Health Care or National Security
An afternoon of poison covering the Barium Sky across the western United States, interfering with our health and possibly the security of our nation.
Where do these planes come from?
Are they from America?
Who is responsible?
Press Release...Tuesday, October 19, 2010...Civil Society Calls for a Moratorium on Geoengineering Experiments
Extreme Risk Demands Extreme Precaution urges Civil Society Group at UN Ministerial
Nagoya, Japan -- One of the hottest issues before the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Japan is a set of crucial decisions that could bring about a moratorium on proposed experiments in geoengineering, a set of high-risk climate technofixes. At the opening plenary of the conference, the CBD Alliance on behalf of civil society organizations called for a moratorium on geoengineering experiments.
Releasing a critical report on the subject today, the ETC Group called for governments to support the moratorium. The group argues that geoengineering experiments, due to their unprecedented scale, are both beyond the parameters of real-world scientific testing and beyond the scope of current international law. A handful of OECD countries and corporations are pushing for massive “technofix” experiments rather than reducing emissions at home.
“Some of the proponents of these technologies think it’s easier to ‘manage the sun’ than get people to take a bus,” said Pat Mooney, Executive Director of ETC Group, in Nagoya.
Earlier this year, the CBD’s scientific body proposed a ban on climate-related geoengineering activities that will go beyond the 2008 moratorium on ocean fertilization, to include solar radiation management techniques such as the release of stratospheric aerosols and cloud whitening, until all of the inherent risks and impacts have been fully evaluated.
Civil society organizations gathered this week in Nagoya are urging governments from 193 countries to ratify the proposal and put such experiments on hold. ETC Group’s 52-page report, Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering, makes the case for a moratorium, calling geoengineering, “a political strategy aimed at letting industrialized countries off the hook for their climate debt.”
Confronted by rising global alarm over climate chaos, nations have the choice of adopting socially responsible policies to dramatically cut fossil-fuel use or to seek silver-bullet solutions. ETC Group’s new report offers summaries of the various geoengineering proposals, and details their potential impacts on biodiversity and on equitable climate change solutions.
“Scientists can do research on computer models and in the lab, but they have no right to do real-world experiments on Mother Earth without any prior inter-governmental discussion and agreement that involves the participation of people who will be directly affected,” said Neth Dano, Programme Manager for ETC Group in the Philippines.
“Opting for geoengineering flies in the face of precaution,” the report states. “Even those who would like to see large-scale investment in the field are quick to acknowledge that we do not know enough about the Earth’s systems to risk real-world geoengineering experiments.”
A key message of the report is that geoengineering is not simply a cheap technofix for climate change, but a political smokescreen that will be deployed by wealthy nations to avoid undertaking real domestic emission reductions and commitments to help the global South fend off impending catastrophe. Given that only the world’s wealthiest countries have the spending capacity to engage in large-scale climate manipulation, the report asks, who will have the right to set the global thermostat?
The report contends that several international treaties could be violated by geoengineering, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Environmental Modification Treaty (ENMOD), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Tom Goldtooth, Director of the North America based Indigenous Environmental Network, said, “These kinds of dangerous experiments, promoted by a small group of scientists and rich industrial countries, are a continuation of the technological nightmare that’s been imposed on our peoples for five centuries. Contrary to fixing the problems, geoengineering threatens to wreak more havoc on our biosphere and our communities. It needs to be stopped.” www.etcgroup.org
Chemtrails and Monsanto Corporation New Aluminum Resistance Gene – Coincidence?Why did Monsanto Develop an Aluminum Resistance Gene? Monsanto is currently marketing an aluminum resistance gene.
Small-scale, resource-poor farmers in developing countries face daily stresses, including poor soils, drought, and lack of inputs. Ongoing trends such as climate change and population growth will likely exacerbate binding stresses. A new generation of genetically engineered (GE) crop research aims to alleviate these pressures through the improvement of subsistence crops—such as cassava, sorghum, and millet—that incorporate traits such as tolerance to drought, water, and aluminum in soils as well as plants with more efficient nitrogen and phosphorus use. (http://www.ifpri.org/publication/delivering-genetically-engineered-crops-poor-farmers)
Now, let’s take a look at journalist Michael Murphy’s research into chemtrails, geo-engineering, and the fact that extremely high levels of aluminum and barium are found in water, snow and soil, in areas shown to have heavy chemtrail patterns (three-part video):
Coincidence that Monsanto will “come to the rescue” with aluminum resistance genes because normal plants die off in the presence of excess aluminum? Or opportunistic capitalism and planned corporate food monopoly courtesy of Monsanto and the Hegelian Dialectic based on insider information that a proposed “geo-engineering” scheme is already in place that is filling our atmosphere with chemtrails containing aluminum and barium? http://farmwars.info/?p=2927
ENGINEERING THE CLIMATE: RESEARCH NEEDS AND STRATEGIES FOR INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY / U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES / ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS / SECOND SESSION / OCTOBER 2010
During the 111th Congress, the U.S. Committee launched an initiative to better understand the issues surrounding climate engineering, and collaborated with the U.K. Committee to explore the subject. The U.S. Committee convened three public hearings to explore the science, governance, risks, and research needs associated with climate engineering. A summary of each hearing follows this section. This report consolidates information gathered during eighteen months of inquiry, and focuses on the research needs associated with climate engineering. It identifies key research capacities, skills, and tools located within U.S. federal agencies that could be leveraged to inform climate engineering science responsibly….
Climate engineering, or geoengineering, can be defined as the deliberate large-scale modification of the earth’s climate systems for the purpose of counteracting and mitigating anthropogenic climate change. The strategies which fall under this definition are loosely organized into two types: Solar Radiation Management and Carbon Dioxide Removal.
Solar Radiation Management (SRM) methods propose to reflect a fraction of the sun’s radiation back into space,3 thereby reducing the amount of solar radiation trapped in the earth’s atmosphere and stabilizing its energy balance. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) methods, also known as Air Capture (AC), propose to reduce excess CO2 concentrations by capturing CO2 directly from the air and storing the captured gases as a solid through mineralization, or consuming it via biological processes. CDR is different from direct capture, which targets carbon from a single point source and stores it in sedimentary formations. A comprehensive discussion of the variety of proposed strategies can be found in the U.K. Royal Society report, discussed below, although it is expected that some proposals for climate engineering will continue to evolve into completely new technical concepts over time. While proposals for climate engineering in some form have been around for decades, climate change research and regulation efforts have been almost wholly focused on mitigation through emissions reductions and, more recently, adaptation to the effects of a changing climate. Because of the inherent risks and uncertainties, climate engineering, thus far, has not represented a technically viable, environmentally sound, or politically prudent option for preventing or adapting to climate change. However, in recent years a growing number of credible scientific bodies have engaged in more serious deliberation to the concept of climate engineering.
National Nanotechnology Initiative
The United States’ experience with nanotechnology research across federal agencies can provide valuable insight into a potential federal, interagency research initiative on climate engineering. Nanotechnology, the collective term for nano-scale science and technology applications, is a nascent field that is rapidly attracting public interest and investment around the world. In 2000, President Clinton launched the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to coordinate federal research and development on nanotechnology, and in 2003, Congress enacted the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act to provide a statutory foundation and organize the Initiative. The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, which contains a number of amendments to NNI, was approved by the House in May 2010. While nanotechnology may eventually contribute revolutionary advances to any number of public goods, concerns have been raised about the potential negative impacts of nanotechnologies on human health and the environment.
For example, it has been proposed that the small size of nanoscale particles could allow them to penetrate and damage human organs, such as the lungs. In its June 2, 2010 report the Congressional Research Service (CRS) observed that public attitudes and perception of risks leaves the still-nascent nanotechnology industry and research community vulnerable to a negative event, such as an accidental or harmful release…..
Geoengineering Cost Analysis Final Report / Prepared Under Contract to The University Of Calgary / October 30, 2010 / Executive Summary
Geoengineering has been defined as: “the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change.”
As Lord Rees, chair of The Royal Society, wrote in the forward to the Society's 2009 report on geoengineering. "The continuing rise in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, mainly caused by the burning of fossil fuels, is driving changes in the Earth’s climate. The long-term consequences will be exceedingly threatening, especially if nations continue ‘business as usual.’ in the coming decades. Most nations now recognize the need to shift to a low-carbon economy, and nothing should divert us from the main priority of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. But if such reductions achieve too little, too late, there will surely be pressure to consider a ‘plan B.’.—to seek ways to counteract the climatic effects of greenhouse gas emissions by ‘geoengineering’. Far more detailed study would be needed before any method could even be seriously considered for deployment on the requisite international scale. Moreover, it is already clear than none offers a ‘silver bullet’, and that some options are far more problematic than others."
5.3.1 Large passenger and cargo transport airplanes are well suited to geoengineering due to their size and affordability but provide limited usefulness due to a lack of high-altitude capability. Regional operations allow the Boeing 747 to operate from 1 or more bases and carry a large payload of 128,000 kg (less than max capacity to allow for better performance at max altitude) per sortie, requiring 47 sorties per day from the fleet. At a release rate of 0.03 kg/m flown, mission lengths are short enough to allow a fleet of 14 747s to execute the 47 sorties a day. By limiting leg length to the 1,600 km required to hit the preferred dispersal rate, fuel burn is kept to 0.016 kg/m per aircraft. Altitude is limited to 13.7 km (45kft).
Costs are as follows: Aircraft Acquisition Cost: $0.8 Billion FY10 USD / Yearly Operations cost: $1.0 Billion FY10 USD / Yearly Total Cost (including depreciation and interest): $1.1 Billion FY10 USD
…analysis shows airplane geoengineering is possible up to 30.5 km (100kft), at these altitudes, the need for development of a new high altitude propulsion system provides a large amount of uncertainty to aircraft development costs
11 potential basing locations…
A survey of satellite photos for the various locations allowed verification that these sites have ample space for any required infrastructure improvement to accommodate a large geoengineering fleet.
2010 there is annual change of 75 million people on planet earth
2030 there will be annual change of 60 million people on planet earth
2050 there will be annual change of 40 million people on planet earth
Compare the charts from 2004 and 2010
The agenda of depopulation
In just six years of published population charts, 2004 - 2010, the population has gone from a steady growth pattern to the loss of millions....
Senator Rockefeller: Let's Depopulate!!! Kill the Elders and Poison the children!!!!!
Depopulation Plan Exposed by Japans Princess Nakamaru and Italian Prince Zagami
Who is flying these planes?
Deuteronomy 32:33...Their wine is the poison (poison - chemah, as that which burns the bowels) of dragons, and the cruel venom (venom - ro'sh, poison of any kind) of asps.