Even Climate Alarmists Reject Planetary Geo-engineering

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | NOVEMBER 4, 2012

As The Real Agenda reported recently, Geo-engineering is far ahead of being a mere project or vision of the kinds of ways that mad scientists intend to affect global climate. As exposed on our November article Climate Change spurred by Planetary Geo-engineering, the use of chemicals to change weather patterns, cause floods, droughts and other natural phenomena has been going on since the 1950s. Despite the vast documentation that proves that Geo-engineering is very real, the main stream media continues to present it as something that may be attempted to save us all from global warming. Heck, bets are now being placed on weather events and how disastrous they may be.

The latest example of media disinformation on Geo-engineering, comes from Alister Doyle, an environmental writer from Reuters, whose article was re-published by Scientific American Magazine. In it, Doyle puts out a list of examples of supposed Geo-engineering techniques which are meant to distract readers about the significance of artificially affecting climate through man-made techniques. Doyle presents Geo-engineering as a possible, future tool to stave off the effects of global warming.

She cites CO2 sequestration, putting gigantic mirrors up on the sky to reflect sunlight and the well-known spraying of chemicals as ways to reduce the effects of anthropogenic warming. But the real news in the article comes from statements from some of the most popular climate alarmists who not only do not support Geo-engineering, but also say its effects on the planet are at the very least questionable.

First in the list is current United Nations Climate Change Secretariat, Cristiana Figueres, the sister of former Costa Rican president Jose Maria Figueres Olsen. According to her, “there are so many proven technologies we know exist that are tried and true that have not been used to their maximum potential.” Figueres is talking about energy efficiency, which has many positive and negative aspects. For example, no one can argue with the benefits of using energy efficiently, but that is far from what the UN and other globalist organizations and NGOs, for example, want to introduce as forms of efficient use of energy. (compact fluorescent ligh bulbs, smart meters, appliances that are remotely controlled by energy companies or government agencies, etc.)

Another climate alarmist who opposes Geo-engineering as a way to “save us” from climate doom is Ragendra Pachauri, the same guy who is the chairman of the U.N.’s panel of climate scientists. He told Reuters that “geo-engineering has a lot of unknowns.”  He then questioned the science of climate modification: “How can you go into an area where you don’t know anything?” In this case, may be it is Pachauri the person who needs to do some reading, because the dire consequences of artificially manipulating the weather have been known for a while now. Pachauri and his team are now looking into Geo-engineering as a tool to carry out weather modification. The group is scheduled to issue a report about Geo-engineering in 2013.

But we need not to wait for their assessment. Uncountable articles and documents have already documented the negative effects that Geo-engineering has on the planet and everything that lives in it. See a short list of articles below:

Climate Change spurred by Planetary Geo-engineering

Government Study: Geo-engineering Too Dangerous

Geo-engineering Could Backfire, Make Climate Change Worse

Why Geo-engineering Doesn’t Make Economic Sense

Geo-engineering To Mitigate Global Warming May Cause Other Environmental Harm

The only positive feedback regarding Geo-engineering comes from the mad, power thirsty scientists who seek to advance their careers by imposing a systematic program of global weather modification, even though they claim to ignore the full-scale of the negative consequences that such program will have on all of us. Most pro Geo-engineering articles and alleged studies generally focus on the money aspect of the matter — it is the cheapest way to stave off global warming — although its effects on the planet, advocates say, are unknown.

Unfortunately, on the main stream cloud of ideas, the other solution to “save us” from global warming is reducing emissions, which intrinsically means taking us all back to the stone age, as United Nations globalists have proposed: To de-industrialize the developed world while keeping the poor nations poor (@ 7 min 40 sec). In fact, the current emissions reduction scheme is just a way to fund the United Nations’ global climate executive branch while helping front-men like Al Gore get richer. It is also about allowing big polluter nations such as China, India and large corporations a license to pollute at will through the payment of carbon offset credits while ignoring what seems to be the real cause of global warming: Geo-engineering itself.

As Joe Romn said, “Geo-engineering is a dangerous course just as chemotherapy and radiation are when treating a condition curable through diet and exercise.”

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Highest storm activity associated with cold periods

NATURE GEOSCIENCE | NOVEMBER 14, 2012

Considerable climatic variability on decadal to millennial timescales has been documented for the past 11,500 years of interglacial climate123. This variability has been particularly pronounced at a frequency of about 1,500 years, with repeated cold intervals in the North Atlantic13. However, there is growing evidence that these oscillations originate from a cluster of different spectral signatures4, ranging from a 2,500-year cycle throughout the period to a 1,000-year cycle during the earliest millennia.

Here we present a reappraisal of high-energy estuarine and coastal sedimentary records from the southern coast of the English Channel, and report evidence for five distinct periods during the Holocene when storminess was enhanced during the past 6,500 years. We find that high storm activity occurred periodically with a frequency of about 1,500 years, closely related to cold and windy periods diagnosed earlier123.

We show that millennial-scale storm extremes in northern Europe are phase-locked with the period of internal ocean variability in the North Atlantic of about 1,500 years4. However, no consistent correlation emerges between spectral maxima in records of storminess and solar irradiation. We conclude that solar activity changes are unlikely to be a primary forcing mechanism of millennial-scale variability in storminess.

Read Full Article →

 

Meteorologist Tim Kelley: ‘Consensus’ has little place in science

By TIM KELLEY | CLIMATE DEPOT | NOVEMBER 9, 2012

Meteorologist Tim Kelley of WLNE TV in Providence, Rhode Island, analyzes Sandy and global warming. Kelley’s bio available here.

Tim Kelly: Here is a note I sent to many who asked me about climate change and Sandy.

Since my 1974 6th grade science class with Mr.Melnick at Wixon Middle School in Dennis Massachusetts, I have studied weather, climate and climate change.

I am fascinated by the Geology and Climate of Cape Cod and New England.

The name of my public speaking presentation is ‘Why Cape Cod has the most interesting weather on Earth”.

It’s an obsession for me.

It was a great honor when I was invited to the White House by Al Gore in 1997.

I listened from the front row as he stated his case on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Ever since that time, not a day goes by without me contemplating his warnings.

After years of exhaustive analysis on the subject, there is only one conclusion.

The alarm and fear of anthropogenic global warming is a major distraction and a waste of resources that could otherwise go to helping humanity.

We should be adapting to climate change, not trying to change climate.

Sandy is not an unprecedented storm. The 1938 hurricane was worse, and was followed by major hurricanes in 1944 & 1954. Three major hurricanes in 16 years.

We are fortunate to have gone nearly 60 years without a comparable storm here in the northeast.

History is full of stories of storms much worse than Sandy.

1898, 1888, 1831 , 1821 , 1717 , 1635

Thomas Jefferson (yes, that Thomas Jefferson) was also concerned about climate change

In fact, climate change may reduce intensity of tropical cyclones

“The impact of climate change is seen in slightly decreased intensities in landfalling cyclones”

A glance at the history of Global Temperature reveals that for most of the planet’s existence the temperature has been much warmer than today. Using the logic of natural variations, we should enter a much warmer phase, humans or no humans.

Our atmosphere is composed of many compounds, among them 390 parts per million of CO2, a tiny fraction of our atmosphere.

Of that tiny fraction, an even smaller amount may be attributed to fossil fuel emissions.

Study after study shows that our planet thrives in times of more CO2, it is vital to life on earth. If anything we should hope for more CO2.

Heat on Earth comes from our Sun, and is stored in our oceans.

Small fluctuations in solar and oceanic cycles dwarf any impact on climate when compared to influence of anthropogenic CO2.

“Increasing evidence from around the world shows that the main driver of terrestrial climate is the Sun. It is responsible for climate variability that ranges from millennial, centennial, multi-decadal, and seasonal timescales.”

From a scientific perspective, it’s almost unfathomable that we have been duped into believing the scare generated by Climate Change Alarmists.

There is no consensus regarding this issue.

In fact that word, ‘consensus’ has little place in science.

We look at data.

The data shows no correlation at all between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and climate change.

Here is a list of 30,000 or so scientists that agree with my position.

Most Sincerely,

Tim Kelley

Scituate MA

B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College 1987

Life time student of Atmospheric Science

United Nations Meteorological Office to dictate Climate Policy

By DANIEL CRESSEY | NATURE | NOVEMBER 7, 2012

An international framework for providing information about how Earth’s climate will affect everything from health to disaster planning is set to bring order to an area that has given some scientists cause for concern.

The field of ‘climate services’ has boomed in recent years, with various organizations and individuals using climate models to advise policy-makers and local people on crop production, infrastructure planning and disease management. At the first ever ‘extraordinary session’ of the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in Geneva, Switzerland, which finished on Wednesday, members of the organization agreed on an implementation plan for a ‘Global Framework for Climate Services’ to manage how such information is gathered and communicated.

“It’s the first time the international community had come together to implement a proper formal framework for climate predictions,” says Julia Slingo, chief scientist of the UK Met Office in Exeter, who has been heavily involved in the process. “This is a real landmark in much the same way as when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established.”

The framework was initially set out in 2009, and this week’s agreement is the result of a lengthy period of consultation and negotiation. More than 300 scientists were consulted, says Jerry Lengoasa, the deputy secretary-general of the WMO.

Lengoasa says the framework will focus on four priority areas: food security, disaster risk reduction, water and health. A series of objectives has been drawn up, beginning with short-term pilot projects to kick-start capabilities in Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso. There is also an ambitious ten-year plan to provide most of the 70 countries that the WMO has identified as having little or no capability in the area with the capacity to make their own predictions.

Read Full Article →

U.S. Government ordered DHS to work on Manipulating Hurricanes

By MELISSA MELTON | INFOWARS | OCTOBER 31, 2012

While the debate rages regarding whether or not the U.S. government uses weather manipulation technology to steer storms like Hurricane Sandy, further evidence shows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been engaged in research to do just that for years.

In 2008, an article in New Scientist discussed a new DHS project that funded research into guiding and directing the intensity of hurricanes.

Citing Hurricane Katrina as the basis for the project, the Hurricane Aerosol and Microphysics Program (HAMP) worked with Project Stormfury veteran Joe Golden and a panel of other experts “to test the effects of aerosols on the structure and intensity of hurricanes.” HAMP was funded under contract HSHQDC-09-C-00064 at a taxpayer price tag of $64.1 million.

In 2009, Richard Spinrad, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) assistant administrator for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), sent then DHS Program Manager for Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) William Laska an official memorandum regarding OAR’s review of a “Statement for Work” for HAMP.

Read the memo here.

“While OAR recognizes that weather modification, in general, is occurring through the funding of private enterprises, NOAA does not support research that entails efforts to modify hurricanes,” Spinrad wrote.

He then went on to list all the reasons Project Stormfury was discontinued, including the inability to separate the difference in hurricane behavior when human intervention is present versus nature’s inherent unpredictability overall. Spinrad also noted that any collaboration with DHS must occur within NOAA’s mission (which Spinrad and NOAA obviously felt HAMP did not do).

NOAA houses the National Hurricane Center, the primary U.S. organization responsible for tracking and predicting hurricanes. Recent budget cuts are expected to hit NOAA’s satellite program, the heart of the organization’s weather forecasting system, by $182 million.

Note that even Spinrad admits the existence of weather modification programs as if its general, accepted knowledge. Although DHS was turned down, the agency moved ahead with their research without NOAA’s participation.

A paper co-written by several participants in the HAMP project including Joe Golden entitled, “Aerosol Effects and Microstructure on the Intensity of Tropical Cyclones,” was released in the July 2012 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. In conclusion, the authors wrote, “We recommend that hurricane reconnaissance and research airplanes are equipped with aerosol and cloud physics instruments and fly patterns that will allow such measurements.” Drone use in “areas where safety concerns preclude aircraft measurements” was also called for.

The spraying of aerosols into the air, otherwise known by the monicker “chemtrails,” is promoted under the guise of geoengineering with a surface excuse to halt global warming. The practice has been openly called for more and more recently, although the chemtrail phenomenon has already been reported across the globe for years now. In the Environmental Research Letters journal, scientists’ most recent geoengineering proposal detailed an “affordable” $5 billion project wherein airplanes will spray sulfur particles in the atmosphere to cool the planet.

In HAMP’s final report, authors concluded, “Pollution aerosols reduced the cloud drop size and suppressed the warm rain forming processes in the external spiral cloud bands of the storms.” It was also mentioned, “During the past decade it was found that aerosols (including anthropogenic ones) substantially affect cloud microphysics,” proving deliberate chemtrailing has been occurring for at least the past ten years.

Though the paper was labeled “final report,” further journal articles regarding HAMP have been released, and the HAMP project was reportedly not scheduled to end until 2016.

The question remains: With its bizarre combination of elements, was deliberate manipulation through HAMP research at play in Hurricane Sandy?