Artiklar
IPCC vill utreda klimatlösningar genom geomanipuliering som t.ex. chemtrails
Published by Jin83 on 2011-06-18
IPCC vill utreda klimatlösningar genom geomanipuliering som t.ex. chemtrails
Läckta dokument inför det viktiga IPCC-mötet i Lima tyder på att FN-organet är ute efter att bromsa koldioxidutsläpp med hjälp av tekniska lösningar snarare än samtal.
Ljusare grödor, aerosoler i stratosfären och järnfilspån i havet är några av de åtgärder som övervägs av ledande forskare i syfte att genomföra en ”geomanipulering” (”geo-engineering”) av jordens klimat, visar läckta dokument från FN:organet IPCC.
I en åtgärd som tyder på att FN och de rika länder är desperata över att nå enighet under de kommande klimatförhandlingarna, kommer amerikanska, brittiska och andra västerländska forskare att beskriva en rad idéer för att manipulera världens klimat för att minska koldioxidutsläppen. Och de accepterar risken att även om idéerna teoretiskt sätt skulle kunna fungera, skulle de lika gärna kunna få oavsiktliga och till och med oåterkalleliga konsekvenser.
Dokumenten, som har läckt ut från Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) före ett möte den 20–22 juni med en grupp experter på geomanipulering i Lima i Peru, visar att omkring 60 forskare kommer att föreslå eller försöka bedöma en rad radikala åtgärder, inklusive:
sprängning av sulfat-aerosoler i stratosfären för att reflektera solljuset tillbaka ut i rymden; deponering av stora mängder järnfilspån i haven; manipulering av grödor genom bioteknik i syfte ge dem en ljusare färg för att reflektera solljus, och att hålla nere mängden cirrusmoln.
Andra förslag som troligen komma att föreslås innefattar att: spreja ut havsvatten i atmosfären för att bilda moln som ska reflektera solljuset bort från jorden; gräva ner träkol; måla gator och hustak vita i stor skala; kalka haven; hitta olika sätt att suga bort växthusgaser ur luften och att deponera värme djupt ned i haven.
Denna vecka har mer än 125 miljö-, utvecklings- och mänskliga rättigheter-grupper från 40 länder publicerat ett brev som skickats till Rajendra Pachauri, den nobelprisvinnande chefen för IPCC, och varnat för att FN-organet inte har något mandat att pröva lagligheten eller den politiska lämpligheten av att använda geomanipulering.
”Att fråga en grupp forskare inom geomanipulering om mer forskning bör göras, är som att fråga björnar om de skulle vilja ha honung”, säger brevet, som är undertecknat av grupper som inbegriper Friends of the Earth International, Via Campesina och ETC.
Icke oväntat kretsar oron över IPCC: s möte kring vem som ska bestämma vilken typ av geomanipulering som ska genomföras, och hur den bör regleras och övervakas. Vissa projekt kan, om de fungerar, oavsiktligt förändra vädermönster och eventuellt också påverka jordbruk och försörjning i några av de mest utsatta områdena i världen.
Ett av argumenten som förs fram i ovan nämnda brev liknar det som förs fram av de som är skeptiska till den antropogen teorin om temperaturökningen på Jorden, nämligen att geomanipulering inte är en vetenskaplig fråga utan en politisk, och att de tekniska lösningar som geomanipulering erbjuder inte är en äkta, utan ”en falsk lösning på klimatkrisen”.
Vissa frågar sig i ljuset av detta om det finns ytterligare paralleller mellan dessa två ståndpunkter.
Enligt sammanfattningarna av FN-dokumenten föreslår Georgina Mace, professor i ”Conservation Science vid Imperial College”, London, att de viktigaste, ledande principerna framöver bör vara att geomanipulering är en ”kollektiv nyttighet”, det bör inte heller finnas något deltagande från allmänheten i planerna eller några oberoende bedömningar av konsekvenserna.
”Geomanipulering är inte en kollektiv nyttighet, utan kan vara en gigantisk internationell skandal med förödande konsekvenser för de fattiga”, säger Diana Bronson, forskare inom den internationella icke-statliga organisationen ETC Group.
I dokumenten accepterar många forskare den stora osäkerheten kring tekniken.
Den vetenskapliga styrgruppen för mötet, som kommer att bedöma teknik, innehåller dock många kända förespråkare för geomanipulering, vilka har krävt offentliga medel för att genomföra storskaliga experiment, och forskare som har patent på geomanipuleringsteknik eller ekonomiska intressen i tekniken.
........................................................................................................................................................................
News Release: Civil Society Organizations to IPCC: Take Geoengineering off the Table!
Today, 125 international and national organizations, representing at least 40 countries from all continents, sent an open letter to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), demanding a clear statement of its commitment to precaution and to the existing international moratorium on geoengineering. The IPCC will hold an expert meeting on geoengineering 20-22 June in Lima, Peru. (The letter is available and open for signatures here.)
Geoengineering is the deliberate manipulation of Earth systems to alter the climate, including high-risk technologies such as blasting particles into the stratosphere to mimic volcanic eruptions (to block sunlight) and “fertilizing” oceans to grow plankton blooms for carbon sequestration. Formerly in the realm of science fiction, geoengineering has been gaining ground as a possible – even necessary, some argue – response to the climate crisis.
Climate manipulation has been on the radar of powerful Northern governments for decades. Originally conceived as a military strategy, climate manipulation has been rebranded as geoengineering: a weapon in the war on climate change.
The U.S. and UK governments appear especially open to the prospect of geoengineering, which is no surprise, according to Silvia Ribeiro of the ETC Group: “It’s a convenient way for Northern governments to dodge their commitments to emissions reduction.” Ribeiro continues, “But the climate is a complex system; manipulating climate in one place could have grave environmental, social and economic impacts on countries and peoples that had no say on the issue. Scientists estimate that blasting particles into the stratosphere could alter monsoon and wind patterns and put at risk the food and water sources for 2 billion people."
“As the world watched the Australian airline industry thrown into chaos this week by volcanic ash drifting from Chile, it’s absurd that the IPCC is considering how to do the same thing on purpose. The potential for unilateralism and private profiteering is great; the likelihood that geoengineering will provide a safe, lasting, democratic and peaceful solution to the climate crisis is miniscule,” said Ricardo Navarro, of Cesta and Friends of the Earth International, detained in Buenos Aires due to the volcanic ash.
In October 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity established a moratorium on geoengineering. Nonetheless, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC told The Guardian last week, “We are putting ourselves in a scenario where we will have to develop more powerful technologies to capture emissions out of the atmosphere,” referring to geoengineering techniques. Also in The Guardian, John Vidal writes today, quoting the organizations' letter: Leaked documents ahead of key Lima meeting suggest UN body is looking to slow emissions with technological fixes rather than talks.
Meenakshi Raman from Third World Network - Malaysia, another signatory of the letter to the IPCC, argues, “It is completely misguided for Ms. Figueres to suggest that we work on sucking carbon out of the atmosphere rather than stop putting it in; it is equally misguided for the IPCC to assume that geoengineering has any place at all in what they call the ‘portfolio of response options’ to climate change.”
The open letter criticizes the IPCC for reneging on its pledge to be “policy-neutral.” The Scientific Steering Committee (SSG) that organized the expert meeting includes geoengineering researchers who have advocated increases in research funding and real-world experimentation, as well as scientists with patents pending on geoengineering technologies and/or other financial interests. The SSG did not allow committed civil society organizations to participate, even as observers. Still, the IPCC says it will take up the issue of “governance” and “social, legal and political factors.”
Raman stresses that the IPCC has no place taking up the issue of geoengineering governance because “this is not a scientific question; it’s a political one.”
La Via Campesina, the world’s largest small-scale farmers network, is concerned that the impacts of climate manipulation on agriculture would be felt particularly by peasants in the South and that tinkering with the oceans could destroy the livelihoods of thousands of small fishermen. Via Campesina argues, “Geoengineering is a false solution to climate change and so dangerous to nature and to the world’s people, it should be banned.”
Alejandro Argumedo from the indigenous organization ANDES (Peru) agrees. Argumedo is one of the organizers of activities for civil society organizations, which will take place in Lima at the same time as the IPCC’s expert meeting: “The IPCC shut out civil society from their meeting, even though the Panel’s experts plan to discuss the 'social factors' of geoengineering. 125 international and national organizations from around the world just gave them something to talk about.”
Also in The Guardian, an opinion article by Pat Mooney expressing our views on geoengineering and the IPCC meeting: "Geo-engineering does not deserve serious climate policy consideration. The likelihood that such technology could bring a safe, lasting, democratic and peaceful solution is miniscule"
.......................................................................................................................................................................
What the UN ban on geoengineering really means
* 14:40 01 November 2010 by Fred Pearce
Last week's conference of the UN Convention on Biodiversity appeared to ban any future efforts to "geoengineer" the planet to counter the effects of climate change. But did it? And why was the decision made at the UN's biodiversity meeting in Nagoya, Japan, rather than at next month's climate conference in Mexico?
Campaigners such as the ETC Group said the UN meeting had imposed "a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments". In fact, the resolution was worded in a way that placed a moratorium on geoengineering only if it might affect biodiversity.
The 193 signatories to the convention agreed to outlaw such geoengineering projects "until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts". The agreement exempted "small-scale scientific research studies". Carbon capture
What this means in practice is far from clear. The convention's definition of geoengineering includes any technology that reduces solar heating of the Earth or increases carbon capture from the atmosphere – though carbon-capture and storage projects can go ahead as long as the carbon comes direct from industrial emissions.
That would, on the face of it, preclude planting of forests to soak up CO2, which attracts carbon credits under the existing Kyoto protocol. The Nagoya negotiators apparently felt carbon sink forests passed the test of having an "adequate scientific basis".
Whether they really do is open to question. Where those forests are monocultures, they probably reduce biodiversity. In any case, if they are exempted, why not also exempt efforts to seed the oceans with iron to encourage algae to grow, which will also absorb CO2 from the air above? Global sunshades
Almost any activity may affect biodiversity: everything hangs on the degree, and the burden of proof. It might be also be argued that almost all geoengineering options – from putting parasols into space, to making clouds or seeding the air with sulphur to shade the Earth – would benefit biodiversity by stabilising the climate.
Many in the developing world see the whole idea of geoengineering as a ruse by industrialised nations to excuse them from making serious cuts in emissions of the gases causing climate change. On the other hand, advocates of geoengineering argue that they have a duty to prepare for the possibility of rapid warming that requires a quick fix.
In any event, huge questions remain about who would "press the geoengineering button" and on what authority. John Shepherd, who chaired a study on geoengineering by the UK's Royal Society, argues that by raising the issue of geoengineering governance, last week's meeting has done the world a good turn.
What the UN ban on geoengineering really means
..............................................................................................................................................................
Soil Aluminum and Soil Test Interpretation
Aluminum is not an essential element for either plants or animals. Most plant producers have heard that too much aluminum (Al) can be harmful to plants. However, many may not be aware that there are multiple forms of Al in the soil and most of them are not directly harmful to plants. There are also multiple methods of testing the soil for these various forms of Al and several different ways to use these soil test results. This paper will discuss these aspects of soil Al and using soil Al test results.
Aluminum is the most abundant metal in the earth's crust. It makes up about 7% of the mass (essentially the weight) of the earths crust. If you apply this number to an acre of soil 6 2/3 inches deep (2 million pounds of soil), that 7% "Total Al" would equal about 140,000 lb Al/acre or 70,000 ppm. Those of us involved in producing plants, whether those plants are agricultural, turf, or ornamental, should understand how Al can affect these plants.
Soil_Aluminum_and_test_interpretation
Chemtrails and Monsanto’s New Aluminum Resistance Gene – Coincidence?
By Barbara H. Peterson
Farm Wars "" 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?""
Why did Monsanto Develop an Aluminum Resistance Gene?
Monsanto is currently marketing an aluminum resistance gene. Here’s the spin, folks:
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.
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?
This is no game folks. We are being hit from all sides with a planned, homicidal, genocidal agenda to make a very few families even richer than they already are, and reduce the world’s population to 500 million as set forth in the Georgia Guidestones. This is nothing short of biological warfare.
©2010 Barbara H. Peterson
....................................................................................................................................................................
Can Geoengineering Help Slow Global Warming?
"" But worst of all might be to take only the safe and slow approach and watch the climate collapse around our ears. We're already geoengineers, after all; we might as well get good at it.""
.....................................................................................................................................................................
Geo-Engineering Can Help Save the Planet
""A significant amount of CO2 can be withdrawn by ecosystem restoration on a planetary scale. That means reforestation, restoring degraded grasslands and pasturelands and practicing agriculture in ways that restore carbon to the soil. There are additional benefits: forests benefit watersheds, better grasslands provide better grazing and agricultural soils become more fertile. This must integrate with competing uses for land as the population grows, but fortunately it comes at a time of greater urbanization.""
.......................................................................................................................................................................
Geoengineering Projects That Could Offset Global Warming
"Stratospheric aerosol injections and sunshades in space have by far the greatest potential to cool the climate by 2050 - but also carry the greatest risk"
........................................................................................................................................................................
Geoengineering ......................................................................................................................................................................
Copenhagen 2010: ETC's Diana Bronson on Geoengineering
1.
2.
........................................................................................................................................................................
Geoengineering: How to Cool Earth--At a Price
"Global warming has become such an overriding emergency that some climate experts are willing to consider schemes for partly shielding the planet from the sun's rays. But no such scheme is a magic bullet."
""As early as 1965, when Al Gore was a freshman in college, a panel of distinguished environmental scientists warned President Lyndon B. Johnson that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels might cause “marked changes in climate” that “could be deleterious.”"
David Suzuki: “Geoengineering is insane”
“Geoengineering is insane”
“We know what is creating our problem with climate and we know the best solution, which is to accept that mother nature, not governments or corporations sets the limits and we’ve got to meet those limits. Geoengineering is Insane.” – David Suzuki, Candian Scientist, broadcaster and activist.
U.N. urged to freeze climate geo-engineering projects
"(Reuters) - The United Nations should impose a moratorium on "geo-engineering" projects such as artificial volcanoes and vast cloud-seeding schemes to fight climate change, green groups say, fearing they could harm nature and mankind."
The Climate Science Isn't Settled
Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Destroying Humanity with Social & Bioengineering
1.
2.
3.
""Bisphenol-A (BPA), known as the "gender bending" chemical because of its connection to male impotence, has now been shown to decrease sperm mobility and quality.
The findings are likely to increase pressure on governments around the world to follow Canada and ban the substance from our shelves.
BPA is used widely to make plastic harder and watertight tin cans.
It is found in most food and drink cans -- including tins of infant formula milk -- plastic food containers, and the casings of mobile phones, and other electronic goods.""
Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states as Big Government claims ownership over our water
"How about the question of who owns your body? According to the U.S. Patent & Trademark office, U.S. corporations and universities already own 20% of your genetic code. Your own body, they claim, is partially the property of someone else.
So if they own your land, your water and your body, how long before they claim to own your air, your mind and even your soul?"
Geo-manipulation may be scary and necessary
“We are getting into very risky territory,” said Christiana Figueres, head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, last week. But she acknowledged that we may have to go there anyway."
She was talking about geo-engineering, the manipulation of the world’s climate to avoid catastrophic warming. Nobody actually wants to do that, because we don’t understand the climate system well enough to foresee all the possible side-effects.
But a large number of people think that in the end we’ll have to do it anyway, because we’re not going to get the warming under control in time without it.
A Partial History of Aerosol and Weather Related Technologies
5984239 - November 16, 1999 - Weather modification by artificial satellite
WEATHER MODIFICATION
A COVERT WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION
PART 1
AN OVERVIEW OF WEATHER MODIFICATION IN THE USA....
In 1977, the Geneva Convention proposed an international treaty prohibiting the military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques. The Convention opened for signature on May 18, 1977 in Geneva and the treaty was enforced on October 5, 1978.