Geoengineering: The real climate change threat

 ***Fundraising: Fund raising status is currently at $130, Please be aware that the first of the mo is only 2 days away now, and that is hitting it pretty close. Please, know that we are fully aware of how difficult this time of year is, and we appreciate the choices one has to make during such times.

For us, its an indicator of whether we continue or do not, so please also understand we have no choice but to ask for your help.  We must rely on our readers whom we serve. We hope you can find it in your hearts and pocketbook to send what you can to help us stay up at this critical time. Please support our efforts by donating off to the right of the blog where you see the Pay Pal button.

Thank you and Bless you all who visit, donate, comment, and contribute information to our efforts.We literally cannot do this without you.

Vatic Note:  Oh, my, what a great job Corbett did on this research.  Its bigger and better, historically than anything I had found so far, on the subject.  This is definitely a must read and watch video.   The various solutions that we are beginning to provide will address this issue very well in not only reducing costs, but in environmental friendly ways to do so.  

So far we have posted ways to garden without polluting fertilizers, pesticides and growth chemicals.  Hydroponic vertical gardening only uses minerals that are generally found in the soil that we need to function properly. 

Then we did one on alternative ways to run your car without  gasoline, oil, etc.  These will solve so many problems and provide savings for average Americans, such that they can then invest in their future and other alternative mechanisms for further energy savings using free energy from the atmosphere as Teslar lead us to believe.  

So  much going on in the good side of things while the evil ones are desperately trying to control and quash anything that advances man kind and the health of the planet.   


Geoengineering: The real climate change threat 
http://www.corbettreport.com/geoengineering-the-real-climate-change-threat/
by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
GRTV.ca
February 13, 2013

                                                    
For decades now, we have been told to be afraid of the long-term effects of manmade carbon dioxide on our climate. Seemingly every day some new storm, drought, warm spell or cold snap is featured on the news, with government-funded scientists warning us that this is a sign of things to come unless the world reduces its CO2 production.

The problem, of course, is that this is a third-rate scientific hoax propagated on the strength of the public’s ignorance of the underlying science, or lack thereof.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hpz6W980n4I

The models and predictions used to scare the public into believing that CO2 is driving climate and will continue to do so in an increasingly dangerous fashion share the distinction of being universally wrong in their predictions of trends over the past 15 years, yet we are still asked to believe in the long-term validity of these same falsified models.

As Robinson et. al. noted in their 2007 study, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” published by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, “Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.”

Also in 2007, J. Scott Armstrong, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “Long-Range Forecasting,” a standard textbook on the principles of forecasting, co-authored an audit of the procedures that the IPCC used for its global warming projections, finding that those procedures violated 72 of the 89 relevant principles of scientific forecasting.

Last year the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres published a study showing that climate prediction models examining periods of less than 30 years on the geographical scale of continents are riddled with inaccuracies.

Earlier this year, the UK’s Met office was forced to revise downward their projections for temperature increase over the next four years after a 15 year standstill in global annual temperatures.

Ironically, this divergence from the continuous temperature increases that had been predicted by the CO2 alarmists is now being blamed on “natural variability” including “the cycles of changes in solar activity,” which leaked drafts of the IPCC AR5 report due out next year indicate has been vastly underestimated.   (VN: this would also explain the changes going on in the entire solar system on every planet and even their moons.)

Sadly, the fearmongering, hype and misleading predictions on this issue have become so internalized that there is a subsection of the population that is now willing to question whether every conceivable event in the galaxy is the result of carbon dioxide, even near-earth asteroids.
 
That so many are concentrating so much time and attention on the question of carbon dioxide, a trace gas in the atmosphere which itself is only partially manmade, is only to be expected. Scientists, pundits, writers and businessmen are only responding to the market incentives that are at play.

Governments and universities around the world are now sinking billions of dollars a year into grants to fund research related to the supposed CO2 threat, and entire industries such as carbon trading and carbon sequestration, are developing in response to this interest. Quite simply, too much money and potential political power is at stake for the threat of global warming to be revealed as a false alarm.  (VN: remember in Bush's last year in office, the international fascist corporations were trying to get a global Carbon tax passed in Copenhagen and it failed due to the disclosure of the fraud revealed through hackers that showed scientists emails indicating the fraud and how to counter the scientists who disagreed with evidence.  Many corporations were going to take advantage of the carbon tax revenues by using contracts to fix the problem and thus scam the globe out of trillions of dollars. Fortunately a majority of countries walked out of the conference and refused to sign up. Thank goodness)

One of the most worrying possibilities to arise from this trend, however, is the political legitimization of a concept that, ironically, has the potential to become a real threat to our environment: geoengineering.

The practice of geoengineering is now well over half a century old. As early as the late 1940s, American mathematician John von Neumann was researching weather modification and its potential uses in climatic warfare for the US Department of Defense. In the 1950s early cloudbursting experiments were performed by Wilhelm Reich and in 1956 Dr. Walter Russell was writing of the potential for complete weather control.

In the 1960s, Dr. Bernard Vonnegut, brother of the famous writer, vastly improved the techniques then in use by employing silver iodide crystals in the cloud seeding mixture. Silver iodide’s hygroscopic qualities insure water particles quickly bond with its crystalline structure. As the recent documentary Skywatcher points out, the process of cloud seeding is now so widely and routinely employed that it is having profound effects on our climate.

Given that CO2 is not the problem it is made out to be, coupled with the admitted advent of modern weather modification technologies in DoD research programs, it is impossible not to inquire into the possible links between the current push toward geoengineering and the military-industrial complex. Last year I had the chance to talk to Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Research on Globalization about the past, present, and future of weather warfare technology.

The potential military benefits to the wartime deployment of weather modification technologies are self-evident. In fact, they are so self-evident that, as Professor Chossudovsky notes, the UN was compelled to introduce a convention in 1977 prohibiting the use of environmental modification technology in warfare. The US ratified that convention in 1980.

Other potential benefits to the deployment of this technology suggest themselves in the monetary sphere. So many events in the course of human activity are predicated on short-term weather and long-term climate phenomena that the ability to determine (or even influence) either could be extremely valuable. Insurance companies, for example, stand to lose billions (and reconstruction-related industries stand to make those same billions) every time a strong storm makes landfall in populated areas.

So it should not be surprising that a market has evolved for “weather derivatives,” effectively allowing large financial institutions to make money gambling on the weather. And it should also come as no surprise that this market was largely pioneered by that infamous globalist-connected insider corporation, Enron.

Last year I had the chance to talk to researcher Peter Kirby about Enron’s involvement in weather derivatives and the vast sums that stand to be made as geoengineering projects continue to be deployed under the threshold of public awareness.

Even if we were to assume that weather modification technologies are not currently being used for the purposes of weather warfare or market manipulation, the potential for such abuses alone should be more than enough to dissuade us from pursuing these technologies. Even more worrying, perhaps, are the true unknown environmental ramifications of the long-term effects of these technologies on our environment.

Ironically enough, those who are warning us of the potentially disastrous consequences of manmade climate change may be exactly right in their assessment after all. But in the end, it may not be the manmade CO2 they are worried about that is the real culprit of this coming catastrophe, but the geoengineering technologies that are being proposed as the “solution” to this problem.

---

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.