A Geo-Engineered World - Controlling the Weather with Climate Engineering - Printable Version

+- ConCen (
+-- Forum: Main (
+--- Forum: Health & Environment (
+--- Thread: A Geo-Engineered World - Controlling the Weather with Climate Engineering (/thread-34147.html)

A Geo-Engineered World - Controlling the Weather with Climate Engineering - FastTadpole - 07-24-2010

I've seen this article pop up in magazines like Popular Mechanics, Reader's Digest and UN publications and it's often discussed in the MSM. I've seen different models of this but they all talk about the need to install one of these options.

* Paint all the roofs white
* Algae Farming
* Soak the Clouds
* Dim the Sky
* Giant Solar Reflectors / Mirrors
* Carbon Capture and Storage in Rock or the Ocean
* Iron Fertilization of the Ocean

They may try for all of these or maybe they'll have a heated debate over which one to implement to give the public the illusion of choice but the geoengineering debate will be limited in scope and it MUST proceed or we're all going to DIE!! And even if it isn't the right thing to do, better to be on the safe side. And even if that doesn't sell, it will create green jobs and fossil fuels are bad anyways so let's subsidize Samsung to build wind farms, Petro Canada to build CCS, fund geoengineering research / implementations, and Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon Subsidiaries to make biofuels and algae and give tax and funding incentives to the private banks that are funding these start-ups and sub-companies because it's the right thing to do. This funding is mostly done through taxes, fees, hidden consumer costs and levies.

Rui Ricardo likes to use sex to sell his works, notice the phallic and breast references within this illustration.


Quote:A geo-engineered world
Scientists envision radical ideas to rid the planet of global warming ills, but the cures won’t come without risks.
March 2010
The term geo-engineering – direct technological interventions to reshape the planet – calls to mind the dark laughter of a science-fiction villain. But researchers are pondering ways to use geo-engineering to counter the effects of global warming. In the past year, three European institutions released reports on the benefi ts and risks of “climate engineering”.

Recommendations vary, but the reports each conclude that the most promising technologies should be tested on small scales. Scientists worry that some nation’s future unilateral geo-engineering project could cause frightening side effects that cross national boundaries. “If a country’s leaders feel some existential threat, they might resort to desperate measures,” says Ken Caldeira, a senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University. “What if Greenland is sliding into the ocean? And what if you could stop it?”

Is earth ready for these global warming fixes?

Dim the sky

Objective: Block solar radiation to drop Earth’s surface temperature.
Proposal: Unmanned airships or air-bursting artillery rounds inject sulphur-dioxide particles into the stratosphere. A former Microsoft executive proposes lofting a hose with helium balloons to pump liquefied sulphur dioxide into the sky.
Blowback: Global temperatures could spike as soon as treatments stop. Seeded areas may see redder, hazier skies.
Proposed by: Copenhagen Consensus Centre

Soak the clouds

Objective: Decrease the amount of sunlight – and heat – absorbed by cloud cover.
Proposal: Funnel salt water into the air with robotic ships, brightening clouds to cool specific areas, such as the Arctic.
Blowback: The tactic is likely to alter weather patterns, nudging rainfall from one region to another in unpredictable ways. The good news is that seawater droplets cycle out of clouds within a few days.
Proposed by: Copenhagen Consensus Centre

Grow algae everywhere

Objective: Suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, reducing greenhouse gases that contribute to warming.
Proposal: Deploy vast algae farms on land and at sea. Strips of algae could be built on to buildings, and kilometres of algae- filled plastic bags could stretch across an ocean’s surface.
Blowback: To work well, a continent of algae is needed, and that’s more pricey than other carboncapture schemes.
Proposed by: Nasa (algae farms); Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK (buildings)

Whitewash everything

Objective: Deflect solar radiation to cool the surface of the planet.
Proposal: Installing white or otherwise reflective roofs on buildings and replacing less reflective crops with ones engineered to be glossier could lower summer temperatures in the US by nearly 1°.
Blowback: Large-scale genetic modification of crops could face stiff resistance, and there might not be enough rooftops to make a difference.
Proposed by: University of Bristol, UK (crops); US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu (roofs)

Notice how they outline the risks. They're presenting a false decision and railroading certain solutions more than others. We can also observe the proposal by NASA (along with CRU, GISS, and NOAA) that is heavily involved in collecting the raw, attends all the green conferences with environmental groups like, Joyce Foundation and the WWF, and doles out a lot the R&D funding. They also have done their own R&D on Algae growth in the Great Lakes, hardly unbiased IMO. There is a lot of companies vested in that golden (green) egg of Algae farming.

Check this 2007 video Mr. Keith wants to dim the sky. Also known as the Microsoft solution. Microsoft has been owned by the corporate government / NSA since at least 1997, if not sooner. Curiously their market share has remained pretty steady but they haven't innovated much of anything since then but I'm diverging again.

Quote:TED TV: David Keith's unusual climate change idea
September 2007

Environmental scientist David Keith proposes a cheap, effective, shocking means to address climate change: What if we injected a huge cloud of ash into the atmosphere to deflect sunlight and heat?

An artificial created / geo-engineered volcano spewing up ash.. hmmmmmmmmmmmm?¿

Europe Grounded due to volcanic ash


A Natural Volcano or a Military Operation?

Along with GM crops, vaccinations and population control. Bill (and Melinda) Gates seems heavily involved and the cutting edge in Climate Manufacturing Research. Gates has worked extensively with David Keith and has filed patents in weather modification.

The IPCC hadn't talked about the current impact of atmospheric aerosols that are already used in any of the billion dollar research we funded.

Bill Gates Funding Geoengineering Research

Bored With PCs, Bill Gates Sets His Sights On Controlling the Weather

Giant ash clouds what a proposition! Well the Lobby is On for Government Funded Geo-Engineering Projects to do just that.

He does bring up a good point though. Who would control the thermostat?

Quote:MPs urge government to prepare for geo-engineering option

With small scale geo-engineering projects already underway, MPs have warned governments must begin work on the necessary regulatory framework

A parliamentary select committee of MPs warned yesterday that the groundwork for regulating geo-engineering projects must start now. The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has claimed that hesitation may mean multi-lateral agreement on an international legislative framework is not reached before the impact of dangerous climate change is felt.

The Committee published the findings of an inquiry undertaken as part of a unique collaboration with its equivalent body in the US House of Representatives on the same day that chair Phil Willis gave evidence to the US committee via a video link.

Speaking ahead of the US hearing, Willis said: “What better subject than geo-engineering – where international collaboration is essential if we are to explore and understand fully its potential – to provide the backdrop to a first-of-its-kind collaboration between UK and US scrutiny committees.”

Where have we seen something like this before?


Geo-engineering refers to a controversial field of research that proposes using technology to reduce or reverse the effects of human-induced climate change.

The British MPs report called for work around geo-engineering to start now in order to provide enough time to fully explore the technological, environmental, political and regulatory issues.

Some scientists believe that proposed geo-engineering technologies – such as putting mirrors in space or seeding clouds to help reflect the sun’s energy, or artificially producing algal blooms in the ocean that can soak up carbon dioxide – would offer an important “plan B” should efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions fail.

However, others have argued that geo-engineering projects could have catastrophic unintended consequences on the climate and would also distract the urgent need to cut emissions.

The Select Committee report concluded that governments had to begin looking at how to regulate geo-engineering projects because small-scale testing is already underway. It also warned that in a worst case scenario, failure to set up an international regulatory framework could enable a single country to unilaterally affect the earth’s climate.

The report recommended that regulatory regimes be based on graded geo-engineering techniques, with controls based on a set of widely-agreed principles.

The funding end goes really deep but here are a couple links to get started on if you haven't read them already.

Cap and Trade 101

Exploiting Gulf Gusher to pass Cap-and-Trade won't Clean-up Oil Leak

or just search out Carbon Tax

Haven't seen this one yet but the trailer looks good.


I got a low-res copy (188MB) on the DL from a friend, maybe someone else can find a better copy. PM me if you find one so we don't duplicate our efforts.

Here's a final diagram courtesy of Wired


It's from this interview / article:

Q&A: Geoengineering Is ‘A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Come’

This article introduced me to the possibility of Iron seeding in the ocean to encourage plankton and algae growth. followed up with a few articles. I'll append that in the Algae thread I had going.

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Dead Zone: The Algae Biofuels and Carbon Exchange Agenda

RE: A Geo-Engineered World - Controlling the Weather with Climate Engineering - kevlar - 07-25-2010

They don't realize that what they want to do is going to kill life on the planet by making it cold, maybe that was the idea all along.

RE: A Geo-Engineered World - Controlling the Weather with Climate Engineering - FastTadpole - 10-28-2010

An African perspective. This author is sold ("educated") on AGW CO2 based Climate Change but is informed and critical of geoengineering and some other ridiculous and potentially harmful 'solutions' would be of any benefit.

Quote:Geoengineering the planet: What is at stake for Africa?
Diana Bronson
2010-10-06, Issue 499

While geoengineering – the intentional large-scale modification of the earth’s systems, including systems related to climate – may sound like science fiction, it is in fact an increasingly hot topic in climate change policy circles of industrialised countries. Less frequently discussed are the impacts this emerging policy orientation – and the technologies if they were ever deployed – will have on Africa.

With the publication of the UK Royal Society’s report last year,[1] meetings organised by the National Academy of Sciences, parliamentary and congressional hearings on the topic in the UK and the US,[2] millions of dollars flowing in research funds from both well-known billionaires (such as Bill Gates, formerly of Microsoft, and Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines)[3] and new programmes on their way,[4] it is time for civil society actors and governments in the rest of the world to take notice. In fact, an international, transparent, democratic debate on these strategies and technologies is long overdue.

Changing the climate, as is obvious by the unintentional damage already inflicted on this overstretched planet, is not something that will respect national borders. Geoengineers (scientists, entrepreneurs and policy advocates) have a number of technologies they propose to study, experiment and eventually use. They fall into three broad categories:

1. The first set of geoengineering strategies is known as solar radiation management (SRM). These proposals aim to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the planet by reflecting more of it back to space, therefore reducing atmospheric warming. This is known as increasing the Earth’s albedo. SRM proposals include shooting massive amounts of sulphur dioxide or aluminium aerosols or engineered nanoparticles into the stratosphere, making clouds whiter by spraying seawater at them, covering deserts with plastic, painting mountaintops white or creating a layer of foaming bubbles on the surface of the ocean.

2. The second set of technologies is composed of attempts to draw mega-tonnes of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and lock them up either biologically or mechanically. Examples include dumping iron (or urea) into the sea in order to ‘fertilise’ areas that are poor in nutrients, thereby stimulating the growth of tiny phytoplankton, which will theoretically sequester C02 from the atmosphere in the bottom of the sea. This has never actually worked. Also in this camp are suggestions to change the chemistry of the ocean to improve C02 absorption (known as enhanced weathering), artificial trees or carbon-sucking machines and appropriating and burning forest and crop residues into a charcoal that is subsequently buried for carbon sequestration (called biochar).

3. A third set of geoengineering proposals dispense with controlling the climate and attempt instead to directly control weather – intervening to reduce or redirect hurricanes or seeding clouds for rainfall in drying regions. Such technologies are widely practiced (150 incidents in 40 countries according to one report)[5] and are often connected to military objectives and institutions, being used most famously by the US to impede enemy troop movements during the Vietnam war. Often discussions of geoengineering omit weather modification, but as historian James Fleming has convincingly shown in his book ‘Fixing the Sky’, the historical and philosophical roots of contemporary geoengineering proposals are found in much older attempts to control the weather.

All of these proposals will have social and environmental impacts that will be felt far away from where the decisions to deploy would be taken. In fact, as the scientific discussion gets more elaborate, and geoengineering gains credibility in Washington and London as climate ‘plan b’, the whole question of how such technologies could be internationally governed emerges. Increasingly, geoengineering advocates are dismissing the multilateral approach where all countries have a seat at the table and are speaking of ‘bottom-up’ or ‘soft-law’ or ‘voluntary guidelines’ as a stand-in for binding international law.[6] Seemingly oblivious to the fact that industrialised countries have sabotaged every sensible multilateral approach to climate change, they are now saying that more informal governance arrangements are required. Perhaps global governance by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), the G20 or the Major Economies Forum? Or simply a coalition of the willing – anything but the United Nations, where all countries have a seat at the table.


One of the most talked about ‘solar radiation management’ technologies involves shooting tiny particles of sulphur dioxide or aluminium into the upper layer of the atmosphere known as the stratosphere (up to about 50km from earth). This essentially imitates large and powerful volcanoes by spreading dust, so that more sun gets reflected back to space than would naturally be the case, thereby creating a cooling effect without in any way reducing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

This artificial cooling is treating the symptom rather than the cause of global warming and is liable to entail many negative side effects. No one really knows exactly what those effects will be because computer models are notoriously simplistic and cannot accurately predict how a complex climate system will react to attempts to engineer it. Nor do even the best scientists really understand how the climate system works. Nevertheless, one effect that does show up on several computer simulations as well as historical record (after Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991) is less precipitation and more disturbances in the African and Indian monsoons. Needless to say, this would cause a massive disruption in agricultural production, potentially threatening the food supplies of up to 2 billion people.[7] Other negative impacts of this technology could include whiter skies, damage to the ozone layer, less effective solar energy, obstruction of astronomy, continuing ocean acidification and a host of unknown other ecosystem disturbances. Finally, if the injections needed to be stopped, very quick and very dangerous warming would occur without any time for human or ecosystem adaptation.[8]

This is also one of the most centralised of the technologies, and is arguably very cheap to execute and quick to cause an impact. Military institutions and contractors would certainly be used to develop the hardware (Boeing, for instance, is already working on this). A single state, a small coalition of countries, a corporation, or even an individual could execute such a plan for a relatively modest sum. Furthermore, who would decide at what temperature the earth’s thermostat should be set? Who would control the size of the particles to be used? And who would have the power to cancel such an experiment should its effects be worse than anticipated? Wars are fought over much less.

Finally, there is no ‘field’ where the ‘stratospheric option’ can be tested – we have but one planet earth. While one very small-scale test has already been done in Russia,[9] it could not actually prove anything about how aerosols would act if deployed at the massive scale that would be required in order to affect the climate. As Alan Robock and his colleagues have written:

‘… geoengineering cannot be tested without full-scale implementation. The initial production of aerosol droplets can be tested on a small scale, but how they will grow in size (which determines the injection rate needed to produce a particular cooling) can only be tested by injection into an existing aerosol cloud, which cannot be confined to one location. Furthermore, weather and climate variability preclude observation of the climate response without a large, decade-long forcing. Such full-scale implementation could disrupt food production on large scale.’[10]


Biochar is without a doubt the geoengineering technology that already sees Africa as its preferred testing ground. Unused agricultural ‘waste’, or crops and wood from trees grown for this purpose, are burnt under low-oxygen conditions in a process known as pyrolisis (a type of gasification) and then added to the soil where they remain stored allegedly for ‘hundreds to thousands of years’.[11] In addition to supposedly safely sequestering carbon, the process delivers bioenergy as a by-product that can replace some fossil fuel uses. Already, biochar projects are underway in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Namibia, Niger, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.[12]

There is a huge amount of hype about biochar, and people who are desperate for solutions can be surprisingly credulous. Consider this interview with Laurens Rademaker from the Biochar Fund, a ‘social profit’ that is ‘cash-flow positive’ offering ‘investment opportunities’:

‘The benefits to these farmers are instant and very significant. With biochar, they can jump from being undernourished to well-fed, and from subsistence farmer to a peasant that can sell some surplus—after only one or two harvests.’[13]

None of this has been scientifically proven and most of it is profoundly illogical. In fact, no reliable studies on the long-term impact of biochar on soils have been done. Sometimes parallels are drawn with the ancient Amazonian practice of terra preta, but they have more to do with public relations than science. We do not know for example how different feedstocks affect biochar’s chemical and physical properties; or about its long-term stability in the soil; and then the social and economic constraints and impacts have barely been thought about.[14] UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) advises that biochar plantations should be treated with great caution and that the impacts on long-term agricultural sustainability and biodiversity are unknown.[15] But this does not stop the carbon profiteers and charlatans from promoting it: in fact ConocoPhilipps Canada, which is involved in Alberta tar-sands production, is actively working to get biochar accredited in international carbon markets![16] It is what Eduardo Galeano would call upside-down: dirty oil that digs up long-buried carbon as fossil fuels and then buys carbon credits by burning up living carbon in Africa using a technology that is highly contested, but that markets itself as a solution.

The other main problem with biochar is the huge amount of land that would be required for its industrial production – hundreds of millions of hectares. If every last stalk and twig is grabbed to be burnt and buried, biodiversity would be undermined, soil nutrients would be robbed and people (especially those with insecure land tenure) would be forced off their land. Diverse and carbon-rich ecosystems would be further disturbed and commercialised as every last bit of nature is subjected to carbon markets that work in favour of those who design the rules and control the capital – and allow the overproduction and overconsumption of the industrialised North to continue unabated.[17]

2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity and it is also a year of critical decisions on these planet-altering schemes. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will hold its biannual Conference of Parties (a meeting of environment ministers from 193 countries) in Nagoya, Japan, in October 2010. That meeting will take stock of the crisis of biodiversity with species extinction, deforestation, overfishing and the energy and climate crises fighting for space on its agenda. Some voices at that meeting will seek to protect biodiversity from the ravages of overconsumption, monocultures, fossil fuel addiction and rampant urbanisation. Others will promote growth, market mechanisms and techno-fixes above all other considerations, blindly commodifying every last bit of air, land and sea. This latter group are liable to see geoengineering the earth as an option to be considered, rather than a dangerous practice to be stopped.

At the meeting of the CBD’s Scientific Body on Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA), which met in Nairobi in May 2010, a moratorium on geoengineering activities was proposed: ‘[N]o climate-related geo-engineering activities [are to] take place until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts.’ This resolution alone will not be enough to stop the scientific hubris and political arrogance behind geoengineering, but it would at least stop the most aggressive entrepreneurs from being able to conduct experiments while the majority of the world’s peoples and governments have only just begun to learn what these technologies are. It is vital that African countries and other members of the G77 and China stand firm on this moratorium and put the policy emphasis back where it belongs: on the responsibilities of the wealthy countries who caused the problem of climate change in the first place.

The CBD adopted a moratorium on ocean fertilisation back in 2008 and it has been largely successful, despite the Lohafex experiment which sailed off South African shores in early 2009.[18] Since then, the science on ocean fertilisation has overwhelmingly discredited the practice, with well-known oceanographers urging us all that ‘it is time to move on.’[19] We must build on this precedent and ensure that no geoengineering experiments be allowed to take place on land, in the seas or in space. A civil society campaign calling for precisely such a moratorium on geoengineering experiments was launched earlier this year at the World Summit on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, hosted by the Bolivian government. It is called Hands Off Mother Earth, or HOME.

You can join the movement by sending your photograph – with your hand up to signal your opposition – a message of support to

* Diana Bronson is a member of ETC Group.
* Please send comments to or comment online at Pambazuka News.


[1] Geoengineering the Planet: Science, governance, uncertainty, Royal Society 2009 available at
[2] See the report of the UK Committee on Science and Technology, The regulation of geoengineering here: The US hearings can be reviewed here (report not issued at the time of publication):
[3] Bill Gates has given $4.6 million to geoengineers David Keith and Ken Caldeira and when this became a media controversy, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research disclosed what projects it had funded. Branson runs the Carbon War Room: See which has battlefields and theatres of war concerning geoengineering technologies.
[4] The EU and the UK have both recently announced modest funding and a new program is expected in the coming months in the US. A 2001 proposal for $64 million in research funds from the US Department of Energy was shelved but the climate is quite different today.
[5] Rob Sharp, ‘Weather modification: the rain makers’ The Independent, 30 April 2008 available at
[6] See for example the testimonies of David Keith and John Virgoe before the UK parliamentary committee on the regulation of geoengineering available at
[7] Robock, Alan 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bull. Atomic Scientists, 64, No. 2, 14-18, 59, 2008; Robock, Alan, Allison B. Marquardt, Ben Kravitz, and Georgiy Stenchikov, The benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19703, 2009.
[8] Ibid.
[9] This was done by Yuri Izrael and reported by Chris Mooney in his blog ‘Copenhagen: Geoengineering’s Big Break?, 14 December 2009 available at
[10] Alan Robock, Martin Bunzl, Ben Kravitz, Georgiy L. Stenchikov, ‘A Test for Geoengineering?’ Science, 29 January 2010, Vol. 327. no. 5965, pp. 530-31.
[11] This is the claim on the website of the main lobby group for bichar, the International Biochar Initiative:
[12] Biochar Land Grabbing: the Impacts on Africa: A briefing by the African Biodiversity Network, Biofuelwatch and the Gaia Foundation, November 2009, available at and correspondence with Almuth Ernsting, Biofuelwatch.
[13] Jeremy Hance ‘Could Biochar save the world?’16 August 2010 in, available at
[14] Sohi. S, Loez-Capel, E, Krull, E, Bol, R, 2009, Biochar’s roles in soil and climate change, A review of research needs. CSIRO Land and Water Science Report 05/09, 64 pp.
[15] See UNEP, The Natural Fix: The role of ecosystems in climate mitigation, 2009 available at
[16] Chris Mooney, Copenhagen: Geoengineering’s Big Break, 14 December 2009 available at
[17] An excellent briefing on the problems of biochar is by Almuth Ernsting and Rachel Smolker, Biochar for Climate Change Mitigation: Fact or Fiction? February 2009 available at
[18] ETC Group press release, German Geoengineers show iron will to defy global UN moratorium, 8 January 2009 available at
[19] Aaron Strong, Sallie Chisholm, Charles Miller & John Cullen Nature, Ocean fertilization: time to move on 461, 347-348 (17 September 2009); Published online 16 September 2009

Related Threads:

Cover-Up of World-Wide Contamination From Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-Engineering?

Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails

Geoengineering Comes With Huge Risks

What In The World Are They Spraying?

Chemtrails and Monsanto’s New Aluminum Resistance Gene – Coincidence?

RE: A Geo-Engineered World - Controlling the Weather with Climate Engineering - FastTadpole - 11-24-2010

New Website / Citizen Action Group

Quote:Coalition Against Geoengineering
G. Edward Griffin, Chairman
Michael J. Murphy, President


To protect our planet from famine and disease inflicted by insane scientists, monopolistic corporations, and rogue governments.
All geo-engineering programs must be stopped; not monitored; not limited; not put under UN control; but stopped – now.


Nothing will change until we replace the clueless and spineless
politicians who have ignored or supported geo-engineering. So..

Run for office or support a candidate who stands against geo-engineering; write letters to editors, send e-mails, call radio shows, distribute DVDs, organize film showings, place What in the World Are They Spraying on Public Access, become a news scout for stories and events relating to geo-engineering – anything and everything that will create an informed electorate. Join the Coalition at the bottom of this page.

Not sure about G. Edward Griffin, his affiliation with The John Birch Society (supposedly founded by Nelson Rockefeller), his many appearances on Alex Jones, his ripoff (and revision) of Eustace Mullins work on the Federal Reserve his advocacy for a gold/silver standard and John George Schmitz (American Independent Party; his sons are Blackwater/XE employees). This action looks legit though, that is, if chemtrails are where we should be looking.

Griffin could very well be a gatekeeper or maybe this is to distract and/or fearmonger.

The group looks at chemtrails as the sole, or at least primary method of, geoengineering. I can't seem to find much on Michael J. Murphy other than he is a political activist and independent filmmaker.

RE: A Geo-Engineered World - Controlling the Weather with Climate Engineering - FastTadpole - 05-24-2011

FFWD to 1:15 for the goods from a caller in this video that gets dismissed as bollocks and cut off by Rex Murphy as soon as he brings up geoengineering.

Quote:Canadian Government About To Introduce "Geo-Engineering" as "Solution To Global Warming"

Uploaded by islandonlinenews on 23 May 2011

The Canadian Government is about to introduce Geo-Engieering proposals such as "Altering the Earths atmosphere using aerosols" as "Solution to Global Warming" even though this operation has been in full scale deployment world wide for the past ten years with persistent denial by officials in both the American and Canadian governments. This information comes from someone who attended a conservative victory party on the night of the recent election and overheard environmental scientists discussing their glee at finally having a majority government in Canada in order to (officially) implement these proposals.

RE: A Geo-Engineered World - Controlling the Weather with Climate Engineering - zapoper - 05-24-2011

And here I was bad-tripping over Fukushima. It's so liberating to do the ostrich head in the sand bit. I feel better now...

RE: A Geo-Engineered World - Controlling the Weather with Climate Engineering - FastTadpole - 09-30-2011

This article made Project Censored’s Top 10 most censored stories:

It's huge (for an article) and a copy-paste wouldn't do it justice. Linked below is the most comprehensive version.

Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails (Revised)

Here are some excerpts:

Quote:At the end of the section, The bare necessity of geoengineering through cloud generation for survival of the planet (5.2.7), Case Orange states:

“[O]ur investigation team comes to the conclusion that climate control programs, controlled by the military but approved by governments, are silently implemented in order to avoid the worst case scenarios they obviously do not want. The two basic instruments are temperature control through generation of artificial clouds and manipulation of the ionosphere through ionosphere heaters.

“Both remain basically military combat systems with the option to go into the offensive if deemed necessary. However since several ionosphere heaters are installed on various places around the globe one can assume that there is wide cooperation between governments in order to reach the climate targets by 2025: controlling the weather and thus the planet.”

Quote:The 1996 military piece, Owning the Weather in 2025, gives climate change skeptics “an insight in what to expect in the 21st century:

‘Current demographic, economic and environmental trends will create global stresses that provide the impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn weather modfication ability into capability. In the United States weather modification will likely become part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.’”

Quote:Case Orange reports that China and Russia openly admit to cloud-seeding, while the U.S. denies such activities. The U.S. does permit open air testing of chemical and biological weapons but not under the law the authors cited, which they paraphrased:

The secretary of defense may conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological agents on civilian populations.

Public law of the United States, Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977.

Codified as 50 USC 1520, under Chapter 32 Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, Public Law 95-79 was repealed in 1997 by Public Law 105-85. In its place, 15 USC 1520a provides restrictions (such as informed consent). 50 USC 1512, however, allows open air testing of chemicals and biologicals and allows presidential override of notices and of public health considerations for national security reasons. [25] Case Orange authors are thus correct, it seems, in asserting that such programs are legal, if reprehensible, in the U.S.

RE: A Geo-Engineered World - Controlling the Weather with Climate Engineering - icosaface - 09-30-2011

Very interesting, thanks FastTadpole.

RE: A Geo-Engineered World - Controlling the Weather with Climate Engineering - FastTadpole - 10-06-2011

The 18-member Washington task force on Climate Remediation Research has just released a report outlining recommended strategy and policy for evaluating geo-engineering technology in a 33 page report released Oct. 4, 2011.

The US report only takes a small sampling of geo-engineering options into account and, based on that, advises further study and extreme caution as their EU and UN counterparts do as I cover later on.

Geoengineering: A National Strategic Plan for Research on the Potential Effectiveness, Feasibility, and Consequences of Climate Remediation Technologies

Select quotes from the report:

Quote:"Most climate remediation concepts proposed to date involve some combination of risks, financial costs, and/or physical limitations that make them inappropriate to pursue except as complementary or emergency measures — for example, if the climate system reaches a 'tipping point' and swift remedial action is required,"

Quote: Mitigation measures currently being considered, regardless of their pace of efficacy, will not be able to return atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to pre-industrial levels for centuries…

Although we do not know exactly how much the climate will change or how fast, globally disruptive or even catastrophic results are possible**…Global climate change could unfold in ways that would be very difficult to manage

**The science is settled¿

Quote:Some proposed climate remediation techniques, particularly solar radiation management, could be fast-acting, be deployed at very low cost, and have quite serious and uneven impacts — intended and unintended

The Canadian based ETC Group is highly critical of geo-engineering. EU Parliament the UN (only if it might affect biodiversity**) and now the US based BPC is urging extreme caution.

There is already a caveat for a biodiversity fallback option to nix or limit the scope of exploration into geo-engineering alternatives.

Quote:the UN meeting had imposed "a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments". In fact, the resolution was worded in a way that placed a moratorium on geoengineering only if it might affect biodiversity.

The 193 signatories to the convention agreed to outlaw such geoengineering projects "until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts". The agreement exempted "small-scale scientific research studies".

Meanwhile the UK has proceeded with a small scale experiment of their own in geoengineering using water droplets to test a delivery system that would later be used for sulphates (not aluminum). Approved by the UN protocol but the EU stepped in and called for a delay.

Quote:Tim Kruger of the Oxford Geoengineering Programme states "I don't think anyone could argue that spraying water into the atmosphere would have an effect on biodiversity,"

The small field test of geoengineering, was planned for October in Sculthorpe, UK, has been postponed for six months pending further discussion.

Here's an essay on the topic published in response to the increased buzz around geo-engineering.

The Problem With Geoengineering: What if It Works?

I think this another case of polarization. The lines are drawn you are either for or against geo-engineering, not as separate solutions but AS A WHOLE. But wait we have a variety of proposals, most of which are more harm than good, all of which are unpredictable but if it can be proven as an after the fact solution that is relatively harmless, and regionally contained in a branch science called geoadaptation IF one of these hype-othetical tipping points causes that great disaster today or The Day After Tomorrow or in 10,000 years from now .. then that blows the entire global carbon dioxide regulation, taxation, wealth redistribution, centralized governance for global , trade market, proven energy resource moratorium and management scheme to pieces.

That would certainly explain the lumping in of every geo-engineered climate mitigation strategy as a whole with weather weapons (as nuclear energy is compared with nuclear weapons) and chemtrails; and on the fringes everything from destroying all food with poisons, to a conduit for HAARP mind control frequencies.

Quote:Some techniques, such as making clouds over the seas more reflective, should have localised effects, so countries could in theory tinker only with their own climate.

This is countered in the same article by NASA, who is heavily invested intertwined with the carbon reduction / new energy agenda with various institutions and corporations.

Quote:Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York points out that changes in one area will have a knock-on effect on the other side of the planet. "What happens in Vegas does not stay in Vegas," he says. We could perhaps predict these long-range effects, but we cannot eliminate them.

So NASA wants to computer model it rather than test it physically using real world data. This allows for selective filtering and stalling of potentially viable projects in the more easily controlled and manipulated environments and subject candidates to an approval process body.

They even bring the Ozone layer concern back into the fold. What in The World Are They Spraying brings that up as well.

Speculation also points to aluminum a proposed aerosol being sprayed. The more obvious factor would be industrial mining and production, even agriculture and dams could yield higher aluminum content levels. The evidence I have seen so far could have been selective spot samples.

Follow the Money. You'll come to the right answer... sooner or later. (smug laugh)
~G Edward Griffin -- Producer and Star of What in The World Are They Spraying? and member of Rockefeller's John Birch Society

Well a geoengineering solution to global warming would cost far less than a carbon reduction strategy and only be employed if it was necessary.

Quote:Aerosols could also deplete the ozone layer, contribute to air pollution and may alter visibility in the same way as large volcanic eruptions can.

Isn't that the point, reducing heat by blocking the sun?

Sulphates are presented front and centre on this issue. Perhaps as a strawman. Sulphuric acid is a scary word and people can easily understand that it can, and does, contribute to acid rain. You produce sulphates from burning fuel.

But if the decision to go with sulphates were given the green light then we have a good environment for algae biofuel farms; particularly when dispersed in large quantities over sea like in the anaerobic brackish waters off of the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone.

Quote:Some anaerobic microorganisms, such as those living in sediment or near deep sea thermal vents, use the reduction of sulfates coupled with the oxidation of organic compounds or hydrogen as an energy source for chemosynthesis. These are known as sulfate-reducing bacteria.

Many organisms, including higher plants, algae, fungi, and most bacteria, use sulfate as a sulfur source for biosynthesis

A reactive solution to the theory of global warming, if it has a net negative effect, would remove the need to classify CO2 as a poison since we can deal with it when and if it happens, perhaps on a localized basis.

It's a complex issue and there is apparent controlling of the scope of this geoengineering solution/issue, a solution for a rigged consensus for global warming. Much deeper than we are being railroaded into.

Is geoengineering a secondary goal? If so which one(s)? Should be looking at it as a foundation for a global aerosol delivery infrastructure? Is something in there a potential problem for global consensus on carbon mitigation to be aborted by some or all that has to be dealt with for the green global economy to advance? Is this just a distraction? A hook to draw attention to something else?

RE: A Geo-Engineered World - Controlling the Weather with Climate Engineering - FastTadpole - 12-12-2012

Did this ever happen? It got a lot of play back in mid-July

Geoengineers to release planet-cooling gas into New Mexico atmosphere
July 18, 2012

TONS of aggregated articles with an anti-Geoengineering spin.

GeoEngineering Watch

RE: A Geo-Engineered World - Controlling the Weather with Climate Engineering - FastTadpole - 02-05-2014

This document from 1966 proves that the Federal Government has been engaging in Weather Modification and Geoengineering for many decades. According to the document, the Weather Modification program had hundreds of millions of dollars of funding back in 1966. You can read the 97 Page Document here (3.9 MB PDF):

A Recommended National Program In Weather Modification
ICAS Report No. 10a
November 1966
A Report to the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences
by Homer E. Newell
Associate Administrator for Space Science and Application
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, D.C.
Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences
97 Pages


ICAS - A Recommended National Program In Weather Modification Nov.1966

RE: A Geo-Engineered World - Controlling the Weather with Climate Engineering - crystal - 02-07-2014

RE: A Geo-Engineered World - Controlling the Weather with Climate Engineering - mexika - 02-08-2014

Frankenstein ideas. Unnatural and deformed..