Government Study: Geoengineering Too Dangerous

The potential negative consequences of geoengineering are still too unclear.

Geoengineering has been used for decades in forms known by the public as chemtrails, electromagnetic waves and laser beams.

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
September 7, 2011

2009 Moscow Halo. Case Orange cites this as evidence of cloud seeding, but others suspect it is electromagnetic in origin.

Geoengineering is in essence the artificial and deliberate manipulation of the weather by applying existent technologies to change weather and weather patterns over an area of planet Earth. The use of these technologies has been pushed by a section of the scientific community as well as influential climate change alarmists groups. But the technologies used to modify the climate go beyond climate modification and extend their function to other areas such as plate tectonics, and military weaponry. Main stream scientists do not discuss the uses cited before, but limit themselves to suggest practices such as ocean fertilization, cloud seeding and CO2 sequestration, among others.

Techniques such as ocean fertilization, and CO2 sequestration have not been, however, the most popular among those who deem these practices as life saving. The United States, mainly, and other developed countries have experimented with other, less discussed technologies that are often left outside main stream discussions. What all of these practices have in common, though, is the fact that none of them is safe and its implementation could cause more damage than the supposed catastrophe they intend to avoid. This is the conclusion of a study published last July by the United States Government accountability Office.

GAO Study comes half a century Late

You would think this and other studies would come before any of these weather modification techniques were tried out in the open, but that is not the case. If one goes back half a century or so, it is easy to find examples of how weather modification was used as a warfare practice. During the Vietnam War, the United States used cloud seeding to flood land areas where the Vietnamese armies were stationed in order to weaken their operation against the invasion. Project Stormfury consisted of planes flying inside tropical storms and seeding such storms with with silver iodide. The project was run by the United States Government from 1962 to 1983. Project Cirrus was another attempt to manipulate the weather; this time by affecting a hurricane’s behaviour. The project was headed by General Electric, the US Army Signal Corps, the Office of Naval Research, and the US Air Force. During this trial on October 13, 1974, government scientists, attempted to modify a hurricane heading west to east. Nowadays, even countries like China possess bureaucracies dedicated to the practice of weather modification. In Beijing, the Weather Modification Office coordinates the use of technologies to prevent or cause it to rain whenever it is needed. For the 2008 Olympics, China had 30 airplanes, 4,000 rocket launchers, and 7,000 anti-aircraft guns to stop rain. (1)

In its report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) begins by explaining that the reason of their study is the analysis of “climate engineering technologies, focusing on their technical status, future directions for research and potential responses.” Then it goes on to say that “GAO reviewed the scientific literature and government reports, consulted experts with a wide variety of backgrounds and viewpoints, and surveyed 1,006 adults across the United States.” (2)

Heavy use of Chemtrails for the purposes of modifying the climate. Image by NASA.

Among the conclusions found by GAO are that “Climate engineering technologies do not now offer a viable response to global climate change.” According to the report, technologies studied by GAO included Carbon Dioxide (the gas plants breathe in order to live) removal, and solar radiation management (SRM). This last technique would include blocking the life-giving sun light in order to, say some scientists and climate alarmists, prevent excessive heating of the planet. SRM technologies have been used widely in many countries this author has visited, including the United States, Brazil, Costa Rica and others like England and the rest of the western European countries. What SRM does, is spray crystals and toxic chemicals such as sulfate aerosols and barium,  into the stratosphere. “For more than a decade, first the United States and then Canada’s citizens have been subjected to a 24/7/365 day aerosol assault over our heads made of a toxic brew of poisonous heavy metals, chemicals, and other dangerous ingredients. None of this was reported by any mainstream media. The US Department of Defense [DOD] and military have been systematically blanketing all our skies with what are known as Chemtrails (also known as Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering), ” says Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri. (3)

The GAO study continues to relate its findings by saying that current geoengineering techniques are immature and that many of them could have potentially negative consequences. This confirms the health hazards cited above by Dr. Perlingieri. However, the study also incites collective thinking where regardless of the risks presented by the use of these technologies, researchers still believe it is worthwhile to practice controlled versions of weather modification. Later, it says many consulted scientists oppose research as they anticipate  “major technology risks or limited future climate change.” Most of the people consulted said they were not familiar with weather modification, but were opened to carrying out more research, says GAO. These people are obviously not only not aware of the existence of geoengineering techniques – mostly because the government and the companies involved have somehow successfully tried to hide their experiments – but are also unaware that such experiments are carried out already all over the world without their consent.

As explained before, studies like the one carried out by GAO should have been conducted before government and corporate experiments took place. However, as it happens often nowadays, governments feel they are entitled to do whatever they want without informing the public first. Although GAO’s study is pertinent because it exposes what many have called “conspiracy theories” as facts, it fails miserably to address the history of weather modification and stratospheric experimentation already being conducted all over the planet.

The study performed by GAO at the request of House Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, rated current weather modification technologies on a scale from 1 – 9 according to their “readiness”. Although this criterion is irrelevant from the point of view of the health hazard geoengineering poses to humanity, none of the available weather modification techniques scored above 3 on the study’s scale. “Both research advocates and opponents cautioned that climate engineering research carries risks either in conducting certain kinds of research or in using the results (for example, deploying potentially risky technologies that were developed on the basis of the research).”

The Government Accountability Office’s study seems to be originated on the widely debunked belief that human activity is the cause of what some scientists call Anthropogenic Global Warming (the planet has experienced global cooling in the last decade) that according to them is caused by Carbon Dioxide emissions. One can say that the study started with the left foot, because it is based on a premise that is at the very least dubious. At least one thousand re-known scientists have cast doubts about the theory of man-made warming and this belief should at least be given a second thought. (4)

The premise of the study that humans cause global warming is filled with half truths and previously exposed fallacies such as the belief that some islands will sink as a consequence of rising seas, that ice caps will uncontrollably melt and that polar bears will die because they can’t swim. (5) The study also considers other geophysical changes on the planet which would result from the supposed warming, such as changes in vegetation and precipitation which are unreasonably labeled a negative. In fact, the study says that many scientists “have proposed that rising temperatures might benefit certain geographic areas or economic sectors; for example, agricultural productivity might increase in some areas… …while global surface temperature is increasing on average, it is not increasing uniformly…” The former idea that agriculture in many parts of the world might benefit from the warming, coincides with the fact that scientific records indicate that planet Earth was once warmer and contained 10 times more CO2 than today, which resulted in greener landscapes and food abundance.

As The Real Agenda has informed before, the only concern people who defend the theory of anthropogenic global warming have, is that their beloved “ivory towers” and “premium centers of control” are saved from naturally occurring climate change. In the report, GAO cites concerns given by some scientists regarding “dangerous sea level rising that “could threaten several large ports and urban centers in the United States, such as Miami, New York, and Norfolk.” Of course these same people have no problem with preventing the Third World from developing to levels they enjoy today, or to take the planet to a post-industrial era if this is what it takes to reduce emissions to levels only seen pre-Industrial Revolution.

The CLOUD results show that a few kilometres up in the atmosphere sulphuric acid and water vapour can rapidly form clusters, and that cosmic rays enhance the formation rate by up to ten-fold or more.

More recently, a study by CERN, the CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) experiment, has once again confirmed that it is solar radiation and not human activity what drives Earth’s climate. The report describing the findings of this study were partially banned from public discussion by the head of CERN, Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer, as he thought that the results of the observations would be used to publicly, once and for all cut the ears and tail from the pink elephant in the room: There is no such a thing as man-made global warming. (6)

What GAO Does not address in the Study

As explained before, GAO’s study seems to come at least 50 years late and on top of this, it fails to present unmistakable evidence that experiments such as the ones described as “potentially dangerous” have been carried out for many decades already. Even some main stream media have made echo of scientists suggestions to employ weather modification techniques to “save us from disaster”. Just last March, USAToday advertised how trendy was to spray people with aluminum, barium and other deadly chemicals in order to save the world from human-caused destruction. (7) The article went on to present what some scientist said was an opportunity to make things right before geoengineering had to be considered as a necessity. One scientist even suggested that geoengineering was a viable option to save us from disaster. “Research into geoengineering creates another option for the public,” said David Victor of the University of California-San Diego.

Separately, National Geographic published an article suggesting the employment of nuclear weapons to reverse global warming. The magazine article echoed a government scenario where a small nuclear war among small countries could help reduce the effects of Global Warming. The article also warned that such a small war would cause the planet Earth to miss summers for several years, cause the appearance and spread of disease, but that perhaps it was a good idea to make it happen. (8)

Despite historical evidence, the GAO study does not specifically mention the dangers weather modification through geoengineering pose to human life or to the planet itself. However, there is plenty of evidence on this regard. “For decades, we have known that heavy metals and chemicals can cause grave physical harm. Going back to Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” we have known and been amply warned of the serious consequences of using or being exposed to these poisons in our daily activities. Thousands of these are well-documented carcinogens,” writes Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri.

Military and commercial planes are involved in more than 60 secret operations. Last year, when I flew across the country, I saw a United Airlines jet (flying below us at about 37,000 feet) spraying a black aerosol that went for miles and miles across the sky. This clandestine program now includes aerosol-spraying planes in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand [all NATO countries]. Hundreds (if not thousands) of people have called and written their public officials to get answers. Replies from US and Canadian officials are not forthcoming; or, if they do reply, queries are dismissed.

The U.S. military has been spraying chemical and biological weapons in open air testing over civilian populations since the 1940’s. They are called “vulnerability tests”. This is not a controversial statement. The military has admitted to this practice on many occasions and there’s plenty of documentation from the government to corroborate it. There is also documentation of intentional, experimental releases of radiation on civilian populations. Unfortunately, this information tends to surface long after it could have saved lives, or eased the suffering of victims.

The HAARP-looking Jicamarca Radio Observatory is part of the Geophysical Institute of Peru. It receives the majority of its financial support from the National Science Foundation of the United States through a cooperative agreement with Cornell University.

But Chemtrails is not the only weather modification technique used by government and government-sponsored experiments. “The existence and application of technology to modify the weather, the ionosphere and to cause plate tectonics activity is documented and not only a conspiracy theory.”  Scientists involved in the testing and use of these technologies admit to running experiments around the planet,” says Andrei Areshev, deputy director of the Strategic Culture Foundation. According to Areshev, “climate weapons may be reaching their target capacity and may be used to provoke droughts, erase crops, and induce various anomalous phenomena in certain countries.” Perhaps Mr. Areshev is talking about the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), (9) another of those weapons that main stream media and main stream scientists call a conspiracy theory, while refusing to talk about it. But weather modification was also considered a conspiracy theory, was it not? And the use of Chemtrails were also considered a conspiracy theory, was it not?

In his 1995 book Angels Don’t Play this HAARP, Dr. Nick Begich explains how HAARP zaps the upper atmosphere with an electromagnetic beam. “It is an advanced model of an ionospheric heater.” According to Begich, HAARP is a super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that affects areas of the ionosphere by directing a beam to those areas. As a consequence, electromagnetic waves bounce  onto earth and penetrate anything and everything. (10)

A third form of weaponized weather modification techniques is laser beam weapons in space. In 1998, USAF Lt Col. William H. Possel submitted a research report to the faculty of the Air War College, where he explains the current status of space-based laser beam weapons. In his report titled Laser Weapons In Space: A Critical Assessment, Possel cites how attractive laser beam weapons are for attacking and destroying ballistic missiles. He even goes into the type of laser beams that can be used for warfare purposes. Among them, Hydrogen Fluoride Laser, Deuterium Fluoride Laser and Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser. Additionally, Possel goes into detail about how advantageous Space-based Laser Weapon are. “It has the distinct advantage over ground systems of being able to cover a large theater of operations that is limited only by the platform’s orbital altitude. As the platform’s altitude increases, the size of the area it “sees” increases. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but what would happen if anyone has managed to perfect the use of Electromagnetic Wave beams (HAARP) and Space-based weapons. And, weren’t weather modification technologies intended to prevent catastrophe as supposed to create catastrophic events? In case you haven’t understood, we are talking about the use of enhanced weather modification technologies for the purpose of waging warfare anywhere on the planet. (11)

Weather Modification is no Conspiracy Theory

In an article titled Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails, writer Rady Ananda presents a review of the “Case Orange” report. According to Ananda, in May 2010, scientists confirmed that weather manipulation is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory. “It is fully operational with a solid sixty-year history.” According to the World Meteorological Organization recent history has seen a decline in support for weather modification investigation and an accelerated trend to turn existent research into what is called operational projects. (12)

As Ananda cites in his article, the Case Orange is tied to a 1996 report prepared by military personnel. The report titled Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 related existent evidence of government sponsored spraying schedules, chemical orders, nomenclature used in airline operating manuals, and calls for geoengineering by economists. “Owning the Weather in 2025 provides a specific timeline for the use of EnMod technologies in cooperation with the Weather Modification Association (WMA), a business-government group promoting the beneficial uses of environmental modification.” Well, they are not as beneficial as the Government Accountability Office has now found. Some of the steps to be taken as part of the project to “own the weather”, are: introduce ionic mirrors, with a sharp increase by 2008; the use of chemicals for atmospheric seeding by civilian (as well as military) aviation;  the creation of smart clouds thru nanotechnology, with exponential increase after 2010 and the  introduction of ‘carbon black dust’.

The Case Orange report concludes with a revealing yet familiar practice by government, military and government contractors:

Our investigation team comes to the conclusion that climate control programs, controlled by the military but approved by governments, are silently implemented in order to avoid the worst case scenarios they obviously do not want. The two basic instruments are temperature control through generation of artificial clouds and manipulation of the ionosphere through ionosphere heaters.

Both remain basically military combat systems with the option to go into the offensive if deemed necessary. However since several ionosphere heaters are installed on various places around the globe one can assume that there is wide cooperation between governments in order to reach the climate targets by 2025: controlling the weather and thus the planet.

So let’s see what we have. A clearly stated purpose to modify the climate of planet Earth as presented by government organizations, corporations and a section of the scientific community. A plan to own the weather by 2025. A report written by the military that explains how ionospheric manipulation through the use of electromagnetic beams (HAARP), whose infrastructure is spread all over the planet, is used to perform climate control programs. A report written by United States Air Force Lt Col. William H. Possel, where he explains the reality of space-based weapons derived from weather manipulation technology. A historical presentation by Dr. Nick Begich on his book Angels Don’t Play This HAARP, where he explains how electromagnetic wave technology is used to negatively affect the weather by heating up the ionosphere. A warning from Andrei Areshev, the deputy director of the Strategic Culture Foundation in Russia, who independently confirms the existence and application of technology to modify the weather, the ionosphere and to cause plate tectonics activity. Documented proof of the historical use of weather modification technology to artificially pollute planet Earth in an insane attempt to “avoid a fictitious global warming doom scenario. Suggestions by main stream media that took it upon themselves to advertise the use of weather modification technologies to affect weather, no matter how dangerous it may be. Documented medical statements that prove beyond any reasonable doubt how weather modification negatively impacts the health of us humans, who weather modification supporters ironically claim to be protecting. Lastly, but not less important, a study by the United States Accountability Office that once and for all eliminates any doubt about the dangers that artificial weather modification technologies and techniques pose to humanity and planet Earth.

Do you need further proof that weather modification in order to save us from an unexistent impending global catastrophe is a bad idea? And if global warming is real and climate change is real, either anthropogenic or otherwise, is it wise to risk our very own existence and the health of our planet to please a group of scientists and control freaks who want to militarize it all for warfare purposes? (13) Aren’t there enough weapons, enough wars and enough death? How many more of us need to die in order for the controllers to be satisfied? 6.5 billion, it seems.

Temperatura do Planeta Controla Emissões de CO2, não os Humanos

Emissões humanas não controlam o clima ou os níveis de CO2 do mundo.

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
6 de agosto de 2011

Nos últimos dias, foi revelado que os dados de satélite da NASA para o ano de 2000-2011 mostram que a atmosfera permitiu que mais calor fosse liberado para o espaço do que foi alegado pelos alarmistas do aquecimento global e a mudança climática. O estudo mais recente foi publicado em Remote Sensing, uma revista científica lida e avaliada por cientistas. Embora estudos sobre mudanças climáticas alarmistas promovidos pelas Nações Unidas e outras organizações, nos alertam sobre o aquecimento global e como este aumentara dramaticamente nos próximos anos, o estudo publicado em Remote Sensing prova o contrário. Isto deve pelo menos dar espaço para a revisão dos números apresentados pelos alarmistas e para que eles parem de dizer que “há consenso”.

Dado o fato que mais calor foi liberado para o espaço do que se pensava, as concentrações de CO2 na atmosfera parecem ser um fator menos importante quando se trata do aumento da temperatura global. A atmosfera mantém menos CO2 e, portanto, o planeta aquece menos se seguirmos a posição dos alarmistas. Um dos co-autores do estudo, Dr. Roy Spencer, da Universidade de Alabama, em Huntsville disse que o que é chamado de dados do mundo real obtidos a partir do satélite Terra da NASA contradiz premissas introduzidas em modelos alarmistas anteriores. “As observações por satélite indicam que há muito mais energia perdida no espaço durante e após o aquecimento dos modelos climáticos. Há uma enorme discrepância entre os dados e as previsões, especialmente nos oceanos. ”

Junto com o estudo citado acima, vem um novo estudo realizado pelo professor Murry Salby quem é o presidente de Ciências do Clima da Macquarie University. O professor Salby observou proporções de isótopos de carbono 12 (C12) e de carbono 13 (C13) e os níveis de CO2 em todo o mundo nos últimos dois anos. Os resultados de suas observações concluem que as emissões humanas têm apenas um pequeno efeito sobre os níveis globais de CO2. Emissões humanas não controlam o tempo nem os níveis de CO2. O professor Salby conta suas observações em um discurso intitulado: “As Emissões Globais de Dióxido de Carbono: A Contribuição das Fontes Naturais” Ouça a palestra do Professor Salby aqui.

Como demonstrado anteriormente, os oceanos e zonas verdes do planeta emitem mais CO2 na atmosfera do que toda a atividade humana. A industrialização emite cerca de 5 gigatoneladas de toneladas de CO2 ao ano, enquanto os oceanos emitem 90 gigatoneladas e a vida vegetal na Terra emite 60 gigatoneladas.

“Costuma-se dizer que você pode medir a contribuição humana de CO2 para a atmosfera observando a proporção de C12 e C13. A teoria é que as plantas absorvem C12 mais do que C13 (cerca de 2%, não muito), e que podemos ver o ar e saber quanto vem de plantas e quanto dos vulcões e quanto dos combustíveis fósseis. As plantas são ‘deficientes’ no C13, e assim, portanto, deve ser o nosso uso de combustíveis fósseis derivados do aumento das emissões de CO2. A implicação é que, como o carvão e o petróleo vem de plantas fossilizadas e outros materiais orgânicos, estes carregam “a pegada de carbono dessas plantas e materiais fossilizados” e são emitidos quando os humanos usamos combustíveis fósseis “. Mas a questão não é tão simples. Os humanos emitem cerca de 5,5 a cada ano, em quanto as plantas 121,6 (sem contar as plantas no oceano). Há uma grande quantidade de carbono indo e vindo entre os sumidouros e fontes. Exatamente o que sabemos sobre a taxa de evolução da emissão de CO2 do solo, por exemplo? “

Além de nos dizer que o planeta remove mais calor do que era acreditado por alarmistas da mudança climática, as observações dos satélites também nos ajudam a localizar os “pontos quentes” das emissões de CO2. A “novidade”, com as observações de satélite é que as grandes cidades em países altamente industrializados não fazem parte dos “pontos quentes”. As principais fontes de emissões de CO2 são os locais com grandes áreas cobertas de vegetação, como a Amazônia, areas tropicais, sudeste da Ásia e a África tropical.

Conforme os dados, as maiores concentrações de CO2 estão partes do planeta onde o aquecimento é alterado devido a fenômenos como El Niño, por exemplo. Por outro lado, uma menor concentração de CO2 é gravada quando o planeta experimenta aumento da atividade vulcânica e as nuvens de cinzas que os vulcões emitem ajudam a resfriar o planeta. Assim, durante os anos mais quentes, os níveis de CO2 sao menores, enquanto que em anos mais frios foram maiores as concentrações. Então, a temperatura controla os níveis de CO2 na atmosfera, não as emissões humanas.

Os modelos climáticos são geralmente tomados como evidência para argumentar que o planeta está experimentando o aquecimento global ou que a atividade humana é responsável por mudanças climáticas. O problema com esses modelos, no entanto, é o fato que eles estão preparados para assumir que as emissões humanas de CO2, resultantes da industrialização, são responsáveis pelo aquecimento global e as mudanças climáticas. Em outras palavras, os modelos começam a medir fenômenos como o aquecimento global com base em uma premissa equivocada. Além disso, como tem sido bem documentado, as mudanças climáticas ocorrem ao longo de séculos ou milênios, não em décadas ou anos.

O professor Salby acredita que as variações na temperatura explicam as diferentes concentrações de CO2.

Os dados do satélite NASA Terra e outros fornecidos pela NOAA e a mesma NASA indicam que a umidade atmosférica e a formação de nuvens não aumenta à medida que os modelos dos alarmistas dizem. “Tanto o ERB como dados da NASA Terra mostram que há 25 anos e contando, as emissões de dióxido de carbono tem direta e indiretamente, mantém muito menos calor do que os modelos dos alarmistas mostram.”

Como uma terceira advertência ao debate do aquecimento global e as mudanças climáticas, um artigo do 19 de julho de 2011 no The Register, revela como o diretor-geral do laboratório (CERN), localizado em Genebra, proibiu seus cientistas falar sobre os resultados das experiências recentes que demonstram como as partículas de energia solar determinam a formação de nuvens na Terra. A experiência com CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets”) usa o sincrotron de prótons do CERN para examinar nucleação.

O director-geral do CERN, Rolf-Dieter Heuer tentou minimizar o fato de que a atividade solar é o principal motor das mudanças climáticas ao redor do sistema solar, dizendo que “a radiação cósmica é apenas um dos muitos parâmetros.” Heuer acrescentou que, se os resultados foram publicados, eles tornarariam-se ferramentas para o debate político. E, claro, o debate político não seria bom para pessoas como ele, porque mostraria que o alarmismo sobre as mudanças climáticas é desnecessário e injustificado. No entanto, se o sol começa a aumentar a sua actividade de repente e ameaça nossas vidas, o que não está acontecendo, não há muito que possamos fazer para detê-lo, certo?
A experiência CLOUD é baseada em experimentos anteriores realizados pelo físico Henrik Svensmark. “Ele provou que os raios cósmicos fornecem uma semente para o surgimento de nuvens. Pequenas mudanças na cobertura das nuvens do planeta pode causar variações na temperatura de vários graus. A quantidade de material constituído por cúcleos ultra-finos de condensação (UFCN) depende da quantidade de “chuva” solar, que varia dependendo da intensidade do campo magnético do Sol e o campo magnético da Terra. ”

O veterano editor de ciência, Nigel Calder diz que a política do CERN para ser politicamente correto quando se trata do aquecimento global ou mudanças climáticas não é surpreendente. Além disso, é uma ocorrência comum em organizações como o CERN não querer discutir os resultados de experimentos e observações que não suportam as suas teorias. “Para eles é normal entrar no contexto altamente político do debate sobre mudança climática, desde que seus resultados apontem que o homem é responsável pelo aquecimento, mas não se eles são compatíveis com a heresia de Svensmark que encontrou que o Sol muda o clima, e que o clima é influenciando pelo fluxo de raios cósmicos e a formação de nuvens. ”
Estes três exemplos de como ciência recente mostra que o movimento impulsionado pelos alarmistas do aquecimento global têm sido enganado politicamente, intelectualmente e economicamente sequer considera as provas de corrupção mostradas nos infames e-mails de Climategate que são evidencia da corrupção de alguns membros da comunidade científica. Existe uma necessidade de mais provas para refutar o falso alarmismo do aquecimento global? Certamente, há uma maior necessidade de um estudo mais aprofundado do clima e da mudança climatica sem propor soluções insanas e pouco saudáveis como as alterações climáticas artificiais usando armas nucleares para reverter a mudança climática, a pulverização de produtos químicos tóxicos para bloquear o sol, a redução da população como forma de reduzir as emissões de CO2, a desindustrialização do planeta para mantê-lo para os animais, enquanto argumenta-se que os animais são iguais aos seres humanos, a adoção de organismos transgénicos para alimentar o mundo porque o processamento tem uma emissão menor de CO2, e um monte de outras práticas insanas que são agora propostas por políticos fracassados, governos e organizações globalistas internacionais.

Planet’s Temperature Controls CO2 Emissions, not Humans

Human emissions do not control the climate or the planet’s CO2 levels.

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
August 5, 2011

In recent days, it was revealed that NASA’s satellite data for the years of 2000 through 2011 showed Earth’s atmosphere had allowed more heat to be released into space than previously presented by climate change alarmists. The latest study was published in the peer-reviewed Remote Sensing Science Journal. Although United Nations sponsored studies and those of other climate change alarmist organizations warned us about how global warming would dramatically increased in the coming years, the study published on Remote Sensing proves otherwise, which should at least make some room for the alarmists to review their numbers.

Given the fact more heat was released into space than previously thought, the planet’s atmospheric CO2 concentrations seem to be a less important factor when it comes to planetary temperature increases. Atmospheric CO2 traps less heat than alarmists said it does. One of the co-authors of the study, Dr. Roy Spencer, from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and says that what is called real world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict previous assumptions fed into alarmist computer models. “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Along with the study cited above, comes a new study from Professor Murry Salby who is the Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University. Professor Salby observed C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world for the past two years. The results of his observations conclude that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. Man-made emissions do not control climate and neither do they control CO2 levels. Professor Salby related his findings in a speech called: “Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources” Listen to Professor Salby’s conference here.

As it has been proven previously, the oceans and large green areas of the planet emit more CO2 into the atmosphere than all human activity. Industrialization emits about 5 gigatons of CO2 per year, while the oceans emit 90 gigatons and plant life on land emit some 6o gigatons.

“It is often asserted that we can measure the human contribution of CO2 to the air by looking at the ratio of C12 to C13. The theory is that plants absorb more C12 than C13 (by about 2%, not a big signature), so we can look at the air and know which came from plants and which came from volcanos and which came from fossil fuels, via us. Plants are ‘deficient’ in C13, and so, then, ought to be our fossil fuel derived CO2. The implication is that since coal and oil were from plants, that “plant signature” means “human via fossil fuels”. But it just isn’t that simple. We are 5.5 and plants are putting 121.6 into the air each year (not counting ocean plants). There is a lot of carbon slopping back and forth between sinks and sources. Exactly how closely do we know the rate of soil evolution of CO2, for example?”

While satellite measurements tell us the planet let out more heat than it was believed by climate change alarmists, they also help us localize “hotspots” for CO2 emissions. The ‘novelty’ with satellite observations is that large cities in heavily industrialized countries are not part of those “hotspots”. The main sources of CO2 emissions are places with large areas covered by vegetation like the Amazon, tropical areas, southeast Asia, and tropical Africa.

As data shows, more CO2 concentrations are  found when the planet experiences warming due to phenomena such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Conversely, less concentration of CO2 is recorded when the planet experiences more volcanic activity because the large clouds of ash that the volcanoes emit help to keep the planet cooler. So, during warmer years, the levels of CO2 were smaller, while in colder years the concentrations were larger. Temperature controls CO2 levels in the atmosphere, not human emissions.

The failure of the climate models usually taken as proof to argue that the planet is experiencing global warming or that human activity is responsible for climate change is the fact those climate models are prepared to assume that human CO2 emissions, that result from industrialization are responsible for the warming and the changes in climate. As it has been abundantly proven, climate changes occur through centuries or millenia, not decades or years.

Professor Salby believes that temperature variations explain the different CO2 concentrations.

The NASA Terra satellite data support other NOAA and NASA data that indicated that atmospheric humidity and cloud formation do not increase in the way climate alarmists say they do. “Both the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.”

As a third caveat to the global warming and climate change debate, an article dated July 19, 2011 from The Register, reveals how the chief of the world’s leading physics lab at CERN in Geneva prohibited scientists to talk about the results of recent experiments that prove how solar energy particles determine cloud formation in our planet. The CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets”) experiment uses CERN’s proton synchrotron to examine nucleation.

CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer managed to tone down the fact that solar activity is the main driver of climate in the solar system, saying that “cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.”Heuer added that if the results were published, they would be turned into tools for political debate.

The CLOUD experiment are based on previous experiments by physicist Henrik Svensmark. “He demonstrated that cosmic rays provide a seed for clouds. Tiny changes in the earth’s cloud cover could account for variations in temperature of several degrees. The amount of Ultra Fine Condensation Nuclei (UFCN) material depends on the quantity of the background drizzle of rays, which varies depending on the strength of the sun’s magnetic field and the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field.”

Veteran science editor Nigel Calder says that CERN’s policy to remain politically correct when it comes to the global warming or climate change debate is not surprising. He adds that it is a common occurrence for organizations like CERN not to want to discuss the results of experiments or observations that do not support their theories. “It’s OK to enter ‘the highly political arena of the climate change debate’ provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation.”

These three examples of how more recent solid science proves that the alarmist-driven global warming movement has been lied to does not even consider the infamous Climategate emails that showed the corruption of a section of the scientific community. Is there any need for further evidence to disprove the fake global warming alarmism? There is certainly a stronger need to keep on studying climate and how it changes without proposing insane global weather modification practices such as employing nuclear weapons to reverse climate change, the spraying of toxic chemicals to block the sun from driving life on the planet, propose population reduction as a way to curb CO2 emissions, de-industrialize the planet to keep it for the animals as they are equaled to humans, adopt genetically modified organisms to feed the world because it has a smaller CO2 footprint and a host of other demented practices now being proposed by failed politicians, governments and international organizations.

The Gagged Cosmic Ray Experiment

By Andrew Orlowski
The Register
July 19, 2011

The chief of the world’s leading physics lab at CERN in Geneva has prohibited scientists from drawing conclusions from a major experiment. The CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets”) experiment examines the role that energetic particles from deep space play in cloud formation. CLOUD uses CERN’s proton synchrotron to examine nucleation.

CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told Welt Online that the scientists should refrain from drawing conclusions from the latest experiment.

“I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them,” reports veteran science editor Nigel Calder on his blog. Why?

Because, Heuer says, “That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.”

The unusual “gagging order” could have been issued because the results of CLOUD are really, really boring, muses Calder. Or, it could be that the experiment invites a politically unacceptable hypothesis on climate.

The CLOUD experiment builds on earlier experiments by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, who demonstrated that cosmic rays provide a seed for clouds. Tiny changes in the earth’s cloud cover could account for variations in temperature of several degrees. The amount of Ultra Fine Condensation Nuclei (UFCN) material depends on the quantity of the background drizzle of rays, which varies depending on the strength of the sun’s magnetic field and the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field.

But how much? Speaking at a private event attended by El Reg earlier this year, Svensmark, who has nothing to do with CLOUD, wouldn’t be drawn. He said he thought it was one of four significant factors: man-made factors, volcanoes, a “regime shift” in the mid-’70s, and cosmic rays.

The quantity of cosmic rays therefore has an influence on climate, but this isn’t factored into the IPCC’s “consensus” science at all.

According to Calder:

“CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It’s OK to enter ‘the highly political arena of the climate change debate’ provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation.”

Let’s hope he’s been misquoted. The precedents aren’t happy.