Climate Engineering Denial In The Face Of Planetary Meltdown
So many circles in academia have completely betrayed the populations of the world and, indeed, the planet as a whole. Even now, as Earth continues to free-fall into what is already a runaway warming scenario (mathematically speaking), the ongoing blatant global climate engineering assault goes completely unacknowledged by the whole of the climate science/meteorological community.
Hampshire, UK. Photo credit: Marcus William Biggs
Though the climate science/meteorological community officially denies the rationally undeniable climate engineering reality (that is so clearly visible and occurring in skies all over the globe), individuals within these same science circles refuse to deny the geoengineering reality on the record. In a recent survey of almost 1500 scientists, not a single scientist was wiling to deny on the record that climate engineering/solar radiation management, stratospheric aerosol injection, cloud albedo enhancement had already been deployed. In summary, not one of almost 1500 scientists was willing to deny (on the record) the climate engineering atrocities in our skies.
2016 has just been officially confirmed as the warmest year on record, by far. 2016 is the third record shattering warm year in a row. We have now passed over 30 consecutive years of above normal temperatures on planet Earth, and even now, individuals from the climate science/meteorological communities are actively propagating the blatant lie that climate engineering/solar radiation management will save us from planetary incineration (which geoengineering is making far worse, not better). All available data proves beyond reasonable doubt that illegal, immoral, and unimaginably destructive climate engineering programs have been fully deployed for over 70 years. Yet, the official denial of ongoing geoengineering continues to be pumped out from the circles of academia. A case in point is a recent article titled "Solar Geoengineering Is The Terrible Idea That Just Might Save Us". Below are excepts from that article that clearly reveal the total deception that is being propagated by so many academicians.
There are serious scientists in the world right now who believe that a last-ditch effort to save the planet from the worst consequences of global warming could include a bold plan to inject massive quantities of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere where it will partially block out the sun.
Reno, Nevada. Photo credit: Justin Pera
The climate science community still pretends sulfur dioxide is the material of choice for SRM (solar radiation management) programs (which would be unimaginably harmful). But in reality, aluminum is the chosen primary element for SRM due to the high albedo (reflectivity) of this extremely toxic heavy metal.
“If the idea of putting megatons of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere doesn’t scare you, I think there’s something wrong with you,” says Douglas MacMartin, a research professor with California Institute of Technology who studies the problem of deliberately manipulating Earth’s climate. He spoke Tuesday at a panel discussion hosted by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics on the subject of the role of aerospace industries in potential geoengineering schemes.
Solar radiation management by seeding the stratosphere with sulfates is undeniably risky. But we know that it works — large volcano eruptions perform this feat naturally, and the effect is that Earth gets cooler, at least for a year or two. It’s also likely to be feasible from economic, technological, and logistical standpoints.
“It’s very quick, and it’s probably very cheap,” says MacMartin. “All you have to do is basically fly airplanes up into the stratosphere and dump a pile of crap up there, and you’ll cool the planet.”
So, a region experiencing increased drought from climate change might become even drier through a solar engineering scheme. The local environmental effects are difficult to predict and measure.
Record setting drought is wreaking havoc all over the globe. The drought causing effects of geoengineering/solar radiation management are scientifically acknowledged and beyond dispute.
In all plausibility, the world will descend into deep and widespread climate crisis before a scheme like solar radiation management is tried on a large scale. MacMartin thinks it will get that bad.
Though, in this light, the prospect of solar radiation management starts to look less terrifying and more like a saving grace. “One can be depressed that it has gotten to this point, but one can also be hopeful for the fact that we may be able to alleviate a lot of human and non-human suffering,” says MacMartin.
The statements above from Callifornia Institute of Technology scientist, Douglas MacMartin, amount to total disinformation and deception. There are only two possibilities regarding Mr. MacMartin's denial of existing climate engineering (and his advocating of climate engineering as a potential cure), either MacMartin is unimaginably unqualified for the job he holds, or he is lying. The same is true for the rest of the climate science community that has so far chosen to deny the catastrophic climate engineering assault. The existing illegal federal gag order on all NWS (National Weather Service) and all NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) employees must be considered in this equation. In addition, there is no doubt that it is a very bad career decision (or worse) for any academician to openly admit to the ongoing geoengineering assault (which is a matter of historical record), but do these factors excuse the criminal denial of existing climate engineering programs by the climate science community? Absolutely not, life on Earth should matter more than a paycheck and a pension. We all face a very real fight for our very survival, and time is not on our side. Make your voice heard while it can still make a difference.
May be freely reprinted, so long as the text is unaltered, all hyperlinks are left intact, and credit for the article is prominently given to GeoengineeringWatch.org and the article’s author with a hyperlink back to the original story.