tagged w/ geoengineering
-
The Heartland Institute has confirmed in a prepared statement that it mistakenly emailed its board materials to an anonymous third party - confirming the source of the documents released here on the DeSmogBlog yesterday.
Heartland then goes on allege that one of the documents (the Climate Strategy) is a fake.
The DeSmogBlog has reviewed that Strategy document and compared its content to other material we have in hand. It addresses five elements:
The Increased Climate Project Fundraising material is reproduced in and confirmed by Heartland's own budget.
The "Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms" is also a Heartland budget item and has been confirmed independently by the author, Dr. David Wojick.
The Funding for Parallel Organizations; Funding for Selected Individuals Outside Heartland are both reproduced and confirmed in the Heartland budget. And Anthony Watts has confirmed independently the payments in Expanded Climate Communications.
The DeSmogBlog has received no direct communications from the Heartland Institute identifying any misstatement of fact in the "Climate Strategy" document and is therefore leaving the material available to those who may judge their content and veracity based on these and other sources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Insider Exposes Institute's Budget and Strategy
An anonymous donor calling him (or her)self "Heartland Insider" has released the Heartland Institute's budget, fundraising plan, its Climate Strategy for 2012 and sundry other documents (all attached) that prove all of the worst allegations that have been levelled against the organization.
It is clear from the documents that Heartland advocates against responsible climate mitigation and then uses that advocacy to raise money from oil companies and "other corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies." Heartland particularly celebrates the funding that it receives from the fossil fuel fortune being the Charles G. Koch Foundation.
Heartland also continues to collect money from Philip Morris parent company Altria as well as from the tobacco giant Reynolds American, while maintaining ongoing advocacy against policies related to smoking and health.
Heartland's policy positions, strategies and budget distinguish it clear as a lobby firm that is misrepresenting itself as a "think tank" - it budgets $4.1 million of its $6.4 million in projected expenditures for Editorial, Government Relations, Communications, Fundraising, and Publications, and the only activity it plans that could vaguely be considered policy development is the writing of a curriculum package for use in confusing high schoolers about climate change.
There will be more comment and analysis to follow on DeSmogBlog and elsewhere, but we wanted to make this information available so that others can also scrutinize the documents and bring their expertise to the task.
Attachment Size
(1-15-2012) 2012 Fundraising Plan.pdf 89.87 KB
(1-15-2012) 2012 Heartland Budget (2).pdf 124.62 KB
2 Agenda for January 17 Meeting.pdf 7.4 KB
2010_IRS_Form_990 (2).pdf 2.7 MB
2012 Climate Strategy (3).pdf 96.56 KB
Binder1 (2).pdf 55.36 KB
Board Directory 01-18-12.pdf 11.28 KB
Board Meeting Package January 17.pdf 6.84 KB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Institute Exposed: Internal Documents Unmask Heart of Climate Denial Machine
Internal Heartland Institute strategy and funding documents obtained by DeSmogBlog expose the heart of the climate denial machine – its current plans, many of its funders, and details that confirm what DeSmogBlog and others have reported for years. The heart of the climate denial machine relies on huge corporate and foundation funding from U.S. businesses including Microsoft, Koch Industries, Altria (parent company of Philip Morris) RJR Tobacco and more.
We are releasing the entire trove of documents now to allow crowd-sourcing of the material. Here are a few quick highlights, stay tuned for much more. -Confirmation that Charles G. Koch Foundation is again funding Heartland Institute’s global warming disinformation campaign. Greenpeace’s Koch reports show the last time Heartland received Koch funding was in 1999.
The January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy states:
“We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to their network of philanthropists, if our focus continues to align with their interests. Other contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.”
-Heartland Institute’s global warming denial machine is chiefly – and perhaps entirely – funded by one Anonymous donor:
“Our climate work is attractive to funders, especially our key Anonymous Donor (whose contribution dropped from $1,664,150 in 2010 to $979,000 in 2011 - about 20% of our total 2011 revenue). He has promised an increase in 2012…”
-Confirmation of exact amounts flowing to certain key climate contrarians.
“funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.”
-As Brad Johnson reported today at ThinkProgress, confirmation that Heartland is working with David Wojick, a U.S. Energy Department contract worker and coal industry consultant, to develop a ‘Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Schools.’
-Forbes and other business press are favored outlets for Heartland’s dissemination of climate denial messages, and the group is worried about maintaining that exclusive space. They note in particular the work of Dr. Peter Gleick:
“Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.” (emphasis added)
Note the irony here that Heartland Institute – one of the major mouthpieces behind the debunked ‘Climategate’ email theft who harped about the suppression of denier voices in peer-reviewed literature – now defending its turf in the unscientific business magazine realm.
-Interesting mentions of Andrew Revkin as a potential ally worth “cultivating,” along with Judith Curry.
“Efforts might also include cultivating more neutral voices with big audiences (such as Revkin at DotEarth/NYTimes, who has a well-known antipathy for some of the more extreme AGW communicators such as Romm, Trenberth, and Hansen) or Curry (who has become popular with our supporters).”
-Confirmation that skeptic blogger Anthony Watts is part of Heartland’s funded network of misinformation communicators.
“We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data.”
Stay tuned for more details as DeSmogBlog and others dig through this trove of Heartland Institute documents. The Heartland Institute's legacy of evasion of this level of transparency and accountability has now been shattered.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just for informational purposes, the Heartland poster used as the picture - all bs.The Heartland Institute has confirmed in a prepared statement that it mistakenly... more
-
-
The Radiation Database is an attempt to document the world’s most powerful RF radiation sources in addition to just about anything else “geeky.” It’s what you get when you mix George Jetson with Google Earth.
This file is a labor of love. My nickname is “Resonated” and I am fascinated with all things radiant, resonant, and electromagnetic. EMR is modern magic, useful in so many ways, and these facilities are performing modern magic. I love science, and I find many of the facilities contained herein intriguing. I hope you will as well.The Radiation Database is an attempt to document the world’s most powerful RF... more
-
-
R3zn8D
-
added this
-
4 months ago
- |
-
Bill Gates is one very confused billionaire philanthropist.
He understands global warming is a big problem — indeed, his 2012 Foundation Letter even frets about the grave threat it poses to food security. But he just doesn’t want to do very much now to stop it from happening (see Pro-geoengineering Bill Gates disses efficiency, “cute” solar, deployment — still doesn’t know how he got rich).
He love technofixes like geoengineering and, as we’ll see, genetically modified food. Rather than investing in cost-effective emissions reduction strategies today or in renewable energy technologies that are rapidly moving down the cost curve, he explains that the reason invests so much in nuclear R&D is “The good news about nuclear is that there has hardly been any innovation.” Seriously!
His Letter includes the ominous chart at the top, and he warns of the dire consequences of climate change:
Meanwhile, the threat of climate change is becoming clearer. Preliminary studies show that the rise in global temperature alone could reduce the productivity of the main crops by over 25 percent. Climate change will also increase the number of droughts and floods that can wipe out an entire season of crops. More and more people are raising familiar alarms about whether the world will be able to support itself in the future, as the population heads toward a projected 9.3 billion by 2050.
Strong stuff.
And yet, as the AP reported this week, the wealthiest of all Americans gets very prickly if you don’t wholeheartedly endorse his techno-fix adaptation-centric approach to dealing with this oncoming disaster:
Bill Gates has a terse response to criticism that the high-tech solutions he advocates for world hunger are too expensive or bad for the environment: Countries can embrace modern seed technology and genetic modification or their citizens will starve….
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has spent about $2 billion in the past five years to fight poverty and hunger in Africa and Asia, and much of that money has gone toward improving agricultural productivity.Gates doesn’t apologize for his endorsement of modern agriculture or sidestep criticism of genetic modification. He told The Associated Press that he finds it ironic that most people who oppose genetic engineering in plant breeding live in rich nations that he believes are responsible for global climate change that will lead to more starvation and malnutrition for the poor.
Resistance to new technology is “again hurting the people who had nothing to do with climate change happening,” Gates said.
The real irony is that most people who diss efficiency and renewables and aggressive greenhouse gas mitigation, like Gates, live in rich nations that are responsible for global climate change that will lead to more starvation and malnutrition for the poor.
Where is the story that says, “countries to embrace existing technology to reduce emissions or their citizens will starve” or resistance to aggressive low carbon technology deployment is “again hurting the people who had nothing to do with climate change happening”?
This is not a blog on genetic modification, so I’ll just quote the AP story:
Bill Freese, a science policy analyst for the Washington-based Center for Food Safety, said everyone wants to see things get better for hungry people, but genetically modified plants are more likely to make their developers rich than feed the poor. The seed is too expensive and has a high failure rate, he said. Better ways to increase yields would be increasing the fertility of soil by adding organic matter or combining plants growing in the same field to combat pests, he said.
The biggest problem with those alternatives, Freese said, is the same one that Gates cited in high-tech research: A lack of money for development.
snip
But the fact is, as Oxfam and others have made clear, global warming is poised to make food vastly more expensive, which will be devastating to the world’s poor know matter how much money Gates dumps into GM crops — see Oxfam Predicts Climate Change will Help Double Food Prices by 2030: “We Are Turning Abundance into Scarcity”:
More at the linkBill Gates is one very confused billionaire philanthropist.
He understands global... more
-
-
Uploaded by djscrumpit on Dec 20, 2010
http://www.facebook.com/WhatintheWorldAreTheySpraying
The Chemtrail/Geo-Engineering Coverup Revealed.
By now everyone has seen crisscrossing streaks of white clouds trailing behind jet aircraft, stretching from horizon to horizon, eventually turning the sky into a murky haze. Our innate intelligence tells us these are not mere vapor trails from jet engines, but no one yet has probed the questions: who is doing this and why. With the release of this video, all of that has changed. Here is the story of a rapidly developing industry called geo-engineering, driven by scientists, corporations, and governments intent on changing global climate, controlling the weather, and altering the chemical composition of soil and water — all supposedly for the betterment of mankind. Although officials insist that these programs are only in the discussion phase, evidence is abundant that they have been underway since about 1990 — and the effect has been devastating to crops, wildlife, and human health. We are being sprayed with toxic substances without our consent and, to add insult to injury, they are lying to us about it. Do not watch this documentary if you have high blood pressure.
• Expected ship date October 22, 2010
• Runtime 95 minutes
• Produced by G. Edward Griffin, Michael Murphy and Paul Wittenberger
http://www.realityzone.com/whatspray.html
The film makers are encouraging everyone who purchases a DVD to make copies and hand out for free in support of thier vision of making this issue known to all. DVDs can be ordered at www.truthmediaproductions.us
"Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign" "Chem-Trail" "Geo-Engineering" "Distributed Aerosol Campaign" "Weather Modification" "Soft Kill" "Eugenics" "Chemtrail Dispersions" "Nanoparticles" "Nano-Tech" "Aluminum" "Barium Salts" "Contrail" "Chronic Wasting Disease" "Alzheimers" "Biological Weaponry" "Bio-Weapon" "RNA" "DNA" "Spraying Operations" "Fibers" "Heavy Metals" "Toxic" "Detox" "Atmospheric Weapons" "Atmosphere" "Atmospheric Geoengineering" "California Skywatch" " Solar Radiation Management" "Rosalind Peterson" "Soil Pollution" "Lack of Vitamin D" "Rocket Fuel" "Jet Trails" "Upper Atmospheric Testing"
As a follow up for all you non believers I offer this.
scUploaded by djscrumpit on Dec 20, 2010... more
-
-
Weather Modification 101 -- One Hundred Years of Cloud Seeding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK_zGqWY_ag&feature=channel_video_title
Uploaded by R3zn8D on Jan 16, 2012
Read this article:
https://r3zn8d.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/weather-modification-101-100-years-of...
Learn the truth about weather modification
I intend this page to be the most comprehensive directory on the planet.
The utmost care has gone into assuring validity for postings here.
I am creating this page for the following reasons:
1. Most people do not know the long history of scientists trying to modify our climate locally and globally.
2. Any time someone posts a video on the internet of "chemtrails" there are numerous responses like "tinfoil hat much?" or "I suppose you believe in UFO's too huh?"
3. Billions of dollars are being spent dumping chemicals in our atmosphere with no public oversight, no real verification of positive results of these modifications, and no toxicity testing on aerosolized chemicals or protection from the Environmental Protection Agency.
4. Though I applaud the Texas Weather Modification Association for it's transparency, the same cannot be said for the hundreds of other companies spraying our world with God know's what. I've read papers describing dumping fertilizer over the arctic poles to reduce UV reflection of the ice. FERTILIZER! One patent described dumping MELANIN! See the patents section below for a real eye opener.
When you're done reading about Weather Modification, check out:
South Carolina Chemtrails -- Geoengineering 101
https://r3zn8d.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/south-carolina-chemtrails-massive-geo...
The Radiation Database for Google Earth
https://r3zn8d.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/the-radiation-database-for-google-earth/
I posted on r3zn8d's data base of information in the past as STC and wanted to share this straightforward video and links again for those that missed it originally.
http://current.com/technology/93552087_weather-modification-is-as-real-as-can-be-all-the-proof-you-need.htm
Something to study tomorrow as we stay away from the internet...please share this in every direction. May it become common knowledge the extent of the attempts to control everything on Earth. We have to become aware to affect right action and we are running out of time to head in that direction....love not fear.
See you on the 19th.
circlesquaredWeather Modification 101 -- One Hundred Years of Cloud Seeding... more
-
-
For the past few years investigators and researchers have been searching for hard evidence on the elusive phenomena of chemtrail spraying. If one searches GoogleNews for articles on chemtrails in (with 4500 periodicals represented) not one article will be found. There is simply no coverage on this topic in the mainstream media.
Imagine our surprise when we discovered extensive proof of government involvement, funding, sponsorship, multidisciplinary research, policy making and implementation of global atmospheric modification under the classification of 'Geoengineering.' This is the chemtrail smoking gun we have been looking for.
Authorized by Congress and sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, a monumental and in-depth study on global warming and possible corrective measures (mitigations) was undertaken in the early 1990s. Represented were senior researchers, faculty, theoreticians, atmospheric scientists, department heads and CEO's from a multitude of prestigious institutions. The Smithsonian, Harvard, General Motors, Cambridge, MIT, Yale, World Resources Institute, National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Oxford, Brookings Institution, Columbia University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Carnegie-Mellon University, Princeton University, Brown University, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and many more. This colossal study recalls the scope, expense and secrecy of the Manhattan Project, yet the goals and eventual impacts of it are far greater.
This massive research study is entitled: Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base - Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The results were presented in 1992 and published in book form in 2000 by the National Academy Press. This 994 page study is the textbook on greenhouse gasses, global warming, policy decisions and mitigation's (corrective measures). Included within is the hard science many chemtrails researchers have been searching for: the scientists, agencies, institutions and corporations involved, cost factors, chemical formula, mathematical modeling, delivery methods, policies, recruiting of foreign governments, acquisition of materials, and the manufacturing of aerosol compounds, ect.
The full involvement of foremost government agencies, research firms, universities and private corporations are detailed in this global 'geoengineering' study. Keep in mind that this was approved by and funded by Congress
In Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Bases conclusion, the N.A.S. found that the most effective global warming mitigation turned out to be the spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing commercial, military and private aircraft. This preferred mitigation method is designed to create a global atmospheric shield which would increase the planet's albedo (reflectivity) using aerosol compounds of aluminum and barium oxides, and to introduce ozone generating chemicals into the atmosphere....
Continued at:
http://www.lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/smoking_gun.htmlFor the past few years investigators and researchers have been searching for hard... more
-
-
Dagum
-
added this
-
4 months ago
- |
-
-
We Are Change San Francisco
May 10, 2011
A We Are Change San Francisco member taped the following event on April 21, 2011 at the San Francisco Public Library. Geo engineering (chemtrails) were stated as an axiom with this panel of scientists and several members of Wac SF confronted the scientists afterwards. One such confrontation was that of John Fitzgerald who ran for Congress and Mayor of Martinez, California on a 911 truth and End the Fed platform.
...We Are Change San Francisco
May 10, 2011
A We Are Change San Francisco member... more
-
-
The latest development in the Gulf is how an incomprehensible bacterium is remarkably eating up the methane gas. It appears that engineered designer genes have also been used to remove the gas just as they have been used to consume the oil. The common denominator is that neither of these microbes are natural microorganisms. This should come as no surprise.
Microbiologist David Valentine at the University of California at Santa Barbara stated,
“Within a matter of months, the bacteria completely removed that methane. The bacteria kicked on more effectively than we expected.”
It sounds to me that this created synthetic genome microbe far exceeded the engineering and programming expectations.
According to a Fox Business report,
“This discovery offered a rare glimpse into the remarkable abilities of an obscure family of microbes in the depths of the Gulf”.
I agree. It is scientifically incomprehensible that any natural microorganism could do this and synthetically engineered microbes are definitely obscure by comparison.
University of Georgia microbiologist Samantha Joye, who has been independently analyzing methane from the Gulf of Mexico, also agrees with me. She said,
“It would take a superhuman microbe to do what they are claiming.”
So it has, Samantha. It was specifically engineered and its “superhuman” genetics were created synthetically.
In a January 7, 2011 article, the UK Register wrote how the scientists were particularly
“surprised at the speed with which the bacteria consumed their enormous meal”.
They also brought up the fact that earlier studies elsewhere in the world suggested methane levels around Deepwater Horizon would be well above normal for years ahead. It’s remarkable what highly engineered designer genes can do.
On January 6, 2011, the Christian Science Monitor reported how the study’s leaders boldly stated that rates of methane decomposition after the Gulf oil spill
“were faster than had ever been recorded in any other place on the planet.”
That’s because these are not natural microbes. You can’t compare apples to grapefruit.
TRACE ELEMENTS ADDED TO THE GULF
In the same CS Monitor report, University of Georgia microbiologist Samantha Joye stated how
“[The Gulf] is not well stocked with trace elements the bacteria need to survive – among them, copper, which bacteria specifically use to deal with the methane. Shortages of copper, as well as other trace elements, likely would have slammed the brakes on the exponential growth in bacterial populations needed to get rid of the methane in fewer than four months.”
The same applies to hydrocarbon-eating bacteria that consume oil, except that iron is needed more than the other trace elements. Since copper and iron are not prevalent mineral elements normally found in the Gulf of Mexico, the synthetic bacterium eating both the oil and the methane would not be able to do so at the remarkable speed they have without such essential earth elements. The only possible way these synthetic bacterium could have done this is by adding the required elements to the Gulf. Spraying a highly dissolved or colloidal mixture of trace elements onto and into the Gulf of Mexico would be absolutely required to accomplish this.
In our October 21, 2010 research article The Gulf BLUE PLAGUE (BP): It’s Not Wise To Fool Mother Nature, we had revealed the abnormally high amounts of elements found in the Gulf and that it was being sprayed along with or separately from the oil dispersants. In August 2010, rain water samples were tested by the Coastal Heritage Society of Louisiana where rain coming directly from the Gulf had unusually high concentrations of iron, copper, nickel, aluminum, manganese, and arsenic.
Without a doubt, the synthetically created bacterium introduced into the Gulf of Mexico to consume the oil and gasses were – and continue to be – fed these essential trace elements. Otherwise, they could not have thrived or reproduced at the accelerated rate they have. The continued spraying in the Gulf by aircraft and by boat is not Corexit or other oil dispersal chemicals. Consider the current spraying to have the same effect of adding liquid fertilizer to your crops.
SYNTHETIC MICROBES MUTATING NATURAL MICROORGANISMS
In early December, 2010 the research vessel WeatherBird II, owned by the University of Southern Florida (USF), went back to the Gulf of Mexico for follow-up water and core samples. As reported by Naomi Klein on January 13, 2011 in Hunting the Ocean for BP’s Missing Millions of Barrels of Oil,
“…these veteran scientists have seen things that they describe as unprecedented …evidence of bizarre sickness in the phytoplankton and bacterial communities…”
This “bizarre sickness” in the indigenous Gulf microorganisms is the direct result of the synthetic microbes that are still creating genetic sicknesses by mutating the DNA of the natural microbes. We had alerted our readers to this in DNA Mutations Confirmed in Gulf of Mexico on September 28, 2010 when we stated,
“DNA mutations are occurring within the Gulf of Mexico at a microscopic cellular level. The obvious effect this has on marine life as well as humans is a Pandora Box of unknowns.”
Tampa Bay Online gave further insight to this in an interview with Dr. John Paul, an oceanography biology professor at USF, regarding the oil plume they had discovered 40 miles off the Florida Panhandle:
It was found to be toxic to microscopic sea organisms, causing mutations to their DNA. If this plankton at the base of the marine food chain is contaminated, it could affect the whole ecosystem of the Gulf.
“The problem with mutant DNA is that it can be passed on and we don’t how this will affect fish or other marine life,” he says, adding that the effects could last for decades.
In Naomi Klein’s article, she describes how Paul introduced healthy bacteria and phytoplankton to Gulf water samples and what happened shocked him. The responses of the organisms “were genotoxic or mutagenic”. According to Paul, what was so “scary” about these results is that such genetic damage was “heritable,” meaning the mutations can be passed on.
Genotoxins pass on genetic changes to successors who have never been exposed to the original gene. Healthy microorganisms are then genetically changed and will pass on their DNA mutations to their descendants. This is a genetic chain-reaction as each mutated microbe interacts with and affects other microorganisms, especially with regards to the food chain:
“…the phytoplankton, the bacteria, and the [microorganisms] that graze on them – the zooplankton – seem to be the most potentially impacted.” – Dr. David Hollander, USF Marine Geochemist: December 6, 2010: Video interview on WeatherBird II.The latest development in the Gulf is how an incomprehensible bacterium is remarkably... more
-
-
This video exposes a confidential report of an experiment done in Norway in 2000 by a consortium of oil companies including BP and the US government showing how a deep water blowout would create clouds of super toxic oil which could not be recovered. Was it a surprise that most of the oil from the BP well stayed in the Gulf of Mexico, at depth, in clouds of small particles? It may have been to us but it shouldn't have been to BP or MMS (the government agency whose job it is to regulate deep water drilling). It also should have come as no surprise to NOAA (the government agency that regulates anything in the sea around the U.S.) All of those institutions did deny the first reports of the clouds when they were found by the Pelican research vessel and the University of Missisippi's Dr. Ray Highsmith and his crew. But they must have known because MMS and the oil companies paid for, and conducted an experiment off the coast of Norway in 2000 to see what would happen in a deepwater oil well blowout. Remember all that "this is a new problem" you heard on television? Well the study showed that the oil would not all rise to the surface to be collected but would tend to form cloud layers of neutrally buoyant particles that might be the most toxic part of the oil.
Here's a direct quote from the report:
"This is important information, because the water-soluble compounds are generally the most toxic ones when exposed to marine biota. The results from these measurements show that the rising of the oil through the water column represents a kind of a "stripping" process of some of the most toxic compounds in the oil. The end result is therefore that a portion of the most toxic compounds is left in the water column."
to see the final report go to
http://afterthepress.com/?p=315
_________
But hey, the media and government told us everything is all gone, and a "study" just coming out (how timely) states that bacteria ate every little bit of the methane in three months! Gee did it chase it through the atmosphere too? Wow! What a miracle! G U L L I B I L I T Y is killing this planet. But hey, let's not seek truth or rock the boat or try to connect the dots. Afterall, it was only a little over a few million gallons of toxic oil and pounds of toxic soup mixed in.This video exposes a confidential report of an experiment done in Norway in 2000 by a... more
-
-
Scientists employed by the rule of Abu Dhabi claim they have successfully managed to create rain in the desert through the use of giant ionisers.
The possibility of creating rain in the dry region could turn the desert into land fit for growing crops. Is this a step forward? Or should we be leaving natural climates as they are?Scientists employed by the rule of Abu Dhabi claim they have successfully managed to... more
-
-
Saturday night, ringing in the New Year took on a whole different meaning for the citizens of Beebe. Around 11:30 p.m., enforcement officers with Arkansas Game and Fish Commission began getting reports of dead black birds falling from the sky in the city limits of Beebe.Saturday night, ringing in the New Year took on a whole different meaning for the... more
-
-
Lately, we’ve seen a massive marketing make-over of environmental modification (ENMOD) programs. What has been a clandestine and hostile military application now is promoted as a “futuristic” solution to corporate pollution. Debunking mass media’s mischaracterization of geoengineering as “futuristic” is in order. Below we take a closer look at those organizations planting such disinformation and offer sources on the harmful effects of geoengineering.
Here is a sampling of quotes from mainstream media on the use of geoengineering:Lately, we’ve seen a massive marketing make-over of environmental modification... more
-
-
In Cancun, Mexico, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is under pressure to overturn the UN ban on chemtrails. This would dissolve an agreement reached in October at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity conference in Japan. In that landmark decision, the 193-member CBD agreed by consensus to a moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments.
The US has not agreed to it. Citing profits, the US further refuses to cut greenhouse gas emissions attributed to global warming, the purported concern of the United Nations. Instead, it seeks to expand its geoengineering projects for which hundreds of patents have already been filed. (See sampling below.)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) opened the Cancun conference last week by discussing geoengineering options that will be further explored in Peru later this year. Such environmental modification (ENMOD) programs include putting mirrors in space, iron seeding the oceans, planting genetically modified forests, and chemtrailing the skies. Of course, all of these activities are already well underway.In Cancun, Mexico, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is under... more
-
-
The UN Climate talks in Cancun are now focusing on geoengineering, using it as a tool to extort a binding UN treaty to reduce phony global warming. The AP reported today that "we may need geoengineering as a 'Plan B,' if nations fail to forge agreement on a binding treaty to rein in greenhouse gases", per a British House of Commons report.
Geoengineering and contrived global warming lies are facets of Agenda 21, the overarching blueprint for control and depopulation. The article states that geoengineering can cause rain precipitation and other weather changes.
The AP article revealed that the primary forces behind geoengineering are the UN, the US and the UK. The US and the UK governments urged the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to study geoengineering, with the US in the research forefront. The article says that "specialists regard the stratospheric sulfates proposal as among the most feasible"- this means chemtrails. But instead of sulfates, patents and evidence indicate that aluminum and barium are currently being sprayed. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will do the unreliable computer modeling tests for the US research. Watch this video to understand that this is a depopulation program and this NOAA scientist advocates "doing whatever we can to reduce population".
Read More: http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2010/12/geoengineering-climate-ghouls-plan-b.htmlThe UN Climate talks in Cancun are now focusing on geoengineering, using it as a tool... more
-
-
-
'Countries join forces to save life on Earth", the front page of the Independent told us. "Historic", "a landmark", a "much-needed morale booster", the other papers chorused. The declaration agreed last week at the summit in Japan to protect the world's wild species and places was proclaimed by almost everyone a great success. There is one problem: none of the journalists who made these claims has seen it.
Read More: http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2010/11/weve-been-conned-deal-to-save-natural.html'Countries join forces to save life on Earth", the front page of the... more
-
-
NAGOYA, Japan -- Delegates to the world summit on biodiversity here are calling for a moratorium on climate engineering research, like the idea of putting huge mirrors in outer space to reflect some of the sun's heating rays away from the planet.
Geo-engineering fixes for climate change include placing mirrors in space that reflect sunlight from the Earth. Photograph: Blue Line PicturesClimate engineering or geoengineering refers to any large-scale, human- made effort to manipulate the planet to adapt to climate change.
Representatives from Africa and Asia expressed concern about the negative impacts of geoengineering during the opening week of the 10th Conference of Parties (COP 10) to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Oct. 18-29. They were joined by civil society organizations in calling for a moratorium on geoengineering experiments.
The geoengineering proposals include installing giant vertical pipes in the ocean to bring cold water to the surface, pumping vast amounts of sulphates into the stratosphere to block sunlight, or blowing ocean salt spray into clouds to increase their reflectivity.
Broadly speaking, there are two main geoengineering approaches: solar radiation management and carbon sequestration, in other words, absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to reduce the concentration of this greenhouse-effect gas.
To manage the sun's rays, there are ideas like releasing sulphates into the atmosphere or placing giant mirrors in outer space. For absorbing carbon, the possible approaches include ocean fertilization, in which iron or nitrogen is added to seawater to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton to sequester the carbon deep in the ocean.
"Some of the proponents of these technologies think it's easier to 'manage the sun' than get people to take a bus" to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, said Pat Mooney, executive director of the ETC Group, an international environmental organization headquartered in Canada.
"Politicians in rich countries see geoengineering as 'Plan B' so they don't have to make the hard choices of reducing emissions causing climate change," Mooney told Tierramérica.
"It's a political strategy aimed at letting industrialized countries off the hook for their climate debt," he said.
No longer the realm of crackpots, geoengineering is fast becoming the subject of serious scientific discussion and commercial interest.
In 2007, Tierramérica broke a story that a U.S. company, Planktos Inc., was going to dump 100 tonnes of iron dust into the ocean near Ecuador's Galápagos Islands -- a sanctuary for studying unique species and their evolution -- without the consent of the Ecuadorian government.
If it was able to prove that the technique absorbed carbon dioxide, Planktos hoped to sell carbon credits for the carbon it sequestered. The project was stopped and the company soon ended its research in this area.
The following year the CBD agreed to a moratorium on further ocean fertilization attempts.
Earlier this year, the CBD's scientific body proposed a ban on all climate- related geoengineering activities.
However, given the ongoing failure to reach an international agreement to curb emissions of the gases causing climate change, there has been renewed scientific and political interest in these experiments.
Britain's Royal Society, a highly respected global network that includes the world's most eminent scientists, now defends geoengineering research.
"We oppose a moratorium because we don't want to restrict scientific research into geoengineering," said John Shepherd, a climate scientist at the National Oceanography Center of the University of Southampton, and Royal Society fellow.
"Climate change could get to the point of 'desperate times requiring desperate measures' and therefore we should be ready with some good research on what might help," said Shepherd, author of the 2009 Royal Society report on geoengineering.
That report concluded that such technologies may well be necessary to cool the planet if efforts to reduce carbon emissions fail.
Research is needed to determine the hazards and effectiveness of any geoengineering idea, he told Tierramérica in an interview.
"Deployment of any geoengineering now would be incredibly premature," he said, and noted that this is the current opinion of the Royal Society as well.
In November, the Royal Society will hold a symposium in London entitled "Geoengineering: Taking Control of Our Planet's Climate."
Injecting sulphates into the atmosphere is attractive to policy-makers because its costs are much lower than reducing carbon emissions, writes Clive Hamilton, of the Center for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Australian National University.
While acknowledging that no country advocates geoengineering, these schemes "avoid the need to raise petrol taxes, permit yet more unrestrained growth, and pose no threat to consumer lifestyles," stated Hamilton, the author of a new book on climate change titled "Requiem for a Species."
The ETC Group documents progress on various ideas to control the climate in its report, "Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering," presented Oct. 19 in Nagoya. The report asks, "Who has the right to set the global thermostat?"
"Developing countries understand that they can't trust the rich countries that have failed to reduce their emissions to control the global thermostat," said Mooney.
The potential impacts on the global weather system of such attempts to cool the planet are impossible to assess, he added.
In his opinion, what is needed is a moratorium on open-air experiments in geoengineering to allow time for an international discussion about the potential biodiversity, social, and economic impacts.
Delegates in Nagoya are hotly debating the wording of a moratorium. A representative from Brazil told Tierramérica that it has become a big issue for countries like Canada that are firmly opposed to any ban or moratorium on geoengineering experiments.
Stumping for the moratorium is the ETC Group's Silvia Ribeiro, who asserted in a Tierramérica interview: "Geoengineering is not a solution to the problem of climate change. It could only be considered in an emergency and therefore can never be for-profit or part of any carbon market."NAGOYA, Japan -- Delegates to the world summit on biodiversity here are calling for a... more
-
-
The Chemtrail/Geo-Engineering Coverup Revealed.
By now everyone has seen crisscrossing streaks of white clouds trailing behind jet aircraft, stretching from horizon to horizon, eventually turning the sky into a murky haze. Our innate intelligence tells us these are not mere vapor trails from jet engines, but no one yet has probed the questions: WHO is doing this and WHY. With the release of this video, all of that has changed. Here is the story of a rapidly developing industry called Geo-engineering, driven by scientists, corporations, and governments intent on changing global climate, controlling the weather, and altering the chemical composition of soil and water -- all supposedly for the betterment of mankind. Although officials insist that these programs are only in the discussion phase, evidence is abundant that they have been underway since about 1990 -- and the effect has been devastating to crops, wildlife, and human health. We are being sprayed with toxic substances without our consent and, to add insult to injury, they are lying to us about it.
Produced by G. Edward Griffin, Michael Murphy, and Paul Wittenberger. Runtime 95 minutes.
Expected ship date, October 22, 2010.The Chemtrail/Geo-Engineering Coverup Revealed.
By now everyone has seen... more
-
-
This is solid evidence that Chemtrails are not a "conspiracy theory"
On many days the clouds in the sky are not natural. They are Chemical Clouds created by Chemical Trails deliberately sprayed from airplanes.
While Contrails quickly dissipate, Chemtrails linger in the sky for many hours. They are laid out in long lines that slowly spread out. As they drift and spread they become more and more cloud-like looking, and many unaware people just assume they are natural clouds.
I have been observing this phenomenon for 3 years.
If you pay attention for just a few weeks, you will quickly realize that most clouds are not natural and that, in fact, on some days every cloud in the sky is man-made.
So why are they doing this?
Because they can.
Most people are too oblivious to notice, or once it is pointed out to them, they do not want to believe it.
What are in Chemtrails, and why are the powers that be doing it?
Here is a link:
http://educate-yourself.org/ct/This is solid evidence that Chemtrails are not a "conspiracy theory"
On... more
-
