A CNBC video asks why Bill Gates is funding solar geoengineering research

Mainstream Media Coverage 
Of Climate Engineering, 
What Is The Agenda?

Dane Wigington
GeoengineeringWatch.org

Imagine the whole of academia pretending the ongoing geoengineering operations we see in our skies are not really there. Imagine the vast majority of populations blindly accepting the official denial of climate engineering, and thus completely ignoring what they can easily see occurring with their own eyes.

Mainstream media (CNBC) has recently produced a video on the critical issue of climate engineering. Not surprisingly, there are a numerous deceptions woven into the video message, starting with the title itself.

 "Why Bill Gates Is Funding Solar Geoengineering Research"

Bill Gates is nothing more than a prop in the elaborate power structure disinformation campaign on the climate engineering issue. Though Gates may in fact be contributing to the "SCoPEx" climate engineering experiment, the experiment itself is also nothing more than an orchestrated distraction from the ongoing global climate engineering operations that have been deployed for approximately 74 years (over a decade longer than Bill Gates has even been alive).

New released CNBC video on geoengineering:

Inarguable footage of a geoengineering jet aircraft spray dispersion is revealed in the 2 minute video below.

The CNBC video deceptions continue:

#1 The video states that climate engineering "could" cause a long list of downstream consequences.

There is no "could, may, or might", the consequences of the ongoing global climate engineering assault are far beyond incalculable already, and continue to manifest by the day. Of course, the CNBC video makes no mention of the complete contamination of the biosphere (and thus the air we breath) from the highly toxic climate engineering fallout).

#2 That over two thirds of the population would support the use of goengineering.

Such a conclusion is completely deceptive. Survey questions, which completely omit the most relevant facts regarding the true danger and devastation that climate engineering is already causing, cannot be considered an accurate measure of public opinion. Of over 1500 scientists surveyed, NONE were willing to deny the ongoing climate engineering reality on the record (including Professor Alan Robock who was featured in the new CNBC geoengineering disinformation video).

#3 Geoengineering technology is "cheap". 

This conclusion is deception on an unimaginable scale. First, the claims for the needed scale of climate engineering deployment are a small fraction of the scale on which climate engineering has long since already been deployed. Next, and most importantly, the scale of destruction climate engineering has long since inflicted on the biosphere, human health, and the entire web of life, is nowhere named by the CNBC propaganda video.

#4 The "Keith Group" will be the first to conduct a geoengineering experiment.

Again, to even make such a claim is truly alarming. The ongoing climate engineering operations being conducted by jet aircraft in skies all over the world could not be more obvious and inarguable. The SCoPEx project is nothing more than a form of intentional public mass distraction and deception.

#5 "No existing aircraft can inject particles into the Stratosphere". 

First, the elevation of the Stratosphere in the polar regions can be as low as 24,000 feet. All jet aircraft can far exceed that altitude including heavily loaded military jet tanker aircraft. Next, the vast majority of the clearly visible jet aircraft particulate spraying is occurring in the Troposphere.

#6 "Nozzles still need to be designed which can continuously blast out trillions of particles".

Yet another complete deception from CNBC. 

Retrofit spray nozzles are absolutely located on the wing pylons of most commercial carrier jet aircraft

, and on military tankers. These nozzles are aimed directly into the jet exhaust stream to make the dispersion look like "condensation". The "condensation trail" lie is perhaps the biggest deception ever perpetrated on populations around the world. ALL commercial aircraft and ALL military tankers are fitted with a "high bypass turbofan" jet engine. This engine is a jet powered fan which by design is nearly incapable of producing any condensation trail except under increasingly rare and extreme circumstances.

#7 "Scientists still need to decide what chemicals to spray".

View the 4 minute video below to see Dr. David Keith (head of the Keith Group and the SCoPEx geoengineering experiment) state in his own words the advantages of using aluminum nanoparticulates as a primary geoengineering / solar radiation management material. 10 million tones was the suggested annual atmospheric dispersion amount.

#8 "The uncertainty of climate engineering impacts is holding back deployment".

Is it rational to believe that the military industrial complex cares about the consequences of their actions? Is it rational to believe that the military industrial complex would ask for public acceptance and permission before deploying climate engineering operations? Climate engineering is a matter of historical record, this is not opinion, speculation, or conjecture. It is important to remember and consider that the top US military leadership has long since stated on the record that the collapsing climate is the greatest national security threat of all.

#9 "Geoengineering will require international cooperation".

Numerous historical government documents prove that international cooperation has long since been in place regarding the ongoing climate engineering assault. An almost 800 page US senate document is but one example. Click HERE to view the document with the most relevant sections already highlighted by GeoengineeringWatch.org. 

#10 "Geoengineering should only be deployed if we have to".

Again, this is the the criminal deception being propagated by the whole of academia, official sources, and power structure controlled media, that geoengineering might someday have to be used. Climate engineering is not just a dangerous proposal, but has long since been a lethal reality.

#11 "Within a couple decades, for better or worse, geoengineering could be part of the solution to return the planet to pre-industrial temperatures".

After over 70 years of ongoing global climate engineering operations (at an ever increasing scale), are global temperatures going down? The short answer is no. In the dangerous attempt to mask rising global temperatures from populations (in order to maintain business as usual for as long as possible), climate engineering has worsened the overall climate collapse scenario we face, not mitigated it. Climate engineering has also been utilized as a covert weapon of war for decades. This is not an opinion, it is a verifiable fact.

How desperate are the climate engineers? The video report below is a shocking case in point.

Climate and environmental collapse are unfolding with blinding speed all over the world. Will populations wake up to the ongoing global climate engineering operations in time to make a difference? Waking a critical mass of the population up to the climate engineering reality is the first and most important leap forward in the battle to halt the climate engineering assault. Share credible data from a credible source, make your voice heard, make every day count.
DW

Jim Lee on the history of geoengineering

In the search for actual evidence on geoengineering I have discovered the work of Jim Lee.

He has set up a webpage called weather modification history which has gathered all the resources – newspaper articles, patents, videos all in one place in a rather impressive manne.

I have decided to use this holiday break to step back temporarily from my usual subjects and look at the evidence for this and the existence of UFO’s.

Here is the latest from Jim Lee

Stratospheric Controlled 

Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx) StratoCruiser

 SPRING 2019

December 5, 2018 By Evan Barnard

Originally proposed by Bill Gates’ company Intellectual Ventures, the StratoShield has been renamed the StratoCruiser and a team funded by Bill Gates’ FICER, Harvard’s Solar Geoengineering Program Research Program, the Hewlett Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and other philanthropists are planning on the world’s largest experiment in dimming the sun.

This experiment is designed to mimic volcanic eruptions by spraying sulfur into the stratosphere to cool the planet, a geoengineering solar radiation managment (SRM) technique known as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). David Keith and Frank Keutsch plan to test the equipment by spraing water, then move on to spraying calcium and eventually sulfur.

Stratospheric sulfur injections is the most often talked about way of mimicing the Mt. Pinatubo eruption which sent massive amounts of sulfur into the stratosphere and cooled the planet. When this happened, the Amazon basin almost dried up, and therein lies the largest problem with geoengineering schemes like this: they will change global rainfall patterns and create winners and losers…. losers being dead people.

The Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals (IAGP) and the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) computer models agree, the southern hemisphere will get dryer and the northern hemisphere will get wetter. This endangers the entire globe as it will lead to increased flooding and storm severity in the north and drought and famine in the south.

This is why 110 civic societies have proposed a permanent ban on geoengineering: The Hands Off Mother Earth manifesto. This manifesto is being presented at COP24 and also proposes putting a halt to Keith’s Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Exeperiment (SCoPEx. StratoCruiser).

In addition the the drawbacks mentioned above, please also check our Professor Alan Robock’s 27 reasons not to geoengineer. The concerns far outweigh the benefits and coating our skies in sunscreen should be banned and all research halted.

Their funding will come from Harvard internal funds and likely Harvard's Solar Geoengineering Program, which has raised money from Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, the Hewlett Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and other philanthropists. SCoPEx follows in the wake of several other solar geoengineering collaborations that have failed to pick up momentum, such as at the 2011 E-PEACE experiment out of the University of California, San Diego, and the SPICE collaboration in the U.K., which stalled in 2012. - "Helping Hand or Hubris?" APS

 Related

• Bill Gates Funds Geoengineering Research: FICER
• The Intellectual Ventures Stratoshield “Hose in the Sky”
• The Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies
• Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE)
• Harvard’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program
• Stratospheric Sulfur Geoengineering - Benefits and Risks
• Hands Off Mother Earth Manifesto: A Permanent Ban on Geoengineering

References

• "David Keith’s Sun Dimming Experiment SCoPEx Possibly Coming Spring 2019 - ALL THE FACTS" ClimateViewer News (2018)
• "David Keith’s StratoCruiser (SCoPEx) Geoengineering SRM Field Test" ClimateViewer News (2017)
• "Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx)" Keutsch Research Group, Harvard University (2018)
• "Current Geoengineering Attempts Briefing: SCoPEx" Geoengineering Monitor (2018)
• "StratoCruiser Flight System" American Physical Society (2018)
• Robock, Alan. "Stratospheric Sulfur Geoengineering - Benefits and Risks." 21st Conference on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification (2018)
• "Helping Hand or Hubris?" American Physical Society (2018)
• "Geoengineering Debate- David Keith responds to Chemtrails (admits Geoengineering will kill many tens of thousands of people)" MIT Joint Program, Science and Policy of Climate Change. YouTube Video (2017)

Lee cites Alan Robock who is an American climatologist from Rutgers University.

“Alan Robock (born 1949) is an American climatologist. He is currently Distinguished Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University, New Jersey.[1] He advocates nuclear disarmament and has met with Fidel Castro during a lecture trip to Cuba discuss the dangers of nuclear weapons. Alan Robock was a 2007 IPCC author, a member of the organisation when it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Robock

Stratospheric Sulfur Geoengineering—Benefits and Risks

Alan Robock

Wednesday, 10 January 2018: 8:45 AM

Room 16AB (ACC) (Austin, Texas)

Alan Robock, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ

Geoengineering, also called climate engineering, has been proposed to address global warming, involving “solar radiation management (SRM)” by injecting particles into the stratosphere, brightening clouds, or blocking sunlight with satellites between the Sun and Earth. (“Geoengineering” also refers to carbon dioxide reduction, a completely different proposed technology, with different costs and governance. It is not addressed here.) While volcanic eruptions have been suggested as innocuous examples of stratospheric aerosols cooling the planet, the volcano analog actually argues against stratospheric geoengineering because of ozone depletion and regional hydrologic responses. No such systems to conduct stratospheric geoengineering now exist, but a comparison of different proposed stratospheric injection schemes, using airplanes, balloons, and artillery, shows that using airplanes to put sulfur gases into the stratosphere would not be expensive. Nevertheless, it would be very difficult to create stratospheric sulfate particles with a desirable size distribution.Our Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), conducting climate model experiments with standard stratospheric aerosol injection scenarios, is ongoing. We have found that if we could counteract increasing greenhouse gases with global insolation reduction we could keep the global average temperature constant, but global average precipitation would reduce, particularly in summer monsoon regions around the world. Temperature changes would also not be uniform. The tropics would cool, but high latitudes would warm, with continuing, but reduced sea ice and ice sheet melting. New experiments with time- and space-varying sulfate injections, or that combine stratospheric SRM with surface brightening, show that it may be possible to control to some extent these regional differences. Temperature extremes would still increase, but not as much as without SRM.

If SRM were halted all at once, there would be rapid temperature and precipitation increases at 5-10 times the rates from gradual global warming. Sudden geoengineering termination would more than double temperature velocities for the land and ocean, and would more than triple temperature velocities in multiple global biodiversity hotspots. These geoengineering-associated velocities exceed even the most optimistic dispersal rate estimates for many species, increasing local extinction risks. Rapid geoengineering implementation and termination would significantly increase the threats to global biodiversity and ecosystems from climate change.

SRM combined with CO₂ fertilization would have small impacts on rice production in China, but would increase maize production. New experiments with the Community Earth System Model from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which includes comprehensive tropospheric and stratospheric chemistry, show that SRM using stratospheric aerosols would reduce stratospheric ozone and enhance surface UV-B radiation. The enhanced downward diffuse radiation would increase the surface CO₂sink. Surface ozone and tropospheric chemistry would likely be affected by SRM, but the overall effect is strongly dependent on the SRM scheme.

If there were a way to continuously inject SO₂ into the lower stratosphere, it would produce global cooling, stopping melting of the ice caps, and increasing the uptake of CO₂ by plants. But there are at least 27 reasons why stratospheric geoengineering may be a bad idea. These include disruption of the Asian and African summer monsoons, reducing precipitation to the food supply for billions of people; ozone depletion; no more blue skies; reduction of solar power; and rapid global warming if it stops. Furthermore, there are concerns about commercial or military control, and it may seriously degrade terrestrial astronomy and satellite remote sensing. Global efforts to reduce anthropogenic emissions (mitigation) and to adapt to climate change are a much better way to channel our resources to address anthropogenic global warming.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/98Annual/webprogram/Paper332066.html

'How to pay the dead people'

It is likely that any SRM geoengineering intervention will create

winners and losers and some nations may always be against any

intervention whatsoever.

Gregory Benford raised the issue of reaching agreement on the global

scale and how problematic it would be. If for example the arctic

council of nations agreed to initiate a decade-long field trial to

cool the arctic by 1 C, how could they deal with complaints from

nations who felt that this experiment had induced a negative change in

their climate?

In any given year there are floods, droughts, heatwaves, etc. but

during this field trial a fraction of these events would be attributed

(rightly or wrongly, partially or fully) to the intervention. Two

questions arise:

Could it be determined if any changes in the climate (outside of the

target area) had occurred as a result of the intervention during a 10

year trial?

How would aggrieved nations or peoples seek reparations for perceived

negative impacts (scientifically proven or otherwise)?

best regards,

Pete Irvine

PhD student

School of Geographical Sciences

University of Bristol

Panelists Call for Creation of World Commission to Handle Solar Radiation Management

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• December 5, 2018 By Evan Barnard

  
  
  

  “Right now, it’s the Wild West in regard to governance with geoengineering,” said Paul Wapner, a professor at the School of International Service at American University at a recent panel about solar radiation management (SRM) at the Arizona State University’s Washington Center. According to the Governing Solar Radiation Management report which was the focus of the event, SRM, which theoretically would cool the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space, may be a viable last-resort option if climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts fail. Wapner said that “there’s a danger in SRM, there’s a danger in climate change. And, balancing those risks is part of the exercise and will continue to be part of the exercise.”

  Three of the more commonly proposed forms of SRM are marine cloud brightening, stratospheric aerosol injection, and reflective physical space installation like a space mirror array. Marine cloud brightening involves increasing the salt content in clouds over the oceans so they reflect more light. Aerosol injection, especially of sulfate compounds, involves spraying minute, suspended airborne particles called aerosols into the upper atmosphere to help form clouds through nucleation. All of these methods are designed to reduce the solar rays reaching and heating the planet by increasing a surface characteristic called albedo, a measurement of how much light a surface reflects and does not absorb.

  Geoengineering is the third, last-resort option for responding to climate change effects if mitigation and adaptation efforts fail. While no SRM or other geoengineering efforts are actually yet in place, due to exponential increases in greenhouse gas emissions and projected catastrophic effects of global warming, now is a good time to begin planning for the implementation of geoengineering, including governance, the panelists said. According to the report, SRM governance could include monitoring, impact assessment, and feedback processes to take new information and developments into account. Although they disagreed on some things, such as the efficacy of experimentation and whether to actively encourage governments to promote SRM, the report’s authors, who include environmental experts and social scientists, all agreed that some governance structure is needed.

  The panelists called for a world commission on SRM to be established to guide decision-making regarding potential deployment of an SRM system. Organizing a governance structure could give us insight into how to properly and safely address the testing, implementation, and potential continued use of SRM technology, said Genevieve Maricle, the global knowledge and innovation lead at the World Wildlife Fund’s Climate and Energy Practice. Walter Valdivia, senior policy editor with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, considered the importance of stakeholder inclusion in a governing body, noting that information these days often gets spread in ways where many people never get access to the facts or science.

  Although the panelists spoke of the need to create a governing body on solar radiation management, many questions still need to be answered. Researchers are now considering non-theoretical or computational work to understand whether such technologies would work if deployed, because questions about the secondary effects of SRM still persist, said Wapner. Nevertheless, exploring governance options now means preparing existing institutions for when SRM might be a serious policy consideration. He noted that governance is “not just about stamping out scary things.” Regulatory and administrative structures “can actually create incentives and can actually guide action,” but until they do, he said, geoengineering governance will still be like the Wild West.

  Read More:

  • The ethics of geoengineering seem to correspond to Just War theory.
  • No large-scale experiments have tested any solar radiation management technologies yet.
  • SRM may be a revolutionary way to slow the rate of global warming, but some people consider it unethical.

  https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2018/12/panelists-call-creation-world-commission-handle-solar-radiation-management/
• David Keith's Sun Dimming Experiment SCoPEx Possibly Coming Spring 2019 - ALL THE FACTS