Friday, 12 January 2018

Reflections on geoengineering

Solar radiation management –now or in the future?
Some reflections

Image result for solar management geoengineering chemtrails

Going back a few years to when I first started this blog I explored the whole area of geoengineering and chemtrails. I pulled right back when I realised that the people pushing this with the intensity of religious zealots were in the main climate change deniers who were telling me (mostly on social media) “don’t look there; look over here”.

The aggression and vocifereousness of these folks was more than a minor irritant when I was trying to tell people about abrupt and catastrophic climate change.  In this context I refused (and still refuse) to talk about Agenda 21 and a conspiracy to depopulate the planet. I started to purge my timeline of these people aggressively pushing this message.

As it becomes more and more obvious that time’s up for this species and we are on the way out and “faster than previously expected” it matters less to me what was the cause of this.  When we have dozens of positive feedbacks and nature itself has become a source of greenhouse gasses (as in massive wildfires in the tropical rain forest and boreal foirests, not to mention the release of methane into the atmosphere, something more potent than all the pollutants that historically gave rise to the accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere).

It falls to me now to chronicle the accelerating process rather than follow every article with “faster (and greater) than previously expected”. The important thing to me is that is where we are, and despite the disinformation and lies from the likes of the IPCC and ‘bought and paid for scientists” like Michael Mann the truth is unassailable.

Yesterday I felt so sick that, purely as a distraction I listened to an interview of Dane Wigington of Geoengineering Watch by Lionel.  With that combination I was expecting an insane denial of anthropogenic global warming of the type I had become used to.  

I have to say that I was surprised. I found Mr.Wigington to be not at all unhinged but quite sober, and he did have an argument to make.

First and foremost he was not denying the greenhouse effect, but rather saying that human beings are on the way out and that essentially it was too late.  Far from the Agenda 21 argument of lizards out to destroy us he was saying something far more devastating. Boiled down to its essentials he was saying that we have been subject to a multi-decade experiment in using weather modification in an effort to reverse the greenhouse effect and that that has been an abject failure and has made things much worse.

You can hear the interview here.

I am quite capable of looking at evidence and making up my own mind on various things and can recognise when people have an argument.

One thing I do is to look at the arguments people use when trying to debunk an idea or theory. Often they provide no (or little) evidence, but instead (in this case an establishment scientist) rely on their authority to inform us - the uneducated hoy-polloy (sic)  - as to what 'Science' says (as if scientists speak with one voice), dismissing dissenting views as “conspiracy theory” (that usually does it for me!).

In the case of geoengineering’”chemtrails” it comes down to blanket assurances that these are 'just contrails'.  A more sophisticated argument, like that of Paul Beckwith, is that changes in the atmosphere have changed the way contrails behave, and they persist longer in the atmosphere.

That is what I call a partial explanation.

Mr. Wigington says that chemtrails are that way because of the presence of particulates such as aluminium, barium etc.

As someone who has become seriouslly-ill because of previous exposure to dangerous pesticide toxins I am very concerned with the health aspects of this.

Thus far no one has come up,with a serious explanation of why, for example, we are seeing such an astronomical increase in the levels of aluminium (which directly contributes to Alzheimers which in itself has seen an astronomical rise) in the environment.

In my mind this is reminiscent of attempts to “debunk” Guy McPherson and his well-reasoned arguments by ignoring all the evidence,  and dismissing his arguments by throwing out some statement of a personal nature, such Michael Mann's recent attack on him. 

The western scientific method (and western thought in general) for all its achievements has one major weakness, and that is reductionism. Everything has to be reduced to one cause. You can’t have more than one factor acting itself out at the same time. Either you have anthropogenic climate change or you have weather modification. You can’t, allegedly, have both.

But nature isn’t at all like that. Causation is only linear in the human mind. We take an action with an intended consequence, or set of consequences in mind. But in reality, our actions can have endless unintended consequences (including the greenhouse effect itself) - involving not only linear, local connections but non-local connections as well.

Even in the human sphere there can be numerous things happening at once.

I cannot understand why those who rule the universe (the powers-that-be), having seen that we have a potential runaway greenhouse effect, might not decide to use weather modification (or "solar radiation management") to try and reverse it.

For example, if they decided to put out the California fires by  manipulating the weather to create a downpour, would we expect them to tell us (especially if it involved many deaths)?

As Guy McPherson points out, if they were carrying out geoengineering for the purpose of mitigating global warming, it has been an unmitigated failure.  Not only that, but once you start you are condemned to use it FOREVER, otherwise we will get massive warming in a very short period of time, the scenario pointed out in the BBC documentary in Global Dimming.

We all know that those in charge, if confronted by abject failure, will never admit it and  try to limit the effects of what they have wrought, but will instead double down with more of the same. It's all a case of “damned if you do and damned if you don't.”

My question is:  why can both things not be happening at the same time? 

I am not making a case for anthropogenic climate change VERSUS chemtrails, or even making a case that chemtrails and that whole narrative is true, but rather reflecting on the possibility that in the real world they may not be so incompatible as is made out by both sides.

In looking through this one thing that interested me was that America and Canada at the very least have an inter-government Agreement on Weather Modification which seems to contradict the contention that it is not already going on, but is only a proposal of a small group of mad scientists.

Agreement Between Canada and the United States of America Relating to the Exchange of Information on Weather Modification Activities

E103819 - CTS 1975 No. 11
The Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America,
Aware, because of their geographic proximity, that the effects of weather modification activities carried out by either Party or its nationals may affect the territory of the other;
Noting the diversity of weather modification activities in both Canada and the United States by private parties, by State and Provincial authorities, and by the Federal Governments;
Believing that the existing state of knowledge warrants the expectation of further development over a period of time in the science and technology of weather modification;
Taking into particular consideration the special traditions of prior notification and consultation and the close cooperation that have historically characterized their relations;
Believing that a prompt exchange of pertinent information regarding the nature and extent of weather modification activities of mutual interest may facilitate the development of the technology of weather modification for their mutual benefit;
Recognizing the desirability of the development of international law relating to weather modification activities having transboundary effects;
Have agreed as follows:

Article I

As used in this Agreement:
  1. "Weather modification activities", means activities performed with the intention of producing artificial changes in the composition, behaviour, or dynamics of the atmosphere;
  2. "Weather modification activities of mutual interest" means weather modification activities carried out in or over the territory of a Party within 200 miles of the international boundary; or such activities wherever conducted, which, in the judgment of a Party, may significantly affect the composition, behaviour, or dynamics of the atmosphere over the territory of the other Party;
  3. "Responsible agencies" means the Atmospheric Environment Service of Canada and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States, or such other agencies as the Parties may designate;
  4. "Reporting requirements" means the requirements established by the domestic laws or regulations of the Parties for reporting to the responsible agencies information relating to weather modification activities by persons or entities engaged in weather modification.

Article II

  1. Information relating to weather modification activities of mutual interest acquired by a responsible agency through its reporting requirements or otherwise, shall be transmitted as soon as practicable to the responsible agency of the other Party. Whenever possible, this information shall be transmitted prior to the commencement of such activities. It is anticipated that such information will be transmitted within five working days of its receipt by a responsible agency.
  2. Information to be provided by the responsible agencies shall include copies of relevant reports received through the reporting procedures after the effective date of this Agreement, and such other information and interpretation as the responsible agency might consider appropriate.
  3. Nothing herein shall be construed to require transmission to the other responsible agency of information, the disclosure of which is prohibited by law, or of information which, in the judgment of the responsible agency, is proprietary information.

Article III

The responsible agencies shall consult with a view to developing compatible reporting formats, and to improving procedures for the exchange of information.

Article IV

In addition to the exchange of information pursuant to Article II of this Agreement, each Party agrees to notify and to fully inform the other concerning any weather modification activities of mutual interest conducted by it prior to the commencement of such activities. Every effort shall be made to provide such notice as far in advance of such activities as may be possible, bearing in mind the provisions of Article V of this Agreement.

Article V

The Parties agree to consult, at the request of either Party, regarding particular weather modification activities of mutual interest. Such consultations shall be initiated promptly on the request of a Party, and in cases of urgency may be undertaken through telephonic or other rapid means of communication. Consultations shall be carried out in light of the Parties' laws, regulations, and administrative practices regarding weather modification.

Article VI

The Parties recognize that extreme emergencies, such as forest fires, may require immediate commencement by one of them of weather modification activities of mutual interest notwithstanding the lack of sufficient time for prior notification pursuant to Article IV, or for consultation pursuant to Article V. In such cases, the Party commencing such activities shall notify and fully inform the other Party as soon as practicable, and shall promptly enter into consultations at the request of the other Party.

Article VII

Nothing herein relates to or shall be construed to affect the question of responsibility or liability for weather modification activities, or to imply the existence of any generally applicable rule of international law.

Article VIII

Each Party shall conduct an annual review of this Agreement while it remains in force, and shall inform the other of its views regarding the Agreement's operation and effectiveness and the desirability of its amendment to reflect the evolution of the science and technology of weather modification and of international law. The Parties shall meet periodically, by mutual agreement, or at the request of either, to review the implementation of this Agreement or to consider other issues related to weather modification.

Article IX

This Agreement shall enter into force upon signature. It may be amended by mutual agreement of the Parties and may be terminated by either Party upon six months written notice to the other Party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Representatives of the two Governments have signed this Agreement.
DONE in duplicate at Washington this twenty sixth day of March 1975 in English and French, each version being equally authentic.
Jeanne Sauvé
For the Government of Canada
Christian A. Herter
For the Government of the United States of America

For me the reality of abrupt and catastrophic climate change is not even open to question. But when I am confronted by the likes of Michael Mann and many others telling us that climate change is real but that we have all the time in the world to fix it, I actually feel some sympathy towards the likes of this woman who is an abject climate change denier. Both are wrong, wrong, wrong.  

But I know who has the purer motivation and it ain’t MIchael Mann.

I’ll tell you that for free.

P.S. Here are Guy McPherson's reflections on geoengineering

Geoengineering, Real and Imagined

No comments:

Post a Comment