Alarmists Say: Global Warming is Real, Pay Your Carbon Taxes! Reply

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
July 26, 2012

 

 

 

The man-made climate change alarmists would have us believe that while CO2 is plant food it has been shown in experimental studies that plants are not responding to CO2 fertilization. In a new paper produced by Steven Higgins, lead author from the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre and Goethe – University, maintains that even though plants use CO2 to live, and turn it into O2 which animals use to live, global warming computer models tell a different tale.

The tropical forests along the Amazon jungle, which are the “lungs of the planet”, are competing with grasslands for CO2. In the Savannahs, according to experimental computer models, there is a battle taking place.

Higgins explains: “However, most of these studies were conducted in northern ecosystems or on commercially important species. In fact, only one experimental study has investigated how savanna plants will respond to changing CO2 concentrations and this study showed that savanna trees were essentially CO2-starved under pre-industrial CO2 concentrations, and that their growth really starts taking off at the CO2 concentrations we are currently experiencing.“

Trees growing in the Savannah are fighting for CO2 from the atmosphere. As fossil fuels are burned up, the CO2 is released into the air, which is good for the trees, bad for the grass.

And even worse, as we cut down trees in these flourishing forests, all those CO2 is released into the atmosphere and becomes a threat to the biosphere.
One way the globalists want to deal with CO2 is hydraulic fracturing , or fracking.

In a propaganda report, the National Research Council admits that while fracking causes earthquakes, it is still a “low risk” way of sequestering CO2 underground. They blame carbon capture for “inducing seismic events”, although there is insufficient scientific data to make such a claim.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), working with the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWF) endorse fracking as a safe low-impact environmentally friendly way of dealing with CO2.

The IPCC is responsible for the use of fracking as a pollution control to move away from coal-based electrical power. Fracking, a scheme concocted by the UN’s IPCC as their replacement of coal usage and reduction of CO2 that is causing undeniable environmental damage, cancer risks to public health and detrimental seismic activity.

The myth of man-made CO2 as a direct cause of climate change was purveyed by Professor Michael Mann, who is now hiding behind the globalist academia front Penn State University. Mann’s hockey stick graph was a complete fabrication designed to further the UN movement toward blaming the effects on our biosphere on man to move the world’s population into a global carbon taxing scheme.

Just last month Fritz Fritz Vahrenholt, a professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Hamburg since 2009, spoke at the 3rd Global Warming Policy Foundation Annual Lecture at the Royal Society in London where he voiced that there was an obvious lack of scientific data to support the IPCC’s assertions.

Vahrenholt states that: “Real, hard data from ice cores, dripstones, tree rings and ocean or lake sediment cores reveal significant temperature changes of more than 1°C, with warm and cold phases alternating in a 1,000-year cycle. These include the Minoan Warm Period 3,000 years ago and the Roman Warm Period 2,000 years ago. During the Medieval Warm Phase around 1,000 years ago, Greenland was colonized and grapes for wine grew in England. The Little Ice Age lasted from the 15th to the 19th century. All these fluctuations occurred before man-made CO2.”

The late Gerard Bond, marine geologist and professor from Columbia University, analyzed climate reconstructions of the North American deep-sea sediment cores, found that “the millennial-scale climate cycles ran largely parallel to solar cycles, including the Eddy Cycle which is – guess what – 1,000 years long.”

Bond surmised through decades of research that variations in solar activity – the appearance of sunspots and changes in the emission of solar radiation – were directly causing palatable effects on the Earth’s global temperature. The heating and cooling of the Earth coincided with the activity of the sun.

The sun determines the Earth’s temperature, as proven from real-world observations over the past 10,000 years. With the introduction of man-made carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere beginning in the 1850’s, the CO2 level has only risen 11 percent; which is nearly negligible.

Empirical data has shown that pre-industrial carbon emissions were dependent on solar activity. This global warming was estimated by scientists as 1 degree Celsius. As far as the IPCC is concerned, this statistic could, and has, been manipulated to justify their agenda. However the account of the solar magnetic fields doubling over the last 100 years was completely ignored because it disavowed their scheme to blame carbon dioxide levels on human influences.

Solar activity, CO2 levels and Earth’s surface temperature are interlaced factors defining climate parameters. As modern man has been using fossil fuels which disburse carbon dioxide, it made perfect sense for the IPCC to turn this obvious fact into an attack on man through fear-mongering and propaganda while suppressing natural processes.

The infamous computer models used by the IPCC to justify their claims that CO2 levels are a direct causation of anthropogenic impact and regard solar influence as negligible. The IPCC inserts an “unknown amplifying mechanism” to explain away observed solar activity and its effect on the Earth’s overall temperature.

CO2 is not the concern of the global Elite through their various environmental fronts, like the IPCC or the numerous propaganda studies they publish. However, the myth of man-made carbon release has become such a big seller that they are continuing to run with it. Alarmists are scaring the public, while globalists call for worldwide carbon taxing to keep the CO2 at bay.

NOAA Scientist Joins Alarmist Climate Change Movement Reply

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
July 21, 2012

Jane Lubchenco from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says that: “Many people around the world are beginning to appreciate that climate change is under way, that it’s having consequences that are playing out in real time and, in the United States at least, we are seeing more and more examples of extreme weather and extreme climate-related events.”

Alarmists for the man-made global warming hoax are using recent extreme weather to justify their claims.

At a university forum in Canberra, Australia, Lubchenco said: “People’s perceptions in the United States at least are in many cases beginning to change as they experience something first-hand that they at least think is directly attributable to climate change.”

The IPCC, in a report published in April of this year entitled, IPCC Special Report on Managing the Regional Risks of Climate Extremes and Disasters, described “unprecedented extreme weather and climate events” that would come to pass.

The IPCC recommends with the backing of international mandate, that nations adopt their guidelines for reducing “a wide range of factors, including anthropogenic climate change, natural climate variability, and socioeconomic development” that is effecting man-made global warming.

Lubchenco said that while it was impossible to attribute any single weather event to climate change, the pattern of extreme events was consistent with forecast consequences of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Fritz Vahrenholt, a German green energy investor, says he has reassessed his position on man-made climate change.

According to Vahrenholt, with the introduction of man-made carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere beginning in the 1850’s, the CO2 level has only risen 11 percent; which is nearly negligible.

Empirical data has shown that pre-industrial carbon emissions were dependent on solar activity. This global warming was estimated by scientists as 1 degree Celsius. As far as the IPCC is concerned, this statistic could, and has, been manipulated to justify their agenda. However the account of the solar magnetic fields doubling over the last 100 years was completely ignored because it disavowed their scheme to blame carbon dioxide levels on human influences.

Solar activity, CO2 levels and Earth’s surface temperature are interlaced factors defining climate parameters. As modern man has been using fossil fuels which disburse carbon dioxide, it made perfect sense for the IPCC to turn this obvious fact into an attack on man through fear-mongering and propaganda while suppressing natural processes.

Lubchenco said her agency was experiencing “skyrocketing” demand for climate change data and projections from individuals, businesses, communities and planners across the United States.

What Lubchenco is calling for is the implementation of UN guidelines as replacement for American laws. One way of dealing with climate change that is approved of by the UN and the US is geoengineering. And since the US has no official policy on climate change, the UN’s rules and regulations have been adopted by the US government.

According to the Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy (GGTP) report, produced by the Congressional Research Service, the US government “has joined with other nations . . . as a participant in several international agreements on climate change.”

The experimental aspect of geoengineering in the US is directed in the “absence of a comprehensive [climate change] policy” that will “modify the Earth’s climate” and make these technologies available to “foreign governments and entities in the private sector to use unilaterally without authorization from the US government or an international treaty.’

Oversight concerning geoengineering research and experimental projects is allocated to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DoE), Department of Agriculture (DoA), and the Department of Defense.
Although there is no provision, many of the UN’s international treaties relating to climate change, maritime pollution and air pollution are used to govern the pursuit of geoengineering.

Through eco-terror, and blaming extreme weather conditions on humans, alarmists are making a come-back. Fear-mongering is an old tactic of the global Elite. They use it when all else fails. The fact that they are playing this card now means they are desperate because people are waking up to the real world scientific data disproving their assertions.

Since they are concerned enough to begin terrifying the general public into submission means we have the upper hand. Do not allow yourself to be manipulated now.

Ocean Fertilization: Another UN Scheme to Slow Kill the Planet Reply

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
July 14, 2012

The UN Environmental Program has many versions of geo-engineering up their sleeve to ultimately “manipulate the environment”. The thinking behind geo-engineering is to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to keep the planet from warming to a dangerous degree”, however they admit that the “feasibility and effectiveness of these interventions are uncertain and there are unknown risks to the environment and humans.”

Chemtrails, which are just now receiving media coverage, are but one way the global Elite was manipulating our biosphere. Ocean fertilization is a method of CO2 sequestering that is supported by the globalist think-tank The Royal Society.

The technique uses iron and “other nutrients” that induce microscopic marine plants to absorb CO2 through the natural process of photosynthesis. As they inject the CO2, the plankton releases it back into the ocean at a lower depth.

Stanford and Oregon State Universities have suggested that the $100 billion venture to fertilize our oceans is not a viable course of reducing CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere. They found that the process of pumping CO2 into plankton, or algae, does not have the desired effect of converting the CO2 to the deeper levels of the ocean.

Back in 2010, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), which is part of UNESCO, published a study that approved of ocean fertilization as a “preventative” measure of sequestering CO2 in the deep oceans.

Dr. Michael Lutz, lead author of the study, said: “This discovery is very surprising. If, during natural plankton blooms, less carbon actually sinks to deep water than during the rest of the year, then it suggests that the Biological Pump leaks. More material is recycled in shallow water and less sinks to depth, which makes sense if you consider how this ecosystem has evolved in a way to minimize loss. Ocean fertilization schemes, which resemble an artificial summer, may not remove as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as has been suggested because they ignore the natural processes revealed by this research.”

At the Ocean Iron Fertilization Symposium at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), topics of discussion were environmental dangers, economic implications and the overall effectiveness of ocean fertilization. Dr. Hauke Kite-Powell, of the Marine Policy Center at WHOI, estimated the possible future value of ocean fertilization at $100 billion of the emerging international carbon trading market.

In a press release , WHOI revealed data taken from studies in Massachusetts at the annual diatom bloom, a natural cycle of the ecosystem. They absorb carbon dioxide and the “the North Atlantic is critical to this process; it’s responsible for more than 20 percent of the ocean’s uptake of CO2.”

Studies into the allocation of this bloom are funded by the National Science Foundation’s Division of Ocean Sciences (NSFDOS). This government agency, represented by Don Rice hopes to use this natural phenomena as a CO2 sequestering scheme.

Researchers said that: “Springtime blooms of microscopic plants in the ocean absorb enormous quantities of carbon dioxide, much like our forests, emitting oxygen via photosynthesis. Their growth contributes to the oceanic uptake of carbon dioxide, amounting globally to about one-third of the carbon dioxide we put into the air each year through the burning of fossil fuels. An important question is how this ‘biological pump’ for carbon might change in the future as our climate evolves.”

Professor Rosemary Rayfuse, expert in International Law and the Law of the Sea at the University of New South Wales, Australia, asserted that ocean fertilization is not approved under carbon credit regulatory schemes and sale of its offsets on unregulated markets results in fraud.

The “dumping” of CO2 into the oceans amounts to polluting the waters. Rayfuse, citing the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) stated that: “There is no point trying to ameliorate the effects of climate change by destroying the oceans — the very cradle of life on earth. Simply doing more and bigger of that which has already been demonstrated to be ineffective and potentially more harmful than good is counter-intuitive at best.”

Both the Royal Society and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) claim that ocean fertilization address the urgent need for environmental, social and legal schemes that international regimes must implement in their efforts to continue geo-engineering experiments. By reducing CO2 emissions by the use of all forms of geo-engineering, the UN simultaneously wants to control those efforts as an exploration for potential monetary gains. However the scientific community asserts that policymakers and the general public need to participate in these secret discussion as they are directly affected by their ethical, social and geopolitical potentials.

Scientists are looking to take advantage of the oceans to justify natural cycles and contributions to the Earth’s climate, while simultaneously finding new ways to exploit this resource for their globalist agendas. Under the guise of using plankton for CO2 sequestering, data is being entered into computer models to see how this new integration can be used to maximize carbon credit profits.

Alarmists Use Extreme Weather to Revive Man-Made Global Warming Reply

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
July 6, 2012

Global Warming alarmists would have the public take a glimpse of recent extreme weather patterns to prove that man-made climate change effects have come to pass; just as the globalists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have warned about for decades.

Simply observe the heat waves, droughts and floods and the proof is there, they say.

“This is what global warming looks like at the regional or personal level,” said Jonathan Overpeck, professor of geosciences and atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona. “The extra heat increases the odds of worse heat waves, droughts, storms and wildfire. This is certainly what I and many other climate scientists have been warning about.”

The IPCC, in a report published in April of this year entitled, IPCC Special Report on Managing the Regional Risks of Climate Extremes and Disasters , described “unprecedented extreme weather and climate events” that would come to pass.

The IPCC recommends with the backing of international mandate, that nations adopt their guidelines for reducing “a wide range of factors, including anthropogenic climate change, natural climate variability, and socioeconomic development” that is effecting man0made global warming. The IPCC outlines “disaster risk management” as:

• Identifying the anthropogenic exposure that causes climate change
• Establish resettlement patterns and redirected urbanization to change socioeconomic conditions
• Hand over to the IPCC data they request to conduct their research and studies on anthropogenic global warming
• Reduce disaster areas by eliminating large spatial lands and replace them with denser populated areas

Working with the IPCC are the Overseas Development Institute , Norway’s Climate and Pollution Agency, Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Climate and Development Knowledge Network . They are planning “outreach events” for Latin America, Asia and Africa. By gathering policymakers, business leaders, academics, and civil society organizations, policies and programs of influence will encompass the expectation of implementation concerning:

– Extremes, exposure, and vulnerability in the context of the Special Report
– Observations and projections of extremes
– Observations and projections of Impacts and losses
– Risk management options for improving current and future practice
– Approaches to moving towards a sustainable and resilient future

Chris Field, lead author of the study and professor of the Carnegie Institution and Stanford University (two centers of globalist propaganda) warned: “It’s really dramatic how many of the patterns that we’ve talked about as the expression of the extremes are hitting the U.S. right now.”

Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University claims: “What we’re seeing really is a window into what global warming really looks like. It looks like heat. It looks like fires. It looks like this kind of environmental disasters.”

Oppenheimer made that comment prior to the East Coast of America being hit by triple-digit heat temperatures and Chicago experiencing a derecho (an unusually strong, long-lived and large straight-line wind storm).

Harold Brooks of the National Severe Storm Laboratory (NSSL) commented that the record heat was the direct factor in the creation of this “non-tornadic wind event” that can be linked to climate change as the atmosphere heats up and becomes unstable.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) the US has set more than 40,000 hot temperature records. Derek Arndt, climate monitoring chief for NOAA stated: “In the future you would expect larger, longer more intense heat waves and we’ve seen that in the last few summers.”

Jerry Meehl, climate extreme expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) asserts that climate change models and current extreme weather prove that “This is what global warming is like, and we’ll see more of this as we go into the future.”

John Christy, professor of the University of Alabama and man-made global warming skeptic says that “the guilty party, in my view, is Mother Nature.”

The global Elite have in their power the capability of ensuring that the weather patterns of the earth coincide with their agenda. High-frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP), among other things, can effect and control the weather while creating unnatural disasters that appear quite natural.

HAARP has the capability to produce torrential rain storms and horrendous drought, earthquakes, tsunamis and most other “natural” disasters seen periodically as a normal geological and bio-spherical pattern. However, the capabilities of HAARP directly mirror the recent extreme weather patterns, as well as would appear on the surface to justify the global Elite’s agenda to remove doubt about man-made global warming.

Climategate: Scientists, Governments, Private Industry Conspire to Fool the World Reply

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
June 22, 2012

Climate change alarmist, Dr. Michael Mann, former professor from the University Of Virginia (UV) was involved in an intentional lie to coerce the American public into believing the propaganda that is the man-made global warming perspective now dubbed “Climategate”.

Known as the “hockey stick”, Mann created a fake 1,000 year temperature reconstruction that has since been discredited.

The American Tradition Institute (ATI), through their Environmental Law Center (ELC), have requested a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that the University of Virginia release emails and specified files that display correspondence and communications sent and received by Mann while during his tenure at UV.

Under the FOIA request, the UV was mandated to turn over the requested documents within 5 days of receipt of payment for “accessing, duplicating, supplying or searching”. Yet, the UV did not comply and so the ATI was forced to file a compel production and compliance to hold the UV legally responsible for their negligence.

Since this defense stance by the ATI, the UV has turned over a mere 20% of the 9,000 pages of documents they have in their possession which was requested by ATI. The papers that ATI received were fluffed with ads for Halloween costumes, public news releases and scientific journals that were utterly irrelevant.

“ATI pursues important public issues,” said Dr. Schnare, director of ATI’s ELC. “This case is about whether the government can put up a pay wall to frustrate the public’s right to transparency. If it can, the public can’t hold government employees to the high standards of conduct they should meet.”

Michael Mann, corresponded with the British Climate Research Unit in creating the infamous “ hockey stick graph ” that was the crux of the climate change alarmist’s mythology about global warming.

In defense of Mann, Penn State University released a press statement , reminding the public of Mann’s accolades and accomplishments; yet none of this parallels with the intentional deception Mann participated in regarding climate change science.

Emails and documents from Mann, discussing his false climate change summation with other prominent alarmist scientists was leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in November of 2011.

The investigation into Climategate has extended far beyond Mann; although he remains the front-man. Evidence of his correspondence to pursue the propaganda of his “hockey stick” theory and intentionally manipulate scientific data to make the global warming theory appear more dire than it actually is. This involves such agencies as:

• The US Environmental Protection Agency
• The National Science Foundation
• The British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
• Penn State University
• Various independent panels

Mann’s corresponding emails shows that the theory of man-made climate change is a complete hoax, efforts were made to hide evidences proving this fact from the public, scientists who knew this were fired or stonewalled to keep the ruse, editors knowingly assisted in altering published documents which displayed evidence contradicting the climate change alarmist view.

All of these efforts cause any validity to the empirical science to determine what if any effect man has on the earth’s environment to be useless in the public domain. What’s worse, it exposes a massive cover-up and direct intent to coerce the populations of the world that man is the only cause of the changing temperatures of the planet.

US Climate Change Procedure Based on UN’s Geoengineering Governance and Technology Policy Reply

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
June 18, 2012

Use of geoengineering is supported by member of the scientific community that is working in line with the climate change alarmists. These modifications extend to plate tectonics, ocean fertilization, cloud seeding, Co2 sequestration and military weaponry.

Project Cirrus (PC), a.k.a. Project Stormfury), was conducted by the US government between 1962 and 1983, in an attempt to manipulate the weather by affecting hurricane behavior.

PC was headed by General Electric, the US Army Signal Corps, the Office of Naval Research and the US Air Force .

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) states in their study that “climate engineering technologies, focusing on their technical status, future directions for research and potential responses.” The GAO reviewed the scientific literature and government reports, consulted experts with a wide variety of backgrounds and viewpoints, and surveyed 1,006 adults across the United States.

The GAO concluded that “climate engineering technologies do not now offer a viable response to global climate change.”

Areas of study were:
• Carbon dioxide removal
Solar radiation management

Solar radiation management (SRM), a technique for blocking the sun’s light in order to prevent access heat from affecting the Earth’s surface, has been used in many countries including:

• The United States
• Brazil
• Costa Rica
• England
• Most European countries

SRM consists of spraying crystals and toxic chemicals such as sulfate aerosols and barium into the upper atmosphere.

Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri, environmental writer and former university professor and scholar, states: “For more than a decade, first the United States and then Canada’s citizens have been subjected to a 24/7/365 day aerosol assault over our heads made of a toxic brew of poisonous heavy metals, chemicals, and other dangerous ingredients. None of this was reported by any mainstream media. The US Department of Defense (DOD) and military have been systematically blanketing all our skies with what are known as Chemtrails (also known as Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering).”

The GAO admits that current geoengineering techniques are immature and that many of them could have potentially negative consequences. Yet, the consensus of governmental agencies has chosen to disregard the health hazards to the general public in favor of the continued use of geoengineering.

Scientists in support of geoengineering, knowing “major technology risks or limited future climate change” show their bias toward the “science”. The GAO have looked toward the private sector because governments and corporations working with them subvert their findings and conduct experiments worldwide without consent.

According to the Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy (GGTP) report, produced by the Congressional Research Service, the US government “has joined with other nations . . . as a participant in several international agreements on climate change.”

The experimental aspect of geoengineering in the US is directed in the “absence of a comprehensive [climate change] policy” that will “modify the Earth’s climate” and make these technologies available to “foreign governments and entities in the private sector to use unilaterally without authorization from the US government or an international treaty.’

Oversight concerning geoengineering research and experimental projects is allocated to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DoE), Department of Agriculture (DoA), and the Department of Defense.

Although there is no provision, many of the UN’s international treaties relating to climate change, maritime pollution and air pollution are used to govern the pursuit of geoengineering.

In 2010, the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) outlined the necessity of geoengineering for the sake of saving the Earth’s biodiversity.

The US government, using the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as their guide, has created policies to mitigate the fabled effects of man-made climate change.

The GGTP states that “geoengineering technologies, applied to the climate, aim to achieve large-scale and deliberate modifications of the Earth’s energy balance in order to reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic (i.e., human-made) climate change; these climate modifications would not be limited by country boundaries.”

In 2009, the Congress’ House Science and Technology Committee discussed “potential environmental risks and benefits of various proposals, associated domestic and international governance issues, evaluation mechanisms and criteria, research and development (R&D) needs, and economic rationales supporting the deployment of geoengineering activities.” The United Kingdom (UK), Germany, and India provided scientists that supported the engagement of geoengineering technologies in the name of reducing emissions, preserving “climate sensitivity”, and climate thresholds under the pursuit of political, social and economic mitigation strategies.

The UN’s assertion that climate change is directly causal to humans has inspired that mandates for geoengineering governance. This scheme relies on no scientific data or research studies, but rather real world experiments with chemtrail technologies conducted by governmental agencies and private sector corporations employed by policymakers and international entities.

Through the covering of governmental policy, the UN hopes to design technologies to control the climate; advance geoengineering options in lieu of effectively mitigating greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions (for example, could result in a number of adverse effects, including ocean acidification, stresses on biodiversity, climate sensitivity shocks, and other irreversible consequences); engage the private sector corporations by enticing them with government subsidies while examining their ownership models, intellectual property rights and trade and transfer mechanisms for the dissemination of geoengineering technologies.

While the UN anticipated that the general public would become aware of their schemes (as is happening now) they planned a propaganda campaign to assert transparency while hiding the actuality of critical technologies to avoid liabilities and compensation to the public for adverse effects of geoengineering.

To cover up their unethical impact on the Earth, the UN created “ information” to be made available to the public and hired scientists to praise their deployment of geoengineering.

John Holdren, US Science Adviser to Obama, has come out publicly to claim that geoengineering will assist the planet in stabilizing its weather with regard to global warming.

Holdren says geoengineering as a perfectly viable way to cool the planet’s temperature. He fully supports the process of releasing particles of barium, magnesium, aluminum, nano-fibers, bacillus blood spores and other chemicals to reflect sunlight away from the Earth.

The implementation of geoengineering, a scheme of the UN’s decisive endeavor to create global governance, is not only fully supported by the US government, but the UN’s direct policies and procedures are literally adopted as strategies of the Obama administration.

Geoengineering and Chemtrails Are Destroying Our Atmosphere Reply

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
April 19, 2012

Geo-engineering is manipulating and altering the planet’s atmosphere. Toxic barium, magnesium, aluminum and other chemicals are released in the chemtrails that follow certain airplanes. These ariel exhausts first appear as normal contrails of water vapor that usually follow airplanes. Yet, chemtrails do not dissipate, changing from straight lines and cross hatch patterns into streaks of “clouds” that cover most of the visible sky.

Chemtrails have been seen all across the world. They are composed of parasites, toxic metals, nano-engineered particles and other toxins. Samples have yielded the presence of:

  • Aluminum
  • Barium
  • Nickel
  • Cadmium
  • Mold spores
  • Synthetic nano-fibers
  • Bacillus blood spores
  • Radioactive thorium

These chemicals are entered into the lungs and skin, and pollute the human body. They collect in our environment and alter the air we breathe, food we eat; creating an unavoidable toxicity.

Monsanto leads the string of numerous corporations that have been granted permission through US patents to conduct aerial assaults with the use of chemtrails. The chemicals being released can easily be absorbed into our lungs and blood through the skin and simply by breathing.

The National Institute of Health (NH) confirms that chemtrails are directly responsible for numerous neurotoxic conditions such as multiple sclerosis.

Congressman Dennis Kucinch, former head of the House Armed Service Committee overseeing military projects, announced “The Space Preservation Act”, HR 2977 in 2001. The bill mandated the use of space for peace and proposed a ban on “exotic weapons” like chemtrails.

Chemtrails leave aluminum levels in some areas that leave all wildlife struggling to survive. To combat this, the USDA receives money from Monsanto from royalties on genetically modified crops. These crops are engineered to grow in soil that has  a high aluminum toxicity.

In an article released in the Council of Foreign Relations Journal by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the organization praised the use of heavy metals into our atmosphere to combat global warming. This reasoning is a hoax, considering that man-made climate change is a lie perpetrated onto the world’s populations by the global Elite and the UN’s IPCC. Scientists worldwide have come to the fact that the sun is heating up not only our Earth, but all the planets in our solar system.

The CFR have been holding workshops titled “Unilateral Planetary Scale Geo-engineering and the Challenge of Global Governance” and recently held a conference called “Strategic Aerosol Geo-engineering” where they announced plans to ban news reporting on chemtrails to continue to deceive the public.

We must to all we can to spread the word about this destruction of our atmosphere by the global Elite. This petition was created to assist lawmakers and elected officials in ending chemtrails by the voice of public opinion.

Obama’s Science Adviser Says Chemtrails Will Save the Planet Reply

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
April 30, 2012

John Holdren , Obama’s Science Adviser believes that geo-engineering will assist the planet is stabilizing its weather with regard to global warming.

Holdren sees geo-engineering as a perfectly viable way to cool the planet’s temperature. He fully supports the process of releasing particles of barium, magnesium, aluminum, nano-fibers, bacillus blood spores and other chemicals to reflect sunlight away from the Earth.

In an article released in the Council of Foreign Relations Journal by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the organization praised the use of heavy metals into our atmosphere to combat global warming. This reasoning is a hoax, considering that man-made climate change is a lie perpetrated onto the world’s populations by the global Elite and the UN’s IPCC. Scientists worldwide have come to the fact that the sun is heating up not only our Earth, but all the planets in our solar system.

The National Institute of Health has found that geo-engineering is directly responsible for neurotoxins found in human blood, lungs; as well as causing a whole host of neurotoxic conditions such as multiple sclerosis.

Holdren is joining the man-made climate change alarmists who threaten that global warming will not be slowed down in time to reverse the imaginary “tipping point”. One of the claims is that the ice will completely melt in the Arctic; although scientific researchers show that this is blatantly untrue.

A Syracuse University study found that climate change is natural and not caused by man.

The researchers studied the Earth’s heat cycles over 1,000 years in the past until now. They found:

  •  Earth is actually cooling
  • Arctic ice is not melting
  • CO2 is not the cause for the extreme weather changes recently seen

Holdren blames human emissions of CO2 as responsible for droughts, food storage shortages, and rising sea levels, along with the extreme weather we have recently seen.

Holdren is not alone in perpetrating this hoax.

The American Meteorological Society is devising a policy statement that will support this lie by saying that “it is prudent to consider geo-engineering’s potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment.”

Robert Socolow, a Princeton scientist, told the National Academy that geo-engineering should be a readily made viable option in case climate worsens dramatically.

While sound scientific data shows that CO2 is not the problem, other viable perpetrators are ignored. Geo-engineering itself is grossly detrimental to the atmosphere and a direct causation to the major changes we have witnessed in modern decades.

Holdren is upholding Obama’s goal of cutting greenhouse emissions 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.

Members of Congress are showing signs of opposing Obama’s bill to achieve this goal.

Holdren’s recent statement is obvious fear-mongering propaganda designed to coerce Capitol Hill and the American public of “truths” surmised by unscientific data.

Chemtrails,Cloud Whitening and the Business of Climate Change Reply

May 9th, 2012 0 Comment

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
May 9, 2012

In the Copenhagen Consensus 2012 project is a way to deal with international climate change. The 2009 Copenhagen Consensus project lay the foundation for this recent call by climate change alarmists.

They argue that cooling the planet by reflecting more of the sun’s rays back to space is the only way to preform climate engineering.

One suggestion is to use “Stratospheric Aerosol Injection – where a precursor of sulfur dioxide would be continuously injected into the stratosphere, forming a layer of aerosols to reflect sunlight”.

Another approach could be “Marine Cloud Whitening, where seawater would be mixed into the atmosphere at sea to make the clouds whiter and more reflective”.

Richard Toll is a professor of Economics, Department of Economics, University of Sussex; professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics.

He claims that geo-engineering is the only way to cool the planet. Through a global carbon tax, this process could be funded. Toll stresses climate policy is about making money to fund these projects.

Reducing greenhouse gases are best achieved by adherence to a global carbon tax. While emissions reduction will be lenient in the beginning, over time the regulations should become more stringent.

The price tag for climate change should begin at about $1.80 per ton of carbon produced.

Watch Toll’s explanation of his research.

____________________________________________________

A technology-led climate change policy will focus on manufacturing and producing low carbon emitting energy technologies. The carbon tax will fund the research and development of these technologies.

By using the corporate model, climate change purveyors hope to succeed at building technologies that reduce emissions as well as fund the cause.
Manufacturing of these products will be high demand as the governments of the world are forced to comply with an international agreement to mitigate Co2 levels.

However, as funding is funneled into subsidizing manufacturing and development rather than research, the purpose of claiming good for the plant while reaping huge profits is clear.

As the governments of nations prepare for adaptation policies, agriculture and tourism will be affected most.

Vacationers will choose more hospitable destinations.

Farmers will choose appropriate crops to weather the rising temperatures of their area.

The housing market will have to account for the warmer temperatures within their design and production; not to mention that where people choose to live will greatly alter depending on the climate.

Industrial countries will have an easier time adapting.

Third world nations will struggle as they are impacted the most.

While poorer countries will become dependent on the “humanitarian aid” of more wealthy countries, the chances of their development is lessened.

Climate change is about benefiting industry and corporatism while building itself off the backs of the poor.

These papers explain the cost effectiveness of their projects, how they intend to raise the revenue for them and how they plan to sell the idea of climate change to the governments of the world.

Scientists Push for ‘Solar Geoengineering’ With Nano Particles to Whiten Our Skies Reply

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
June 3, 2012

The latest scheme to combat global warming is to increase the amount of chemtrails in the atmosphere. The thinking behind this endeavor is that this will scatter incoming solar energy from the Earth’s surface.

The side effect is that there will be an increased whitening of the sky during the daytime.

Researchers, Ben Kravitz and Ken Caldeira, from the Carnegie Institute for Science , have found that by blocking a mere 2% of sunlight would cause the sky to become 3 – 5 times brighter, and whiter.

Climate change alarmists assert that carbon dioxide emissions have caused the Earth’s surface temperature to rise. While volcanic eruptions emit small particles into the stratosphere that cool the temperature, these particles take years to fall to Earth.

Scientists are looking for a faster way to change the temperature of the Earth.

By using solar geoengineering scientists could “mimic” the volcanic eruptions by constantly replenishing the stratosphere with nano particles to reflect sunlight back into space.

Kravtiz and Calderia, working with Douglas MacMartin from the California Institute of Technology, studied sky color ad brightness by utilizing a sulfate-based aerosols. They surmised that using these chemicals in the atmosphere would cause the daytime skies to be whiter and the sunsets to glow brighter.

Computer models showed that although the sky would remain blue, it would be a much lighter shade; especially over areas that experience more geoengineeing than others.

“These results give people one more thing to consider before deciding whether we really want to go down this road,” Kravitz said. “Although our study did not address the potential psychological impact of these changes to the sky, they are important to consider as well.”

The researchers claim that plants will grow more efficiently under the barrage of chemtrails. By muting light, and creating photosynthetic, or fake sunlight, the scientists assert that they could reduce the greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.

However, by compromising the amount of sunlight that comes through, the geoengineering process will have dramatic effects on the efficiency of solar power.

While scientists are finding new ways to justify using chemtrails in our skies, a recent study shows that pollution trapped in thunderclouds is making climate change worse.

That pollution is composed of parasites, toxic metals, nano-engineered particles and other toxins. Samples have yielded the presence of:

• Aluminum
• Barium
• Nickel
• Cadmium
• Mold spores
• Synthetic nano-fibers
• Bacillus blood spores
• Radioactive thorium

The Obama administration’s science advisor, John Holdren, has come out publicly to say that he believes that geoengineering will assist the planet is stabilizing its weather with regard to global warming. Holdren sees geo-engineering as a perfectly viable way to cool the planet’s temperature.

He fully supports the process of releasing particles of barium, magnesium, aluminum, nano-fibers, bacillus blood spores and other chemicals to reflect sunlight away from the Earth.

One point government officials fail to mention is that using weather modification is the cause of the changes we see in the planet’s natural bio-spherical patterns.

Chemtrails, and the toxins they release into the atmosphere, are having a direct effect on warming Earth’s temperatures.

Gates Funded Solar Geoengineering Causing Global Warming Effects Reply

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
July 18, 2012

Alarmist scientists at Harvard University have plans to spray thousands of tons of sun-reflecting chemical particles into the earth’s atmosphere to artificially cool the planet.

Over Fort Summer, New Mexico, this solar geoengineering seeks to replicate volcano effects, which shoot sulfates into the stratosphere by using synthetic sulfate aerosols to reflect sunlight back out into space.

In May of this year, a study published in the journal Remote Sensing , co-author Dr. Roy Spencer reported that real data from NASA’s Terra Satellite showed that the earth is naturally expelling heat out into space without the assistance of geoengineering. This empirical data proves that the theories behind geoengineering are bogus and mask another agenda.

David Keith , investigator for the project and president and majority owner of the geoengineering corporation Carbon Engineering (of which gates is a major stakeholder), justifies this engineering of our natural biosphere by saying it is an inexpensive method of slowing down global warming effects. Keith disregards his peers who assert that this action will alter earth’s natural weather patterns while environmental groups decry that geoengineering nullifies their efforts to purport their campaigns to convince the public that man-made climate change is directly causational to human emissions of CO2.

Keith manages the million-dollar geoengineering research that is funded by Bill Gates and the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research. These monies come directly from Gates’ personal funds. Keith himself receives cash from Gates himself, although the amount is undisclosed.

Gates commissioned a previous study with the assistance of a US aerospace corporation who manufactures solar geoengineering technologies.

Gates and the Royal Society were behind the report entitled, Solar Radiation Management and the US Taskforce on Geoengineering which recommend research into how to manage solar radiation.

The UN Convention on Biological Diversity states that they are actively using geoengineering to combat CO2 emissions.

The US government requested over @2 billion for geoengineering research while only spending $100 million of their grant monies.

Keith and his colleague James Anderson will release a balloon over 80,000 feet over New Mexico that will dump tens of hundreds of kilograms of particles to measure the impact of CO2 on the ozone’s chemistry. This data will assist them in creating the right size sulfate aerosols to release into the atmosphere at a later date.

And the justification for this experiment on our planet is that computer models say that it will be beneficial.

Keith hopes to alter the ozone layer by way of future assaults of sulfate aerosols. Keith explains: “The objective is not to alter the climate, but simply to probe the processes at a micro scale. The direct risk is very small.”

Keith simply disregards that he is causing the altering of our very biosphere under the guise of the hoax of man-made global warming.

Solar engineering will directly amplify specific areas of study as the have chosen sulfuric dust the mimics the emissions of volcanoes. An intended consequences of solar geoengineering is the whitening of our skies because of the nano particles being released to reflect sunlight. Sulfate aerosols cause whiter daytime skies and sunset to glow brighter.

Pat Mooney, executive director of the Canadian-based technology watchdog ETC Group, said: “Impacts include the potential for further damage to the ozone layer, and disruption of rainfall, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions – potentially threatening the food supplies of billions of people.

It will do nothing to decrease levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or halt ocean acidification. And solar geoengineering is likely to increase the risk of climate-related international conflict – given that the modeling to date shows it poses greater risks to the global south.”

Geoengineering, solar radiation management , will cause drought from impeding rainfall by 15% in strategic areas in North America and Northern Eurasia, as well as more than 20% in central South America.

Hassan Mousavi , head of Iran’s cultural heritage and tourism organization, says that he is “suspicious about the drought in the southern part of the country” as a “soft war’ against Iran by Western governments.

Mousavi explains: “The world arrogance and colonist (term used by Iranian authorities to label the West) are influencing Iran’s climate conditions using technology… The drought is an acute issue and soft war is completely evident… This level of drought is not normal.”

Recent escalations of sand storms and extremely dry conditions across Iran have devastated cities. In Iraq, desertification has intensified within the last 2 decades.

In 2011, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated at the believed the US government was “causing drought” conditions in Iran and expounded that “European countries are using special equipment to force clouds to dump” their water on their continent.

In 2011, British geo-scientists experimented with a balloon-and-hosepipe device that would have water into the sky. The Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) was funded by the UK government; however their plans were cancelled because the public in the UK demanded that they stop their experiment. While NOGs controlled the scientists at SPICE and the project was revealed as a false flag attempt to seed the clouds to cause predetermined outcomes in weather patterns. If this experiment had been allowed to continue, there would have been future deployment of more geoengineering technology following the outcome of this beta-test.

Keith, claiming to oppose SPICE, said that the experiment would not have furthered solar geoengineering and effectiveness in controlling weather patterns.

Of course, Keith’s ties to the solar geoengineering industry and his cohort Gates have vested stakes in the use of such technologies. They are actively seeking to alter the very basic chemical elements of our atmosphere; changing it to be more sulfuric and toxic to all life on this planet.

Cliff Carnicom: Estimating Water Vapor Contrail Distance From A Jet Engine in Flight 4

3/22/2001 – Cliff Carnicom:   A model has been developed to estimate the distance behind the engines that a contrail, i.e., condensed trail of water vapor, is expected to form. The results of this model agree exceptionally well with a statement issued by the United States Air Force that “contrails become visible roughly about a wingspan distance behind the aircraft”.

There is now an abundance of photographic and video evidence that consistently and visibly demonstrates the repeated formation of aerosol trails in much closer proximity to the engines than that which is established by the Air Force, as well as that which is predicted from the model described below.

These trail formations are in direct contradiction to a statement of fact issued by the United States Air Force.  USAF Publication – “Contrail Facts  Page 13

The rate at which contrails dissipate is entirely dependent upon weather conditions and altitude. If the atmosphere is near (water vapor) saturation, the contrail may exist for some time. Conversely, if the atmosphere is dry, the contrail will dissipate quickly.” 

This evaluation now adds to the multitude of studies which conclusively demonstrate that the emissions from these aerosol operations are not composed primarily of water vapor. This model is not intended to encompass all variables that may be in effect, but does represent a rational attempt to model the physics of contrail formation times involved. Any corrections to this study will be made as is appropriate. This model is in addition to that previously developed related to expected contrail dissipation times, as well as originating relative humidity studies at flight altitude.

The model is developed as follows:

Let us assume that the temperature of the exhaust emissions of the aircraft is approximately 1000 deg. C., which is an apparent reasonable estimate (see Principles of Jet Engine Operation). The model can easily be generalized to encompass any reasonable ranges in temperature that are expected within the combustion process and subsequent exhaust emissions. The model is not highly sensitive to expected changes in temperature at this level, and if a more accurate value becomes available, it will be used in the future.

Let us assume the temperature of the atmosphere at flight altitude, approximately 35,000 ft. MSL is -50 deg. C. Again, each variable within the model can be generalized as needed, and the sensitivity of the model to these changes can be evaluated.

The amount of heat extraction required to cool the exhaust vapor can be given as follows:

H = dH(ice) + dH(melting) + dH(water) + dH(vap) + dH(steam)

for the sake of initial example and simplicity, and to demonstrate numerical results, let us apply this to 1 gram of water:
-H = (1 gm) (.5 cal / (gm * K) ) ( 50 deg. K )

+ (1 gm) (80 cal / gm )

+ (1 gm) (1.0 cal / (gm * K) ) (100 deg. K )

+ (1 gm) ( 540 cal / gm )

+ (1 gm) ( .33 cal / gm ) * 900 deg. K)

or

H = -(25 + 80 + 100 + 540 + 300) cal. = -1045 cal. required to cool steam at 1000 deg. C. to 1 gm of ice at -50 deg. C.

Now,

1 calorie (cal) = 4.1868 Joules (J)

Therefore,

-1045 cal = -4375 J.

Next, to consider a realistic particle size for emissions from aircraft, the Max Planck Institute has stated that the average size of particles emitted from aircraft is approximately 30 to 200 microns in size. As a side note, the average particle size of cloud nuclei is stated by Vincent Schaefer, Atmosphere, to be from 0.2 to 0.3 microns. Let us assume an average size of 115 microns on each side of a cube particle.

Since 1 gm. of water = 1 cu. cm in volume, a cube particle size of 115 microns in dimension on each side has a volume of:

(115E-6)^3 meters, or 1.52E-12 cu. m.

Since 1 gm. of water has a volume of (1E-2)^3 meters, the volume of a gram of water is (1E-6) cu. m.

The ratio in volume of a particle of dimension 115 microns to a gram of water is:

1.52E-12 cu. m. / 1 E-6 cu. m

or

(1.52E-6)

The amount of heat required to cool the 115 micron particle is therefore

(1.52E-6) (4375 J) = 6.654E-3 J. for a particle 115 microns thick and corresponding to a temperature change of 1050 deg. C. [note units are therefore: J / (m * K)]

Now evaluate the thermal conductivity of the medium in which the particle exists, i.e., air. From the REA Handbook of Mathematical, Scientific, and Engineering Formulas, Tables, Functions, Graphs, and Transforms, the thermal conductivity of air at – 50deg. C. is given as .012 Btu / (hr * ft * deg. F).

Converting this value to SI units,

.012 Btu / (hr * ft * deg F.) -> (1055 J / Btu) / ((3600sec/hr) * (.3048m/ft.) * ((5/9)deg. K / deg. F))

or the thermal conductivity of air at a temperature of -50 deg. C can be given as

.02075 J / (s * m * K)

Therefore the amount of time required to cool the particle from 1000 deg. C to -50 deg. C is given by:

(6.654E-3 J / (m * K)) / (.02075 J / (s * m * K)) = .321 seconds.

Now for an aircraft traveling at 500 mph, this translates to approx. 733 ft./sec.

Therefore, the particle evaluated will cool to the ambient temperature in approximately:

(733 ft./sec) * .321 sec = 235 feet behind the engines of the aircraft.

A Boeing 757 measures approximately 155 ft. in length. The distance from the rear of the engines to the tail of the aircraft is approximately 80 feet (scaled). Therefore the contrail is expected to form approximately (235 ft. – 80 ft.), or approximately 155 ft. behind the tail of the aircraft. The wingspan of a Boeing 757, being used as a representative example, is approximately 125 feet in width. The results of this model agree quite well (approx. 30 ft. coupled with the transition zone) therefore, with the expected physics and chemistry of water vapor as well as with the statement provided by the United States Air Force. The model will show itself to be sensitive to particle size. “Contrail” formation in front of, or immediately adjacent to the stabilizer region of the aircraft, is not to be expected either from the results of this model, or from that statement issued by the Air Force.

Significant deviations from these results as well as from the USAF statement, as they occur repeatedly in conjunction with the aerosol operations, are tangible evidence of non-water vapor emissions that are involved.

Clifford E Carnicom
Mar 22 2001

____________________________

RELATED

https://chemtrailsplanet.net/2012/08/16/debunking-nasa-persistent-contrail-myth-using-weather-sonde-data/

https://chemtrailsplanet.net/2012/08/15/persistent-cont/