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.

Globalists, Climate Alarmists Move Forward with Deindustrialization Agenda

Reuters
April 8, 2011

Rich and poor nations overcame deep divisions on Friday to cut a deal that maps out U.N. climate negotiations for 2011, building on last December’s agreement in Mexico and hardening the focus on tougher issues.

The deal in Bangkok came after nearly four days of talks that some developing nations said were needed to “recalibrate” U.N. climate negotiations after last year’s Cancun agreements.

They wanted an agenda that tackled the fate of the Kyoto Protocol on fighting global warming and rich countries’ pledges to cut emissions, and clarified sources of cash for poorer nations rather than just building on what was agreed at Cancun.

But many rich nations said some developing nations were simply trying to row back on what was agreed in Cancun and this undermined negotiations this year that culminate in the South African city of Durban from late November.

Many nations were unhappy that much of the April 3-8 meeting was taken up arguing over the agenda, with the United States saying the delay dampened the mood, while some developing nations had misgivings about the end result. All expressed an urgency to press ahead with negotiations.

“It’s less rosy today than when we came in (at the start of the meeting),” senior U.S. negotiator Jonathan Pershing told reporters. In particular, he said some countries wanted to renegotiate the Cancun decisions.

“I don’t think that’s going to be constructive. What became evident is that we can expect more of that going forward,” he said.

Tosi Mpanu Mpanu, chair of the Africa Group, said he had mixed feelings. “Thank god we came up with an agenda. It’s a pity it took so long. What does it say for the rest of the year?”

FRAUGHT

Cancun is widely regarded as saving the often fraught negotiations from collapse.

Nations agreed curbs on the loss of tropical forests, schemes to transfer clean technology to poorer nations and help them adapt to climate change impacts, and a goal for rich countries to provide $100 billion a year in aid from 2020.

But it side-stepped tougher issues, such as whether to extend or replace the Kyoto Protocol, with concerns growing that a new pact or extension to Kyoto will not be agreed before the pact’s first phase ends next year.

Kyoto binds almost 40 industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels during the five-year period 2008-2012. A second phase is meant to increase those cuts for rich nations.

It is the only pact imposing legal obligations on emissions cuts and the U.N. talks have been hobbled by disagreement over how to extend that obligation to all major economies, such as China, the world’s top greenhouse gas emitter.

The United States is No. 2. It never ratified Kyoto.

In Bangkok, there was a fresh focus on trying to find a compromise, with the agreed agenda stating there should be a continued discussion of the legal options of a new agreement that captures emissions curbs by all major economies.

“This evening in Bangkok, parties agreed an agenda to work toward a comprehensive and balanced outcome at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Durban,” said U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres.

But disputes still loom over the size of rich nations’ pledges to cut emissions, with the United Nations saying they are not enough to avoid average global warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius.

Nations agreed in Cancun to work to keep the rise below this level to stave off ever greater extremes of droughts and floods, crop failures and rising sea levels.

Environmental groups were worried by the outcome of Bangkok.

“Once again, delegates could not reach agreement over key issues, including the future of the Kyoto Protocol, bringing the talks to a screeching halt almost from the beginning,” said Tasneem Essop of WWF.

Others pointed to the urgency to act to fight the impacts of climate change.

“There’s uncertainty about where the Cancun agreements take us, and can countries meet their commitments, and is it enough? And I think that was really at the heart of the agenda debate,” said Angela Anderson of the U.S. Climate Action Network.

Costa Rican Shill Heading UN Climate Fraud Negotiations

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
August 9, 2010

Cristiana Figueres, a descendant of a Costa Rican elite family is the top United Nations climate official in charge of conducting negotiations to impose a worldwide tax on humanity for the purpose of funding the World Climate Fund, a United Nations organ that would rule over every single country on environmental policy. Figueres is the daughter of former Costa Rican president Jose Figueres Ferrer and sister of also former Costa Rican president Jose Maria Figueres Olsen. Figueres got the position only after her predecessor Yvo de Boer walked away from the chairmanship after the fiasco in Copenhagen, Denmark. She was proposed as a replacement by a group of insular nations who opposed the arrival of a representative from the BSAIC, a group of countries formed by Brazil, South Africa, India and China. This group was the only bloc opposed to the insane policies the United Nations wanted to approve at the Copenhagen meeting. After the failure to reach a consensus, the United Nations is back bolder than ever and with a new face. It wants to mandate that countries finance and support the World Climate Fund which will undoubtedly be managed by the controllers that founded and direct the UN today.

Cristiana Figueres, Head of the UN Convention on Climate Change.

The United Nations wants to make sure once countries meet back to discuss the creation of the World Climate Fund, most nations will be on board with the climate tax scam that this organization, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have requested as their only solution to face an inexistent global warming emergency. Developing countries withdrew their support in Copenhagen after a document was released establishing the real intentions the United Nations and the industrialized countries had with the adoption of the Copenhagen Treaty. In it, the UN intended to impose a mandatory tax on all nations which would have started with the establishment of national emission reduction targets and contributions to the Fund.

What tipped the developing countries against the Treaty was the fact the document clearly stated that third world countries would not receive the funding promised by the UN on the conditions stated in a previous draft of the Treaty, and that such subsidies for cutting down emissions would have strings attached. “It’s a little bit like a broken record,” said European Union negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger. “It’s like a flashback,” agreed Raman Mehta, of the Action Aid environment group. “The discourse is the same level” as before Copenhagen.

Organizations like the UN as well as many bought and paid-for scientists justify the imposition of a world tax on industrialization due to the false unproven and debunked assertion that carbon dioxide, a gas emitted from most industrial activity, is responsible for the runaway warming of the planet. It is false, because the planet has actually cooled off in the last 10 to 12 years. Their assertion is unproven, because in spite of the thousands of white papers and studies scientists and universities cite as infallible proof CO2 causes the warming, the truth is, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4-6 percent of the total amount of gases present. From those 4-6 percent, human activity is only responsible for about half. But even if human activity was responsible for such warming, how would a world tax on emissions help slow atmospheric pollution? It does not. The funds raised from adopting any kind of protocol or treaty, would only help finance the creation of a global centralized entity, that not only the United Nations but also the World Bank and the IMF have uncontrollably called for.

According to the Associated Press, global climate talks slipped backward after five days of negotiations in Bonn, Germany. There, poor countries faced-off with rich nations on the very same topic that sank the Copenhagen negotiations: The details on what countries in the third world would receive and under what conditions as well as agreements they made last year.  “Delegates complained that reversals in the talks put negotiations back by a year, even before minimal gains were scored at the Copenhagen summit last December,” reports the AP.

Christiana Figueres, said the Bonn talks was the last chance for nations to agree on a set of maximum national demands, and insisted countries had to “radically narrow down their choices”. One more round of talks is scheduled for October in China. The results of the November meeting in Cancun, Mexico have already been downplayed by organizers in order to avoid the grand fiasco experienced in Denmark. But Figueres’ statement makes it clear developing countries will have to abide by the rules the globalists at the head of the UN want to impose; or else. It seems the UN wants every country to approve their package of “concessions” and take it home where it can be passed as the law of the land. This way, the agreement will be binding. Another fact that made poor countries get up from the table in Copenhagen, was the statement countries who signed the Treaty could not withdraw from it later. Not even Barack Hussein Obama, fresh from a highly overrated election, was able to inspire confidence in the 120 representatives who walked away from the conference. The failure Copenhagen came to be known for, ended with an empty statement pledging to downgrade industrialization to levels only seen in the middle ages and to reduce emissions to amounts only realistic in the planet Earth of the 1700’s. Not even the explicit and corrupt intention to buy countries off was enough to reach a binding agreement.

Although treaties have always promised to provide aid to developing nations in order to reduce carbon emissions, their representatives did not bite the bait, as rich nations would not do the same. It is through schemes like Cap&Trade, that industrialized nations would encourage and indeed pimp the very own emissions plan to large corporations -owned by globalists- so they do not have to reduce their emissions neither in developed countries nor in Asia, Africa or Latin America. According to the Cap&Trade text, anyone with deep pockets (corporations funded by banks) could purchase carbon credits from other companies or from the Chicago Credit Exchange to continue polluting. Where would the emissions reduction come from then? From the no development of poor nations. The Cap&Trade scam would not only further break down all current industry in developed countries, but also stop any hint of development in third world nations.

“At this point, I am very concerned,” said chief U.S. delegate Jonathan Pershing. “Unfortunately, what we have seen over and over this week is that some countries are walking back from progress made in Copenhagen, and what was agreed there.” On the other hand, British economist Nicholas Stern said that government regulation and public money would also be needed to create incentives for private investment in industries that emit fewer greenhouse gases. In other words, tax payer money would bailout large corporations (owned by banks) in order for them to get rich as they themselves manage the carbon credit scam. For this purpose, the United Nations brought in an unknown face (Cristiana Figueres) in order to gain some confidence back from disenchanted representatives. The new head of the Convention on Climate Change is seen as an expert due to her experience as president of several working groups, (the compartmentalized type) that meet behind closed doors to secretly decide on the destinies of millions of people. She is recognized for having a deep understanding of how the inside circles are managed in negotiations such as the climate tax and the creation of unelected, unaccountable bureaucratic bodies.

With the most recent face change, the United Nations wants to achieve the same effect the globalists looked for in the United States with Barack Obama. Once the people learn of the scam they run, a new puppet must come to be the front man, (in this case, the front woman) so they can enforce their eugenicist scientific technocracy. But as everyone has seen with Obama, you can only fool some people for some time, but you cannot fool all people all the time. Now we see the light.*

*Bob Marley