Info / Official Reports
Geoengineering is defined as the deliberate large scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system for the stated goal of cooling the planet. Geoengineers are proposing spraying 10 to 20 million tons of toxic aluminum oxide and other particles into our atmosphere. While scientists claim that these programs are only in the planning stages, evidence is abundant that they have already been started. Several scientific groups have addressed various geoengineering techniques. Or area of interest and focus is on solar radiation management/stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. These methods are commonly referred to as chemtrails.
Solar radiation management/stratospheric aerosol geoengineering:
Solar Radiation Management (SRM) techniques, which reflect a small percentage of the sun’s light and heat back into space. These methods act quickly, and so may represent the only way to lower global temperatures quickly in the event of a climate crisis. However, they only reduce some, but not all, effects of what some scientists call the problem of climate change, while possibly creating other problems . They also do not affect CO2 levels and therefore fail to address the wider effects of rising CO2, including ocean acidification. Wether you believe in the man-made global worming theory, it is clear that geoengineers are planning on implementing these programs.
The Congressional Research Service released it new report on Geoengineering for members of the U.S. Congress on August 16, 2010. The U.S. House Science & Technology Committee released their Final Geoengineering Report on October 27, 2010. The U.S. House Science and Technology Committee on Geoengineering is working with the UK Parliament on Global Geoengineering Governance which has released its 5th Report (printed by the House of Commons), on March 10, 2010.
Click on the link below to read these reports:
Many private corporations, universities, government agencies, private individuals, states, counties, and cities, have deployed or will participate in deploying, a vast array of geoengineering experiments in the near future without public oversight or consent. Currently no government agency, or the U.S. Congress at this time, will have any idea what the cumulative or synergistic effects may be when these experiments are deployed. In addition, no one, not even the U.S. Congress or the public, will have any oversight of these programs, the chemicals or particles that will be used or how they will be implemented. Thus, action is needed today to prevent these questionable experiments.
The U.S. House Science & Technology Committee and the UK Parliament have engaged in an agreement to participate in geoengineering discussions and the possible implementation of global geoengineering governance proposed by the Royal Society and several climate scientists. Private and public meetings of climate scientists, with little media coverage, were initiated in February and March 2010, in California, in order to elaborate on possible geoengineering schemes and to discuss global geoengineering governance guidelines.
The purpose of one set of schemes is to initiate “Solar Radiation Management (SRM)” experiments. SRM is designed to reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the Earth. The consequences of these SRM schemes are unknown since planetary-scale engineering involves so many different geoengineering schemes with unknown cumulative and synergistic effects.
A key AAAS February 2010, geoengineering write-up states: “…Studies show, however, that people make judgments based primarily on their values, belief systems, world views, and emotions. Facts play a much more minor role. This gap cannot be bridged by loading the public with facts, or trying to make the public more science literate…” Thus, a whole series of presentations were made to advise geoengineers and others on how to manipulate the public so that they would support these schemes.
In a Press Release Dated December of 2002 titled: “GEOENGINEERING TOO RISKY” A Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Press release warns, “…There are many reasons why geoengineering is not a preferred option for climate stabilization…” These prescriptions include risks of global “system failure” and the “unpredictable responses” of Earth’s climate system to large-scale human intervention…”
On March 22-26, 2010, the Climate Respond Fund (note the partners listing in the document section below), sponsored the Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies in Monterey, California. The conference was designed to develop (global geoengineering governance) guidelines for “…research and testing of proposed climate intervention and geoengineering technologies…”
What are the consequences of deploying Solar Radiation Management geoengineering experiments?
1) Some of these experiments are designed to reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the Earth thus reducing the power output and the effectiveness of solar panels and solar cars.
2) Many proposed chemicals or particles used in these geoengineering schemes (i.e., U.S. Navy/NASA C.A.R.E. experiment used a rocket to create an aluminum oxide dust cloud over the Eastern portion of the U.S. on September 19, 2009), are likely to be toxic to humans, marine mammals, oceans, fish, wildlife, food pollinators, and birds. Many of these toxic chemicals, like sulfur, have the potential to contaminate drinking water, soil, cause acid rain or air pollution, and may impair human health, from lack of Vitamin D, by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth.
3) NASA research studies show that increasingly persistent jet contrails may turn into “man-made clouds” (or white haze), and are “…trapping warmth in the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming…Any change in global cloud cover may contribute to long-term changes in the Earth’s climate…” No current U.S. legislation addresses water vapor and aviation impacts on the global atmosphere. In addition, our scientists do not appear to be funding or working toward reducing or eliminating this problem. What happens when additional programs are put in place to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth when we already have man-made clouds dimming the sun and exacerbating global warming?
4) SRM may limit Honey Bee food pollination because the bee navigates and communicates though the use of ultraviolet light. And we have no idea what the cumulative impacts of toxic chemicals, particles, and reduced sunlight will have on all of our pollinators endangering food production.
5) Photosynthesis is required for the majority of life on Earth to exist, along with healthy trees, and food crop production. When cloud cover and reduced sunlight is present crop production drops. When direct sunlight and normal rainfall is present crop production increases. What happens when geoengineers deliberate reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the Earth? What are the consequences of multiple uncontrolled experiments?
The climate scientists and geoengineers all have one repeated mantra: “…Geoengineering is not a solution to climate change and global warming…” They are instead enlisting support to spend enormous sums to buy time to do something later. Just what research, project funding, and development are they now engaging in to fix our current pollution problems now? Nothing! They are not promoting research into benefits that will be long-lasting or make a difference now.
The “temporary fix” theory with “unknown consequences” seems to be their only contribution to the disaster they predict. Should the public be willing to accept this temporary fix with unknown consequences? This attitude is unacceptable because those conducting the geoengineering experiments will be unaccountable if their experiments go awry or create profound negative consequences.
Professor Benford (U.C. Irvine, CA), wrote the following regarding the public in a Reason.com article in 1997: “…But perhaps the greatest unknown is social: How will the politically aware public react–those who vote, anyway? If geoengineers are painted early and often as Dr. Strangeloves of the air, they will fail. Properly portrayed as allies of science–and true environmentalism–they could become heroes… A major factor here will be whether mitigation looks like yet another top-down contrivance, another set of orders from the elite. Draconian policing of fuel burning will certainly look that way, a frowning Aunt Bessie elbowing into daily details…In contrast, mitigation does not have to push a new camel’s nose into our tents… Technical solutions can play out far from people’s lives, on the sea or high in the air…Once we become caretakers, we cannot stop…(they) must be carried forward in the shadow of our stewardship…”
Instead of questionable geoengineering experiments all reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants, at their source, should be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency and all funding should go to the EPA for developing alternative energy and transportation. Scientists and researchers should be funded to invent ways to use waste energy from currently operating energy plants to produce clean, green power, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is where funding should be directed…not to those programs and experiments that will not reduce our impact on Earth from various types of pollution sources. The energy of the geoengineers should be redirected to solve pollution problems not add to them.
On June 10, 2010, the U.S. Senate voted to uphold a 2007, U.S. Supreme Court Decision, that allows the EPA to regulated and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is no reason to initiate global geoengineering programs when we have the ability to reduce pollution under our laws. Reduction is the preferred alternative to pollution…not adding more toxic contaminates to our atmosphere that will impact life on Earth as we know it.
Our local, county, state and federal representatives should take immediate action to stop these geoengineering scheme deployments until scientists from every field, agriculture interests, ocean scientists, marine biologists, and the public have had time to thoroughly investigate these schemes and their effects on the Earth’s environment.
No one has the right to use the Earth, or Earth’s atmosphere, as a giant experimental physics laboratory due to the unknown consequences of such actions.
Global Geoengineering Governance
16A 2009 Parliament.uk Website November 5, 2009 New Inquiry-Regulation of Geoengineering with U.S.pdf
16A 2009 UK Parliamentary Office of Science+Technology Postnote March 2009 Geo-Engineering Research+Funding.pdf
16A 2010 GAO March 18, 2010 Preliminary Observations-Geoengineering Science+Federal Efforts+Governance.pdf
16A 2010 Geoengineering Governance and Technology Policy Report by Congressional Research Service August 16, 2010.pdf
16A 2010 U.S. House Science+Technology Committee Report Geoengineering the Climate October 27, 2010 Entire Report.pdf
16A 2011 Geoengineering Scientists Debate Risks of Sun-Blocking+Other Climate Tweaks to Fight Warming April 4, 2011 Huffington Post.pdf
16A GEOENGINEERING PETITION TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH+AGRICULTURE FROM ATMOSPHERIC QUESTIONABLE EXPERIMENTS.pdf
16A Poster+Banner Geoengineering CRRES + HAARP High Altitude Auroral Research Program 2006 RP.jpg
16AZ 2011 A Few Geoengineering Images Internet July 20, 2011.pdf
This section contains descriptions of all geoengineering schemes that have been discussed in the past ten years. This includes graphics and other information on these schemes.
16B 2006 Geoengineering How to Cool A Planet Maybe NYTimes Problems+Experiments June 27, 2006 Entire Article.pdf
16B 2006 Geoengineering How to Cool A Planet Maybe NYTimes Problems+Experiments June 27, 2006 Interesting Graphic.pdf
16B 2006 Geoengineering How to Cool A Planet Maybe NYTimes Problems+Experiments June 27, 2006 Page 1.pdf
16B 2007 Geoengineering Methods IPCC-NASA-University of Arizona MSNBC News From Associated Press Graphic March 16, 2007.pdf
16B 2007 Geoengineering-Top 10 Most Controversial Ways to Save the Planet or Destroy Our Environment NOV 26, 2007 http___gigaom.pdf
16B 2007 NASA Summaries of Workshop On Managing Solar Radiation NASA AMES April 2007.pdf
16B 2008 Solar Radiation Management-The Radiative Forcing Potential of Different Climate Geoengineering Options DEC 10, 2008.pdf
16B 2008 Technofixes A Critical Guide to Climate Change Technologies CW Corporate Watch Report 2008 Public Debate Needed.pdf
16B 2009 Geoengineering Crazy Ideas+Experiments February 13, 2009 Telegraph.co.uk.pdf
16B 2009 Geoengineering Disastrous Projects That May or May Not Offset Global Warming January 28, 2009.pdf
16B 2009 Geoengineering Projects January 28, 2009 Climate Change.pdf
16B 2010 The Return of Dr. Strangelove June 2010 by Clive Hamilton on Climate Geoengineering.pdf
16B 2011 Arctic Geoengineering A Climate Cures Dark Side January 30, 2011 Newsweek Magazine.pdf
16B 2011 Geoengineering Green Versus Greed in the Race to Cool the Plant-Weather Manipulation July 10, 2011 Oberver News.pdf
16B 2011 What is Geoengineering February 18, 2011 Guardian.co.uk News-Chemicals-Solar Radiation Management-Other Schemes.pdf
Particles, gases, and other materials injected into the atmosphere to reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the Earth.
This can include, but is not limited to, sulfur and aluminum oxide.
16BS 2006 Crutzen Geoengineering C&EN August 1, 2006 Artificial Sulfur Injections Crutzen.pdf
16BS 2006 Injecting Sulfate Particles into Stratosphere Could Have Drastic Impact on Earth Ozone Layer Arctic Image NSF.pdf
16BS 2006 Sulfur Geoengineering C&ENews Desperate Cooling Measure August 1, 2006.pdf
16BS 2006 Sulfur Upper Atmospheric Releases Geoengineering National Geographic 2006 Sulfur.pdf
16BS 2007 Geoengineering MSNBC 2007 Volcanic Dust – Jet Engines.pdf
16BS 2008 Geoengineering No Comment ScienceDaily News February 22, 2008.pdf
16BS 2008 Increase the SPF of Earth Natural Sunblock With Sulfur February 25, 2008 Discover Magazine.pdf
16BS 2008 Injecting Sulfate Particles into Stratsophere Could Have Drastic Impact on Earth Ozone Layer NSF News April 8, 2008.pdf
16BS 2008 Sulfate Particle Atmospheric Geoengineering Would Imperil Ozone Layer April 2008.pdf
16BS 2008 Sulfur Geoengineering Sky May 19, 2008 Harold Sun Climate Plan Could Change Sky Color.pdf
16BS 2008 The Sensitivity of Polar Ozone Depletion to Proposed Geoengineering Schemes April 24, 2008 Abstract.pdf
16BS 2009 Geoengineering Toxic Chemicals Into Atmosphere – Problems Times Online August 30, 2009.pdf
16BS 2009 Nature Reports October 15, 2009 Geoengineering Risky Business.pdf
16BS 2009 Sulfur Intellectual Ventures Stratoshield White Paper 2009.pdf
16BS 2010 Nature Geoscience July 18, 2010 Letter Abstract Regional Climate Response to Solar Radiation Management.pdf
16BS 2010 Sulfuric Acid as Gas Release Geoengineering Lift-Off The Economist November 4, 2010 Not Sulfur Dioxide.pdf
16BSZ 2009 Sulfur Geoengineering Superfreaky Solution to Global Warming S.F. Examiner October 25, 2009.pdf
Artificial Clouds – Cloud Whitening Experiments – Use of Salts (Potential to contaminate soil and water when the salts rain out over land areas.)
16BW 2007 ENN News December 10, 2007 High Cloud Changes Man-Made.pdf
16BW 2008 Artificial Clouds+Other Radical Geoengineer Schemes September 1, 2008 Guardian.co.uk.pdf
16BW 2008 Cloud-Seeding Ships Could Combat Climate Changes September 4, 2008 Physics World News.pdf
16BW 2008 Ocean Clouds Geoengineering-Ships SEPT 12, 2008 Researchers Propose Fleet of 1500 Cloud Making Ships to Cool Planet-Salt.pdf
16BW 2008 Saltwater Spraying into Atmosphere Image February 25, 2008 Discover Magazine.pdf
16BW 2009 Climate Crunch Great White Hope Nature April 29, 2009 Geoengineering Schemes-Brightening Clouds.pdf
16BW 2009 Clouds Salt Flares Geoengineering Experiments Conducted Customizing Clouds Telegraph UK February 19, 2009.pdf
16BW 2009 Geoengineering Scheme Oceans 2009 1217-cloud-ships – Salt Pollutes Soil+Water Supplies.pdf
16BW 2009 Modification of Cirrus Clouds to Reduce Global Warming April 1, 2009 Entire Article Note Jet Airline References.pdf
16BW 2009 Modification of Cirrus Clouds to Reduce Global Warming Published OCT 30, 2009 Report.pdf
16BW 2009 Ship Cloud-Salt Geoengineering+Other Schemes Telegraph UK August 7, 2009 Salt in Clouds-Pollution of Drinking Water+Soils.pdf
16BW 2010 Cloud Whitening Geoengineering Whiter Clouds Could Mean Wetter land June 29, 2010 SDNews.pdf
16BW 2010 Cloud Whitening-Geoengineering Clouds-Global Warming Solution Could Backfire June 29, 2010 UPI News Caldiera.pdf
16BW 2010 Salt Detected in Boulder Colorado Haze March 11, 2010 Science Daily News.pdf
16BW 2010 Shipping Steam Releases Takes A Ride in the Shipping Lanes DOE – Pacific Northwest National Laboratory EurekAlert Feb 2010.pdf
16BW 2010 Ships Surprising Science Smithsonian Magazine Riled Up About Geoengineering February 23, 2010.pdf
16BW 2010 Skyborne Seawater Particles Change Cloud Brightness-Temperature+Rain FEB 26, 2010 Science Daily News.pdf
16BW 2011 Cloud Whitening Geoengineering Climate Technical Fix May Yield Warming Not Cooling-New Study BBC News April 6, 201.pdf
Agriculture Issues – Photosynthesis – Ozone Depletion
16D 2007 UK Research-Rising Surface Ozone Reduces Plant Growth+Adds to Warming SDNews July 27, 2007.pdf
16D 2011 Swedish Scientists-Climate+Weather Changes Increases Risk of Ozone Damage to Plants SDNews June 30, 2011.pdf
Bill Gates (Microsoft) has decided to become involved in Geoengineering Schemes. He is funding a few scientists who wish to engage in implementing these schemes. In addition, he has given money to various private corporations to conduct experiments.
Any individual with money and other resources, private corporations, governments, and others can use our atmoshere or oceans as an experimental physics laboratory. Universities and NASA have conducted such experiments, along with our military, for years.
It is outrageous that anyone can subject us to these experiments without our consent. And what right does Bill Gates or anyone else have to “play God” with the Earth and the Earth’s atmosphere? It is these questions which must be answered before more of these experiments and schemes are conducted.
Note: Professor Gregory Benford of U.C. Irving stated in his article on Arctic Geoengineering on November 20, 2006: “…This idea is only the first step in making climate science…into an active science… This is not a new transition in scientific style…We will live inside the experiment …The main thrust of all this is to carefully use our ability to attack warming at its roots – incoming sunlight now, carbon dioxide later… Costs seem readily attainable – perhaps a few hundred of millions of dollars for an Arctic experiment. High altitude trials over the open ocean are little constrained by law or treaty, so show-stopper politics may be avoided…”
Funding: January 28, 2010 Wired Science: Bill Gates has sunk at least $4.5 million of his personal wealth into geoengineering research.
“…While it’s a small chunk of Gates’ vast personal fortune, it’s a sign that the founder of Microsoft thinks we should at least be looking into the controversial practice of intentionally altering the Earth’s climate on a global scale. “[Gates] views geoengineering as a way to buy time, but it’s not a solution to the problem” of climate change, Gates’ spokesperson John Pinette told Science Insider. “Bill views this as an important avenue for research — among many others, including new forms of clean energy.”
The money will be directed by two high-level scientists at the forefront of geoengineering research: climate scientist Ken Caldeira, of Stanford’s Carnegie Department of Global Ecology, and physicist David Keith of the University of Calgary. They will decide which technologies should receive the cash in order to alter the stratosphere to reflect solar energy, filter carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere and brighten ocean clouds…”
“…In a related development Keith, one of the scientists directing Gates’ money, co-authored a Nature editorial this week calling for an international fund for “solar-radiation management” in addition to traditional carbon emissions cuts. “Solar-radiation management may be the only human response that can fend off rapid and high-consequence climate change impacts,” Keith said in a press release Wednesday… He and his co-authors, Edward Parson at the University of Michigan and Granger Morgan at Carnegie Mellon University, propose a budget for solar-radiation management (aka geoengineering), beginning with $10 million a year now and growing to $1 billion annually by the end of 2020. The organization that manages the funds would also develop the governance structures to provide transparent risk analysis and manage feedback from the world’s countries…” Thus, there would be no Congressional or public oversight…complete freedom to use the oceans and the atmosphere as a private physics laboratory.
16G 2009 Bill Gates Patents A Device Aimed at Halting Hurricanes Discover Magazine July 16, 2009.pdf
16G 2009 Bill Gates-Geoengineering TimesOnline October 18, 2009 Global Dimming+Water Vapor Problems-Gates Connection.pdf
16G 2010 Bill Gates Backs Geoengineering Cloud Project May 13, 2010 Other Investments+Greentech Projects.pdf
16G 2010 Bill Gates Funding Geoengineering Research Since 2007 Science Insider January 26, 2010-Caldiera.pdf
16G 2010 Bill Gates Funding Geoengineerng Projects Since 2007 Xconomy Business News January 28, 2010.pdf
16G 2010 Bill Gates Funding-Innovative Climate Energy Researach Website September 25, 2010 FICER Research Grants.pdf
16G 2010 Bill Gates Funds Geoengineering Research $4.5 Million Discover Magazine January 29, 2010.pdf
16G 2010 Bill Gates Funds Seawater Cloud Seeding May 10, 2010 Discover Magazine.pdf
16G 2010 Bill Gates History of Dabbling in Climate-Altering Schemes January 27, 2010 Popular Science-Gates Patents.pdf
16G 2010 Bill Gates Pays for Artificial Clouds to Beat Greenhouse Gases May 8, 2010 TimesOnline News No Regulations.pdf
16G 2010 Bill Gates Solar Radiation Management Geoengineering Scheme Funding + Implementation-Future-Wired Science JAN 28, 2010.pdf
16GC 2010 Bill Gates Cloud Whitening Experiments Using Salt Particles is Dangerous May 11, 2010.pdf
16GC 2010 Bill Gates Cloud-Whitening Trials A Dangerous Experiment May 11, 2010 – See Silver Lining SF Based Corporation.pdf
16GC 2010 Gates Promotes Use of Salt Particles to Whiten Clouds-Salt Ruins Soils+Drinking Water Supplies Times Online News May 8, 2010.pdf
16GMZ 2009 Intellectual Ventures Lab-Gates Introducing StratoShield October 21, 2009 Geoengineering Scheme.pdf
16GW 2009 Bill Gates Geoengineering-Sets His Sites on Controlling the Weather Popular Science July 10, 2009.pdf
16GW 2009 Bill Gates Hurricane Calming Technology Plan USA Today July 16, 2009 Questions.pdf
16GW 2009 Bill Gates Hurricanes-Bid to Tame Hurricanes Times Online July 19, 2009 New Patents.pdf
16GW 2009 Geoengineering Bill Gates Plan to Stop Hurricanes July 9, 2009 No Public Oversight.pdf
16GW 2009 Microsoft’s Bill Gates Plans-Ken Caldiera Patents Methods to Control Hurricanes S.F. Examiner July 16, 2009.pdf
16GW 2010 Bill Gates Hurricane-Fighting Invention August 16, 2009 Huffington Post+Video.pdf
16GZ 2009 Geoengineering + Patents Gates + Myhrvold Connection Google Search December 22, 2009.pdf
16GZ 2009 Intellectual Ventures March 23, 2010 Website About Them-Gates Connection.pdf
16GZ 2009 Intellectual Ventures March 23, 2010 Website http___www.intellectualventures Gates Connection.pdf
16GZ 2010 Just an FYI for Research Gates Salt Particles Armand Neukermans May 13, 2010.pdf
The following contain test from around the world that show contamination believed to be from chemtrail/geoengineering programs:
How to test:
The following are patents related to geoengineering:
Article “What in the World are They Spraying?”
Ocean Alliance Executive Summary of Ocean Toxic Chemicals in Whales Aluminum Levels
Council on Foreign Relations Developing an International Framework for GeoengineeringK
Geoengineer David Keith discusses geoengineering:
David Keith discusses the use of aluminum in geoengineering programs at the AAAS Meeting in San Diego:
Geoengineers discuss the risks and benefits of geoengineering programs: