Geoengineering, SRM & Trails of Deception

:by Gregory Prinsze:

Hey boys and girls, here’s an incredibly deceptive article (via CBS), so typical of mainstream media. How so? Let us count the ways…

1) It focuses on a variation of Solar Radiation Management via Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which would be carried out at higher altitudes requiring specially designed aircraft. Why is that deceptive? Because it ignores the fact that numerous academic proposals and patents exist for SRM via SAI at flight levels corresponding to existing commercial aircraft.

I took this picture November 4th 2018, just south of Philadelphia. The sun makes it seem as if these are trails from a meteor crashing into earth, but it’s just the after-math of a single airplane. -joe

2) It pretends that such programs are not already fully operational. The preponderance of evidence suggests that they are operational, which is obvious to anyone with eyes to see and an IQ above room temperature… though such a fact would be denied if the programs are classified. There’s very good reason why such programs would be classified, more on that momentarily.

3) Evidence suggests that such programs have been operational on a large scale for at least ten years, possibly as long as twenty years, following the proposals of scientists like Harvard’s own David Keith (a colleague of Gernot Wagner, co-author of the study referred to in this article) who aggressively hawks the idea of pumping 20 million tons of metallic aerosols into the atmosphere annually.

4) Despite admitting that particulates eventually fall to Earth, citing the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption as an example, the article makes no mention whatsoever of the huge ecological, biological, and health risks of pumping 20 million tons of aluminum oxide and other substances (titanium oxide, barium, sulfur dioxide) into the atmosphere annually, which eventually settles down to the air we breathe, as well as onto forests, crops, and drinking water supplies. And the risk is greater because of nano sized particulates.

5) The American Meteorological Society urges caution and further research, but that hasn’t slowed down existing geoengineering programs. Their policy statement says: “Reflecting sunlight would likely reduce Earth’s average temperature but could also change global circulation patterns with potentially serious consequences such as changing storm tracks and precipitation patterns.” That has *already happened* as a result of existing and ongoing geoengineering programs, producing persistent droughts in the Western US, among other adverse effects.

6) No mention of the fact that aluminum oxide (the most common particulate mentioned in scientific papers and patents) is an accelerant. The fact that geoengineering can reroute the jet stream and alter precipitation patterns (accidentally or intentionally) thus creating droughts, combined with the effects of aluminum oxide as an accelerant, means geoengineering itself is likely a significant factor in worsening Western forest fires. Not a peep about this in the article, naturally… that’s because they want us to think it’s all about CO2, which it isn’t. The last thing they want people to understand is that it might very well be caused by a reckless classified program which is not working, which is making things worse, and which the public would never tolerate if the truth were widely known.

7) The article points out another AMS concern, namely that “One region may become a desert, while others become flooded out.” Apart from how this might unfold between nations, it’s *already happening* within the US, with the West in a state of persistent drought and higher temperatures, while the East experiences flooding and lower temperatures, the latter as a result of artificial chemical ice nucleation.

8) The article reinforces the meme that human generated CO2 is THE primary factor in global warming and climate change, and that all scientists agree about this… it’s not, and they don’t. Human generated CO2 is a minor factor compared to variations in solar output, solar wind, cosmic rays, and water vapor… the factors which have accounted for complete climate change cycles for millions of years, from Ice Ages to interglacials, from ice sheets hundreds of feet thick covering most of North America, to the polar ice caps completely melting, back and forth, over and over again, long before modern humans and the industrial age came along.

9) That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t transition to 100% clean and renewable energy as soon as possible… we should.  But lying about the major causes of climate change, and ignoring the huge risks of geoengineering including it’s role in climate change, on top of denying that it’s an ongoing program with enormous ecological and health risks, is deceptive and arguably criminal.

10) No mention of the huge issue of funding in climate science. Those who push the consensus view falsely accuse all dissenting scientists of being paid fossil fuel industry shills. Some are, but most are not. On top of that, the amount of research funding for consensus science dwarfs anything coming from the fossil fuels industry. If you’re in alignment with the consensus view on CO2, you get funded… if not, you don’t. So who is really engaging in science for sale?

11) While the AMS acknowledges that “the atmosphere is complex” and that caution and further research is needed, there’s no mention of the fact that attempting to engineer the climate by pumping 20 million tons of aluminum oxide into the atmosphere annually could cause catastrophic unintended consequences… thus making things much worse, not better. And that’s on top of the ecological and health concerns.

Anyone who hasn’t noticed that forests all over the Western US (including areas with no bark beetle or other infestations) appear to be sick and dying has either not spent much time in the forests recently, or didn’t spend much time in the forests when they were healthy, prior to the onslaught of geoengineering. Foliage is a faded out green with yellow and brown, even in the middle of summer, with dry and brittle wood and an absence of normal forest scents.

These changes, along with the increase in fire severity, seem much more likely to be a result of engineered drought and constant dumping of aluminum oxide, both of which are part of ongoing classified and denied geoengineering programs.

It seems very unlikely that a temperature increase of one degree or so could cause all these problems. But a combination of altered jet stream and induced persistent drought caused by geoengineering (which AMS itself states is a risk) together with constant application of an accelerant in the form of aluminum oxide seems like a very likely culprit in unhealthy, sick forests and ever worsening fires.

At best, geoengineering is an example of the incredible hubris of science… the same hubris which gave us nuclear weapons, nuclear power, depleted uranium munitions, and other high tech weapons of war. At worst, it’s a large scale crime against humanity and nature.

The purpose of articles like this is to prepare the public for disclosure of an ongoing program, and con them into accepting its alleged benefits – which is dishonest – while it mentions next to nothing about the huge risks, which is totally irresponsible.

This article is a perfect example of why it’s so dangerous to consume mainstream media without critical thinking. It’s like running your computer on a public wifi network in a hacker-rich environment with no firewall and no VPN… it leaves the door wide open to an unlimited array of viruses which you won’t even know you have until it’s too late.

Critical thinking is the mind’s firewall, and most people hardly use it at all. In his 1970 book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, Zbigniew Brzezinski predicted that by the turn of the century most Americans would no longer be capable of critical thinking… they would just let the media do their “thinking” for them. He nailed it.

Original post:

Links provided by GP:

Here’s a very well produced British documentary featuring the dissenting view on climate change, including interviews with lots of eminent university scientists from around the world. Watch it and tell me who’s more rational… them, or the shrill and intolerant alarmists who think those who dare to disagree should be burned at the stake.

Professor Harold Lewis was a distinguished professor of physics at UC Santa Barbara who resigned from the American Physical Society over what he called the corrupt scam and “pseudoscientific fraud” of the consensus global warming narrative. Here’s his letter of resignation, written in 2010. Read it and be shocked…

Here’s a partial list of other scientists who disagree with the consensus dogma on the role of human generated CO2 in climate change. Funny how none of them are EVER interviewed by mainstream media.

Joe Dubs

I write about philosophy, geometry, health, politics and other stuff that interests me.

What do you think?