1000s of Geoengineering/Chemtrail Documents Exposed!

Author Topic: 1000s of Geoengineering/Chemtrail Documents Exposed!  (Read 34885 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
1000s of Geoengineering/Chemtrail Documents Exposed!
« on: September 07, 2010, 01:57:07 PM »
"Chemtrails" is a slang term, and when you enter chemtrails into a search engine, you will get a couple of reliable sites, but most of the search engines'  results are websites comprised mostly speculation, hypotheses, guesswork, or outlandish kook stuff.

Once you find the right establishment "buzzword" and enter it into a search engine using Boolean operators (or the "advanced search" function), you will uncover so many white papers, scientific studies, and policy reports, on "chemtrails" your head will spin.

The buzzword in this case is "geoengineering" or more specifically "climate geoengineering"

Here are some more "buzzwords" or phrases to find more PDFs on chemtrail phenomenon:

Copy and paste the following phrases exactly how they are, and put them into a search engine:  (I used google, yahoo, and bing, and each search engine found different pdfs)

"climate geoengineering" filetype:pdf

climate geoengineering filetype:pdf

"solar radiation management" filetype:pdf

inject atmospheric aerosols filetype:pdf

"aluminum oxide" climate filetype:pdf

"aluminum oxide" particles filetype:pdf

"mount pinatubo" climate filetype:pdf


You can also find PowerPoint Presentations too, just change the input for the boolean operator to PPT.  For example, copy and paste the following into a search engine:

climate geoengineering filetype:ppt

The first result I had when I put that phrase into Google was a PPT from NASA "science talks", where they "explore" the possibility of climate geoengineering, with the disclaimer they have no intentions of doing it, but they do cite studies where geoengineering experiments have been done.

I highly recommend downloading these PDFs, and burn them to CDs, printing them, or storing them on a separate server, because they do get taken down!  I don't like tooting my horn, but I have blown some of the biggest documents cited in the truther/patriot community before, and they disappear quick from the original source.  Luckily, facsimiles of those documents are still circulating around the four winds of the world wide web, thanks to people reposting!  I couldn't give two hoots about taking credit, because I just want the information out there, because I want to expose and crush the NWO scum so bad, as that is my only purpose in life.

I'm still sifting through all of this data, but from the puzzle pieces that I have found, there is a NASA connection, Rutgers Climate Lab connection, Hughes Aircraft Company (which has been acquired by Raytheon and Boeing) connection, a Lawrence Livermore Laboratory connection, a Berkley connection, a UN IPCC and East Anglia connections,  a FAS connection, a CFR connection, a Royal Society connection, and many more connections to list.

I am going to sift through this data, with all of your guys' help, and try to connect the dots. Eventually, we can name names, and find out who is responsible for the chemtrail mess, so we can hopefully have them prosecuted for conducting unethical studies against unwilling participants.

THE CHEMTRAILS WILL STOP, THE SAME WAY THE REDFLEX PHOTO RADAR CAMERAS WERE TAKEN DOWN ARIZONA!  WE WILL DEFEAT THESE CLIMATE SCIENTIST SCUM!

Offline TRY

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,281
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2010, 02:07:58 PM »
Also NASA's C.A.R.E. Program ...
"The UN-natural STATE of AR-chem-SAS"
           -=-=--==--========✈
                         :(;)
 hBaRIUM aCLOUDSa RNUCLEAR pSKIES
          fRacking eaRthquakes

Online jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,111
    • The Great Deception
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2010, 02:23:52 PM »
Also do a search on John P Holdren and Ecoscience. He is one of the biggest promoters of geoengineering which is why he is the science czar in the Obama admin.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showtopic=6830

Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2010, 02:52:59 PM »
jofortruth-

Thanks for bringing up John P Holdren.  His name does come up quite a bit in those climate geoengineering PDFs.

I actually bought a physical copy of ECOSCIENCE: POPULATION, RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT off of Amazon.com and it has even worse stuff in it, than what was scanned in by Zomblog (the ones that originally broke that story).

In the near future, I will take photos of those pages with my digital camera (it has a document function on it) and make a posting.

In Ecoscience he praises Maoist China, promotes "sterilization festivals" in India (I kid you not), and calls for global wealth redistribution, global government, and de-development (see as my "The Collapse of Detroit" thread) of Developed Countries.

Offline Cywar

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,156
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2010, 03:19:46 PM »
Thanks for the digging.
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

—Albert Einstein

Online jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,111
    • The Great Deception
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2010, 03:30:45 PM »
jofortruth-

Thanks for bringing up John P Holdren.  His name does come up quite a bit in those climate geoengineering PDFs.

I actually bought a physical copy of ECOSCIENCE: POPULATION, RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT off of Amazon.com and it has even worse stuff in it, than what was scanned in by Zomblog (the ones that originally broke that story).

In the near future, I will take photos of those pages with my digital camera (it has a document function on it) and make a posting.

In Ecoscience he praises Maoist China, promotes "sterilization festivals" in India (I kid you not), and calls for global wealth redistribution, global government, and de-development (see as my "The Collapse of Detroit" thread) of Developed Countries.

A copy of the book is here, along with some copied pages. I borrowed it from a library and read through it, capturing notable pgs. It is quite amazing that human beings can  think this way!

http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showtopic=6918
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline Letsbereal

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2010, 03:48:50 PM »
Good thinking!
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2010, 06:08:09 PM »
One of the white papers:

"Workshop Report on Managing Solar Radiation" by NASA Ames Research Center, found here:
http://event.arc.nasa.gov/main/home/reports/SolarRadiationCP.pdf

Excerpt: from PDF-page 12:

Quote
Solar Radiation Management Technologies
Presentations at the workshop described several technological options for managing solar radiation.
Participants described technologies based in the stratosphere, in the lower troposphere and in space.
1. The Potential for Solar Radiation Management to Reduce Environmental Risk
As one workshop presentation noted, substantial Earth brightness (planetary albedo) increases have been observed repeatedly in our own time. They include the volcanic eruptions of Tambora, Krakatau, El Chichón, and Pinatubo. The cooling effects of the large Pinatubo event are heavily documented, and cooling associated with many major volcanic eruptions was described (Robock and Mao, 1995). The stratospheric aerosol layer resulting from the Pinatubo volcanic eruption is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Stratospheric sulfate aerosol layer resulting from the massive Pinatubo volcanic eruption.

(Figure 1 is a picture of ash coverage in the stratosphere from Mt Pinatubo)

Quote
These uncontrolled experiments that occur in nature suggest the possibility of using solar radiation
management technologies to diminish the threat of deleterious climate change. Views differed among meeting participants regarding when it might be appropriate to deploy such systems. The range of views considered included (i) never, (ii) only in the event of an imminent climate catastrophe,
(iii) as part of a transition to a low-carbon-emission economy, and (iv) in lieu of strong reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions.
Engineering schemes that increased the Earth’s albedo could stabilize global mean temperature while atmospheric greenhouse gas levels continue to rise. If temperature stability could be achieved amid rising greenhouse gas concentrations without producing large negative environmental consequences,
this would offer great advantages.
Much of the uncertainty voiced at the workshop regarding stratospheric solar radiation management
revolved around comparing the effects of these major-volcanic episodes to a limited, but continual particle injection. A key question was whether limited injections sufficient to obtain the desired climate change would induce other undesirable effects, such as midwinter ozone-layer depletion, tropospheric chemistry effects, or regional climate effects.
The tropical volcanic eruption of Pinatubo injected enough sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to decrease temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere for 1 to 3 years by several tenths of a degree Celsius,
albeit these temperature changes vary with latitude and season. Because of the thermal inertia of the ocean, this cooling would have been much greater if the volcanic eruptions were repeated on the 1 to 3 year time scale. However, the volcano-produced particles were not optimally sized for maximum efficiency in scattering sunlight (Rasch et al., 2007), suggesting the possibility that an optimized system might achieve this cooling with much less mass. More detail regarding volcanic effects is found in the appendix.
A well-designed system of climate modification might use sub-micron particles deployed in the stratosphere to scatter sunlight back to space. These particles do not fall out readily from air masses into which they are initially deployed, as does volcanic ash. Eventually, they would descend from the stratosphere into the lower atmosphere, especially in the polar vortices at high latitudes. There was brief discussion that particles might not persist in the stratosphere as described, and might have undesirable aspects even if they did, since it would take a long time to clear the atmosphere if there were undesired consequences. Once in the lower atmosphere, they would be expected to “rain out”. The total mass of such particles removed from the lower atmosphere by rain or snow is expected to be small, equivalent to a few percent of today’s sulfur emissions from power plants. However, additional research is needed to confirm optimal particle size and possible impacts on ecosystems. The term “optimal” in this context is dependent on what criteria are being optimized, such as the effectiveness at scattering solar radiation per unit mass, the lifetime of the particles in the atmosphere, cost, or minimization of environmental side effects. The “optimal” particle size is also highly dependent on the nature of the materials. From a purely scattering point of view, the optimal particle size is about 0.5 microns. However, absorbing particles can be much smaller and still have appreciable atmospheric lifetimes (Kasten, 1968).
Several kinds of scatterers could bring about the desired cooling. The simplest and cheapest per unit mass may be substances that interact minimally with electromagnetic radiation (dielectrics). These include sub-micron oxide particles, including sulfur oxides. These materials are contained in standard volcanic aerosols and Earth crustal ‘dust’, although the particles used in solar radiation management would likely be smaller and without chemical impurities. As such, they may be safe, since materials, such as sulfate and ash, are relatively well understood as one can predict with confidence
how their properties change throughout their months-to-years travel time through the stratosphere.
The surface properties of other materials must be studied to determine their response to the very acidic and oxidizing environment, in the presence of highly energetic ultraviolet light. Alternatives
to dielectrics have been suggested, such as metallic or resonant particles (see, for example, Teller, 1997). Metals interact with electromagnetic radiation strongly and might conceivably require much less particle mass than would non-conducting (dielectric) particles.
In addition to changing the materials used in the scatterers, materials might be shaped to preferentially
scatter particular wavelength regions of the optical spectrum. More exotic and as yet untested concepts include tiny super-pressure self-deploying balloons engineered to hover at a particular altitude. If designed to be top-bottom oriented they could be ‘coated’ for preferred optical properties.
These concepts take one step further the trade-off between unit input costs and mass efficiency. It should be noted, however, that the stratosphere is a harsh environment due to the extremely oxidizing nature of its constituents such as ozone, oxygen, chlorine, and OH radicals, strong acidity (concentrated nitric and sulfuric acids can condense onto surfaces), and harsh ultraviolet radiation. Studies could be conducted to better understand the fate of scatterers in this harsh environment and what might happen if these particles became significantly altered during their months-to-decades residence times in the stratosphere.
Injecting the particles near the equator and at higher altitudes lengthens their life in the atmosphere. A longer atmospheric life reduces the total mass that must be put into the stratosphere in order to achieve a given change in global mean temperature. If adverse effects appeared following the introduction
of such a scheme, most of these effects would be expected to dissipate once the particles were removed from the stratosphere.
The workshop also considered ways in which particles could be self-lofted; absorption of solar radiation causes some particles like black carbon to loft (Pueschel et al., 2000). Particles may even loft very high to 70 km if they can survive the harsh chemical environment (Rohatschek, 1996). One untested idea was to mix small amounts of absorbing aerosol like black carbon with sulfate so as to produce a long-lasting aerosol with a designer mix of heating and cooling effects in the upper stratosphere at 40 km. At very high altitudes even pure absorbing aerosols can produce cooling effects
near ground level.

Several options exist or are conceivable for deploying the radiation reflecting materials into the stratosphere.
These include naval artillery, high-altitude transport aircraft, and unpiloted vehicles. It may be possible to construct an anthropogenic mini-volcano. A large scale engineered combustor
situated on an equatorial mountain top could create a thermal plume lofting aerosol precursors to the stratosphere. Kites or hovering drones might lift a thin 25 km pipe through which aerosols could be blown into the stratosphere. None of these options is currently operational, and further research is needed to determine their feasibility
.

I will add more excerpts/pictures at a later time but I have to go.  You can view the PDF for yourself, but be sure to download/print/burn/transfer/etc, In case it gets taken down.

Offline able

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,069
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2010, 11:32:35 PM »
forgive me for noticing but are they sort of admitting that it is in fact solar radiation that is the cause of global warming/cooling??? ow thats right they cant tax us for something that is totally out of our hands... i will be quiet now.
my kids are not cannon fodder for the n.w.o!

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2010, 02:26:31 AM »
Prison Planet article by Jurriaan Maessen, Tuesday, September 7, 2010:
Climate Scientist: Manipulating Earth’s Climate Will Not Cost Taxpayer More than $1 Billion… Annually!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-scientist-manipulating-earths-climate-will-not-cost-taxpayer-more-than-1-billion-annually.html?_login=7001b99e56/

David Keith is the subject of that article, and here is his testimony before congress:
(It can be found at: http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2010/Energy/4feb/Keith_Testimony.pdf)


TEXT FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PDF FILE WITH ITEMS OF EMPHASIS IN BOLD RED:

Learning to manage sunlight: Research needs for Solar Radiation Management

Testimony before the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the US House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology.

4 February 2010

David Keith


Two kinds of geoengineering
Geoengineering describes two distinct concepts. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) describes a set of tools for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, while Solar Radiation Management (SRM) would reduce the Earth‘s absorption of solar energy, cooling the planet by, for example, adding sulfur aerosols to the upper atmosphere or adding sea salt aerosols to increase the lifetime and reflectivity of low-altitude clouds.
We must make deep cuts in global emissions of carbon dioxide to manage the risks of climate change. While emissions reductions are necessary, they are not necessarily sufficient. Emission cuts alone may be insufficient because even if we could halt all carbon emissions today, the climate risks they pose would persist for millennia—by some measures, the climate impact of carbon emissions persists longer than nuclear waste. Moreover, the climatic response to elevated carbon dioxide concentration is uncertain, so a small risk of catastrophic impacts exists even at today‘s concentration.
Technologies for decarbonizing the energy system, from solar or nuclear power to the capture of CO2 from the flue gases of coal-fired power plants, can cut emissions—allowing us to limit our future commitment to warming—but they cannot reduce the climate risk posed by the carbon we have already added to the air, and that risk grows as each ton of emissions drive up the atmospheric carbon burden.
Risk management is at the heart of climate policy: planning our response around our current estimate of the most likely outcome is reckless. We must hope for the best while laying plans to navigate the worst.
SRM and CDR do different things. SRM is cheap and can act quickly to cool the planet, but it introduces novel environmental and security risks and can—at best—only partially mask the environmental impacts of elevated carbon dioxide.
In concert with emissions cuts, CDR technologies can reduce the carbon burden in the atmosphere; one might call it global climate remediation. We need a means to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations in order to manage the long-run risks of climate change. Unless we can remove CO2 from the air faster than nature does, we will consign the earth to a warmer future for millennia or commit ourselves to the risks of sustained SRM.
But, carbon removal can only make a difference if we capture carbon by the gigaton. The shear scale of the carbon challenge means that CDR will always be relatively slow and expensive.
SRM and CDR each provide a means to manage climate risks; they are, however, wholly distinct with respect to the science and technology required to develop, test and deploy them; their costs and environmental risks; and, the challenges they pose for public policy and governance.
Because these technologies have little in common, I suggest that we will have a better chance to craft sensible policy if we treat them separately.
In the spirit of disclosure, I offer a few comments about my own work. I run Carbon Engineering, a startup company that aims to develop industrial scale technologies for capturing CO2 from the air. I will be happy to answer questions about these technologies, but I will focus my remarks on SRM because I believe that is where there is the most urgent need for action that links the development of a research program to progress on learning how to manage this potentially dangerous technology.
Because of the serious and legitimate concerns raised by the enormous leverage SRM technologies grant us over the global climate, I think it is crucial that development of these technologies be managed in a way that is as transparent as possible. I therefore do no commercial or proprietary work on SRM.
The primary argument against research on SRM is fear that it will reduce the political will to lower greenhouse gas emissions. I believe that the risks of not doing research outweigh the risks of doing it. Solar-radiation management may be the only response that can fend off unlikely but rapid and high-consequence climate impacts. Further, there are environmental and geopolitical risks posed by the potential of unilateral deployment of SRM, which can best be managed by developing widely-shared knowledge, risk assessment, and norms of governance.
The idea of deliberately manipulating the Earth‘s energy balance to offset human-driven climate change strikes many as dangerous hubris. It is a healthy sign that a common first response to geoengineering is revulsion. It suggests we have learned something from past instances of over-eager technological optimism and subsequent failures. But we must also avoid over-interpreting this past experience. Responsible management of climate risks requires sharp emissions cuts and clear-eyed research and assessment of SRM capability. The two are not in opposition. We are currently doing neither; action is urgently needed on both.


An overview of solar radiation management
SRM has three essential characteristics: it is cheap, fast, and imperfect. Long-established estimates show that SRM could offset this century‘s global-average temperature rise a few hundred times more cheaply than achieving the same cooling by emission cuts. This is because such a tiny mass is required: a few grams of sulfate particles in the stratosphere can offset the radiative forcing of a ton of atmospheric carbon dioxide. At a few $1000 a ton for aerosol delivery to the stratosphere that adds up to a figure in the order of $10 billion dollars per year to provide a cooling that—however crudely—counteracts the heating from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
This low price tag is attractive, but raises the risks of single groups acting alone and of facile cheerleading that promotes exclusive reliance on SRM.
SRM can alter the global climate within months – as shown by the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, which cooled the globe about 0.5 C in less than a year. In contrast, because of the carbon cycle‘s inertia, even a massive program of emission cuts or carbon dioxide removal will take many decades to discernibly slow global warming.
A world cooled by managing sunlight will not be the same as one cooled by lowering emissions. An SRM-cooled world would have less precipitation and less evaporation. Some areas would be more protected from temperature changes than others, creating local winners and losers. SRM could weaken monsoon rains and winds. It would not combat ocean acidification or other carbon dioxide-driven ecosystem changes and would introduce other environmental risks such as delaying the recovery of the ozone hole. Initial studies suggest that known risks are small, but the possibility of unanticipated risks remains a serious underlying concern.
Cheap, fast and imperfect: each of these essential characteristics has profound implications for public policy. Because SRM is imperfect, it cannot replace emissions cuts. If we let emissions grow and rely solely on SRM to limit warming, these problems will eventually grow to pose risks comparable to the risks of uncontrolled emissions. Because SRM is cheap, even a small county could act alone, a fact that poses hard and novel challenges for international security. Finally, because SRM appears to be the only fast-acting method of slowing global warming it may be a powerful tool to manage the risks of unexpectedly dangerous climate outcomes.


Towards Solar Radiation Management research plan
The capacity to implement SRM cannot simply be assumed. It must be developed, tested, and assessed. Research to date has largely consisted of a handful of climate model studies, using very simple parameterizations of aerosol microphysics. More complex models of aerosol physics need to be developed and linked to global climate models. Field tests will be needed, such as experiments generating and tracking stratospheric aerosols to block sunlight and dispersing sea-salt aerosols to brighten marine clouds. Decades of upper atmosphere research has produced a mass of relevant science. But, except for a recent ill-conceived Russian test, there have been no field tests of SRM.  There has been no dedicated government research funding available for SRM anywhere in the world; though, a few programs for have begun in Europe in the past few months.
The environmental hazards of SRM cannot be assessed without knowing the specific techniques that might be used, and it is impossible to identify and develop techniques without field testing. Such tests can be small: tonnes not megatonnes.
It is widely assumed, for example, that a suitable distribution of stratospheric sulfate aerosols can be produced by releasing SO2 in the stratosphere, but new simulations of aerosol micro-physics suggest the resultant aerosol size distribution would be skewed to large particles that are relatively ineffective. Several aerosol compositions and delivery methods may offer a way around this problem, but choosing between them and assessing their environmental impacts will require small-scale in-situ testing.
To provide a specific example related to my own work, NASA‘s ER-2 high-altitude research plane might be used to release a ton of sulfuric acid vapor along a 10 km plume in the stratosphere, and fly through the plume to assess the formation of aerosol and its sun scattering ability and its impact on ozone chemistry. Such tests take a few years to plan and cost a few million dollars.
An international research budget growing from roughly $10 million to $1 billion annually over this decade would likely be sufficient to build the capability to deploy SRM and greatly improve understanding of its risks.
It is important to start slowly. Research programs can fail if they get too much money too quickly. Given the limited scientific community now knowledgeable about SRM, a very rapid buildup of research funding might result in a lot of ill-conceived projects being funded and, given the inherently controversial nature of the technology, the result might be a backlash that effectively ends systematic research.
The US will need an interagency research program, because no single agency has the right combination of abilities to manage the whole program. For example, NSF‘s processes for transparent peer-review and investigator driven funding will be important in effectively supporting the diversity of critical analysis that is necessary on such an inherently controversial topic. But NSF is perhaps less suited to manage the larger mission oriented programs that link technology development and science.
NASA has some institutional history and abilities that may be particularly relevant to stratospheric SRM. The high-speed research program, for example, linked scientific efforts to understand the impacts a supersonic transport fleet on the ozone layer with technology development aimed to minimize those impacts. The management and research assets used in this program could serve as the foundation of a program to develop and test technologies for delivering stratospheric aerosols. But NASA is less suited to fostering diverse early-stage science.

DOE‘s Office of Science has a record managing large programs and DOE has a relevant track record with its Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program. But SRM is not at its core an energy problem and there will be difficulties fitting it into the DOE structure.
Finally, the inherently controversial nature of SRM research makes it particularly important that it not be entrusted exclusively to either its proponents or its adversaries. The development of an interagency program may help to foster the necessary diversity. Indeed, there may be value in a ―blue team/red team‖ approach, as sometimes used for military preparedness planning. One team is charged to make an approach as effective and low-risk as possible, while the other works to identify all the ways it can fail. Anticipating the conditions of urgency, even panic, that might attend a future decision to deploy SRM, such an adversarial approach may increase the quality and utility of information available in time to aid future decision-makers.


Concluding thoughts
Although risk of climate emergencies may motivate SRM research, it would be reckless to conduct the first large-scale SRM tests in an emergency. Instead, experiments should expand gradually to scales big enough to produce barely detectable climate effects and reveal unexpected problems, yet small enough to limit resultant risks. Our ability to detect the climatic response to SRM grows with the test‘s duration, so starting sooner makes the scale of experiment needed to give detectable results by any future date—say by 2030—smaller. A later start delays when results are known, or requires a bigger intervention in order to detect the response.
Beyond research, building responsibly toward future SRM capability also requires surmounting problems of international governance that are hard, and novel. These are quite unlike the problems of emissions mitigation, where the main governance challenge is motivating contributions to a costly shared goal. For SRM, the main problem will be establishing legitimate collective control over an activity that some might seek to do unilaterally. Such a unilateral challenge could arise in many forms and from many quarters. At one extreme, a state might simply decide that avoiding climate-change impacts on its people takes precedence over environmental concerns of SRM and begin injecting sulfur into the stratosphere, with no prior risk assessment or international consultation. If this were a small state, it could be quickly stopped by great-power intervention. If it were a major state, that might not be possible.
Alternatively a nation might grow frustrated at the pace of international cooperation and establish a national program of gradually expanding research and field tests. This might be linked to a distinguished international advisory board, including leading scientists and retired politicians of global stature. It is plausible that, after exhausting other avenues to limit climate risks, such a nation might decide to begin a gradual, well-monitored program of SRM deployment, even absent any international agreement on its regulation. In this case, one nation—which need not be a large and rich industrialized country — would effectively seize the initiative on global climate, making it extremely difficult for other powers to restrain it.
No existing treaty or institution is well suited to SRM governance. Given current uncertainties immediate negotiation of a treaty is probably not advisable. Hasty pursuit of international regulation would risk locking in commitments that might soon be seen as wrong-headed, such as a total ban on research or testing, or burdensome vetting of even innocuous research projects.
A better approach would be to build international cooperation and norms from the bottom up, as knowledge and experience develop—as has occurred in cases as diverse as the development of technical standards for communications technology to the landmine treaty which emerged bottom-up from action by NGOs. A first step might be a transparent, loosely-coordinated international program supporting research and risk assessments by multiple independent teams. Simultaneously, informal consultations on risk assessment, acceptability, regulation, and governance could engage broad groups of experts and stakeholders such as former government officials and NGO leaders. Iterative links between emerging governance and ongoing scientific and technical research would be the core of this bottom-up approach.
Opinions about SRM are changing rapidly. Only a few years ago, many scientists opposed open discussion of the topic. Many now support model-based research, but discussion of field testing of the sort we advocate here is contentious and will likely grow more so. The main argument against SRM research is that it would undermine already-inadequate resolve to cut emissions. I am keenly aware of this 'moral hazard' —indeed I introduced the term into the geoengineering literature—but I am skeptical that suppressing SRM research would in fact raise commitment to mitigation. Indeed, with the possibility of SRM now widely recognized, failing to subject it to serious research and risk assessment may well pose the greater threat to mitigation efforts, by allowing implicit reliance on SRM without critical scrutiny of its actual requirements, limitations, and risks. If SRM proves to be unworkable or poses unacceptable risks, the sooner we know the less moral hazard it poses; if it is effective, we gain a useful additional tool to limit climate damages.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2010, 03:07:34 AM »
Blast from the past:



NEWSWEEK is promoting CFR's Chemtrails and RAINING SULFUR ON CIVILIANS!

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=149727.0



According to the Council on Foreign Relations, one kilogram of sulfur could offset the effect of several hundred thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide. Potential downsides: regional ozone depletion, shifts in weather patterns, drought.




Newsweek = Luce = Project Mockingbird = Skull and Bones = Bilderberg = CFR

CFR = Bilderberg = Rockefeller = Cheney = Harriman = Skull and Bones

Carnegie Institution = Bilderberg = Bohemian Grove = Project Mockingbird = Eugenics

RAINING SULFUR!!!!!!!!!

RAINING SULFUR!!!!!!!!!!!

OMFG, They are actually promoting raining sulfur!!!!!!!!!!

EXPOSE THIS SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2010, 03:22:47 AM »
Also do a search on John P Holdren and Ecoscience. He is one of the biggest promoters of geoengineering which is why he is the science czar in the Obama admin.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showtopic=6830



Direct Download PDF (236MB): Ecoscience - John P. Holdren

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #12 on: September 08, 2010, 03:54:15 AM »
Climate geoengineering is hardcore Problem-Reaction-Solution.

Scientists know darn well that injecting SO2 into the atmosphere will cause acid rain, even though in their geoengineering white papers they downplay it.

When forests, agriculture, buildings, etc. get severely damaged from the acid rain, the globalist propagandists won't mention the Solar Radiation Management "experiment", but instead will blame your Dodge Ram or Chevy Suburban for it.  SRM will be dismissed by the dinosaur media as UFO/tin-hat/JFK "conspiracy thwewy" and you'll have to ride the cybernetic train to the death camp, because your personal automobile caused the acid rain.

So let me get this straight, CO2 which plants breathe is toxic, but SO2 that causes acid rain is good for the atmosphere???

These scientists are potential mass murderers, and that faggy-a$$ dork David Keith needs to be put into Supermax or some other Federal institution, that eugenicist piece of garbage.  I would like to see La Eme or the A.B. get a hold of his a$$ in genpop!

Here's the CFR white paper, entitled Unilateral Geoengineering, that Dig was referring to:
http://www.cfr.org/content/thinktank/GeoEng_041209.pdf

It's typical geoengineering proposals such as SO2 injections in the stratosphere to mock Mt. Pinatubo, cloud whitening, seawater sprayer, chemtrail spraying of aluminum particles, space mirrors, etc.  but this one is very disturbing and environmental groups should be up in arms over this following excerpt:

Quote
Land Cover Modification
A few large continental nations might be able to produce significant changes in planetary
albedo through massive modifications in land cover. This would entail replacing dark
forest cover with much lighter and more reflective cover such as grass lands or steppe
.
For example, an assessment by Gordon Bonan and colleagues* found that when they
removed the boreal forest in a coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model run by the
National Center for Atmospheric Research, air temperature was 12°C at 60°N in April
and were still as much as 5°C colder in July. These impacts resulted from large open
expanses of snow cover. Once the trees had been removed, minor changes in land cover
such as the growth of tundra, had little effect.
Of course a strategy of land cover modification would have massive ecological impacts
and be far more expensive than injecting fine particles into the stratosphere. It could
however be undertaken within the boundaries of at least a few states that are well endowed
with large expanses of dark landscapes.


*footnote: 10 G. B. Bonan, , et al., "Effects of boreal forest vegetation on global climate," Nature, 359, 716-718, 1992.[/font]

Offline XR500Final2

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2010, 06:50:25 AM »
Won't be happy until the earth is uninhabitable...  Then they will feel smugly happy in their own indignant selfish goal that their 'science' was correct at the expense of the lives of millions upon milions who would perish from the reduced food production from putting Sulfur Dioxide into the atmostphere...

And the first rule of the government who is accountable to no one is to do it, then talk about it after in its 'white' papers...

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2010, 07:19:07 AM »
Direct Download PDF (236MB): Ecoscience - John P. Holdren

Thanks for that!!!
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline Femacamper

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,973
  • PUTIN HACKED MY MIND!
    • TRUNEWS
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2010, 11:18:31 AM »
Isn't that the stuff that makes acid rain?

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #16 on: September 08, 2010, 12:35:08 PM »
Short 2 minute video on German laboratory that analyzes rain samples in the Black Forest.

http://www.5min.com/Video/Environmental-Issues-Acid-Rain-1354359

SO2 is the main culprit causing the below 7 pH.

While SO2 does come from emissions from industry and automobiles, it will be multiplied exponentially once SRM is fully deployed.  If you think chemtrails are bad now, you haven't seen nothing yet, because SRM will darken the sky everyday.  Blue skies will be non-existent. This is why I call for these climate scientists to be arrested for conspiracy to commit mass murder.

The Nuremberg (show) trial sentenced Nazi scientists to hanging or imprisonment for carrying out horrific unethical experiments, and I believe these climate scientists should meet the same fate.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #17 on: September 09, 2010, 03:33:42 AM »
WHOIS David Keith?

David Keith admitted in the aforementioned Congressional testimony that:
Quote
In the spirit of disclosure, I offer a few comments about my own work. I run Carbon Engineering, a startup company that aims to develop industrial scale technologies for capturing CO2 from the air. I will be happy to answer questions about these technologies, but I will focus my remarks on SRM because I believe that is where there is the most urgent need for action that links the development of a research program to progress on learning how to manage this potentially dangerous technology.

I googled "Carbon Engineering" and so far got poor results.  His homepage: carbonengineering.com has only one statement:

"An Independent Angel-funded company developing technologies for industrial scale capture of CO2 from ambient air"




Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #18 on: September 09, 2010, 05:42:39 PM »
I remember the old joke in public school math class, was "when are we going to use this in 'real life'"?

Well, after reading this white paper, you'll understand why Calculus was important (even if geoengineering is unethical, and the IPCC is engaged in scientific fraud {see as climategate}):
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/2559/2009/acpd-9-2559-2009-print.pdf


Excerpt from the report:

Offline zdux0012

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #19 on: September 10, 2010, 03:10:16 AM »



If you really are interested in chemtrails then,, I beg of you to do the following:

1) get web cam
2) get friend on opposite side of town to get web cam
3) stop motion photography
4) using gps, triangulation, google maps, start to physically record when / where these things are

if you need help setting this up please pm me
Get off of Windows / Mac!! You are not safe.
Get an OS you can trust. Linux, Free BSD. Ask for help!

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #20 on: September 10, 2010, 10:11:17 PM »
Meet Phil Rasch:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=phil+rasch&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

He is the author of this powerpoint presentation (converted to PDF format):
http://www.ucar.edu/governance/meetings/oct08/followup/head_and_chairs/phil_rasch.pdf

Excerpts from his presentation:





LOL, he quotes hardcore eugenicist George Bernard Shaw "tongue firmly in cheek".  Of course George Bernard Shaw was a "geoengineer before his time"






I will leave you off with a scary George Bernard Shaw speech (only 40 seconds long).  Don't watch before going to bed lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WBRjU9P5eo&feature=related





Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2010, 10:36:32 PM »
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/workshops/10JunClimate/McBride.pdf

Screenshot of a slide from the above link (*highlighted by me for emphasis*):



I find it ironic that this particular commander lists "geoengineering" as a "wild card" and as a "concern".

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: 1000s of geoengineering (chemtrail) documents exposed!!!
« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2010, 02:35:24 PM »
During Today's interview with Alex Jones, Joe Rogan and Eddie Bravo, they were talking about the chemtrail patent.

Here it is here:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=151971.0


Offline ghost hacked

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Watching you watching me!
    • o.h.m.
Re: 1000s of Geoengineering/Chemtrail Documents Exposed!
« Reply #23 on: November 26, 2010, 10:51:41 AM »
Thanks for the tips.

However, I've already made the connection before I read this thread. I started searching for aerosol and geoengineering (and then you can search by country) and find quite a bit of info.

Here are some examples I had.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2944714/
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/09/02/1009519107.full.pdf
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/geo.html
http://www.atm.helsinki.fi/FAAR/reportseries/rs-109/abstracts/A-I%20Partanen.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL043975.shtml
'We play the game with the bravery of being out of range.' - Roger Waters

Offline phasma

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,197
  • Have a H.A.A.R.P.Y DAY !
Re: 1000s of Geoengineering/Chemtrail Documents Exposed!
« Reply #24 on: November 26, 2010, 06:16:48 PM »
forgive me for noticing but are they sort of admitting that it is in fact solar radiation that is the cause of global warming/cooling??? ow thats right they cant tax us for something that is totally out of our hands... i will be quiet now.

They know it is, they just hope we will all be too busy ewatching x factor or similar to notice ! Thanks for the search terms!

Use

site:.mil "search term" for only military docs
Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise - Surangama Sutra

Offline ghost hacked

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Watching you watching me!
    • o.h.m.
Re: 1000s of Geoengineering/Chemtrail Documents Exposed!
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2010, 03:41:30 PM »
I have a very good understanding of sufure dioxide emissions. Originaly from Sudbury Ontario, where we have two mining conglomerates that have been spitting out this shit for decades. You want to see what it does to the environment is very evident. The vegitation around the city was dying all around (logging, developement and mining) so the Super Stack was built to throw the SO2 higher and farther hoping to disperse it.

When you breathe this shit you get an itchy feeling in the back of your throad similar to a cold. It's a pretty distinct smell/taste.

So now and then over the past couple years I have had days where I am experieincing just this. However I no longer live in Sudbury, I have been in Ottawa for the last 14 years.

This does nasty stuff to car paint. That is why there is a thing called a 'fallout claim' from insurance companies that will allow you to get the car repainted because of what the fallout does to the paint. Imagine what this does to soft organic material??!???!?!?

I can't quite describe the smell but you can sure as hell taste it and feel it in your throat.
'We play the game with the bravery of being out of range.' - Roger Waters