayner, co-director of Oxford University’s geoengineering program.
The philosophy of “thinking the unthinkable” always has been trumpeted as a necessary contingency plan to protect the masses from lone nuts and rogue governments when, in reality, it is the justification for what already has been engineered by psychopaths and sociopaths in positions of power within dominant governments and by their think-tank minions. It is their hatred for the masses and subsequent policies that lead to what normal people call unthinkable scenarios.
Conclusion: “I’m queasy about some billionaire with a messiah complex having a major role in geoengineering research,” — Clive Hamilton, Australian economist-ethicist.
It takes a lot more than a few billion dollars to orchestrate weather control, just as flight-school flunkies with box cutters, or a white supremacist in Oklahoma with a store-bought truck bomb cannot orchestrate large-scale terrorism. For a real messiah complex with money to back it, one needs a government sponsor. This is misdirection right from the playbook . . . and that should make us queasy.
Naturally, “All discussions lead to the central theme of how to oversee research.” There it is: more control. This control is hidden by our overseers in their “worry” that this new capability will lead to a Geoengineering Industrial Complex. It is a pathetic echo of Eisenhower’s famous speech warning of a Military Industrial Complex. This is not a worry at all, as we are getting the message straight from The Four Horsemen’s mouth. These days such worries are not issued as a dire broadcast of the threat to individual liberty; they are sibilant whispers to a mainstream media peddling the message that only the eradication of individual liberty can save us all.
Michael Edwards writes for ActivistPost.com