by Ethan A. Huff
staff writer
February 08, 2012
from
NaturalNews Website
The latest scam to enter the debate about so-called "global warming"
involves spending billions of dollars to spray the atmosphere with tiny
particulate matter for the alleged purpose of reflecting sunlight back into
space, and thus cooling the planet.
But research into this controversial practice of
"chemtrailing,"
which has actually already been going on for quite some time now, is largely
funded directly by Mr. Vaccine himself, the infamous
Bill Gates.
The U.K.'s Guardian paper reports that Gates, who is a huge advocate of
global intervention programs that forcibly affect large people groups
whether they like it or not, has been spending untold millions of dollars
from his own personal fortune to fund research into
geo-engineering
programs.
These funds are being used to study things like
how much it will cost every year to blast the skies with tiny particles of
sulfur dioxide, a toxic industrial byproduct linked to
serious respiratory illnesses like asthma.
Gates and his small cadre of allies, which include,
...reportedly spend exorbitant amounts of cash
every year trying to push geo-engineering initiative across the globe.
They claim that if nations like the U.S. will
not cut greenhouse gas emissions by tremendous amounts, the spraying of
toxic poisons into the atmosphere will be necessary to thwart impending
disaster.
The entire concept of geo-engineering to save the planet is utter hogwash,
of course. This is true not only because "global warming" itself has proven
to be a man-made scam, but also because literally blocking sunlight for the
stated purpose of reflecting the warmth of its rays back into space makes no
logical or scientific sense.
Geo-engineering does, however, give unprecedented control over the world's
weather patterns to a select few, allowing them to manipulate the
environment for their own gain in the name of saving the planet.
And blocking the sun's rays with tiny particles
also serves much more sinister purposes like preventing humans from
absorbing much-needed ultraviolet B (UVB) rays from the sun, which are
responsible for producing vitamin D in the
body.
But while chemtrail advocates like Bill Gates act as though these poison
plumes are a potential future intervention, evidence already points to the
fact that chemtrails have already been in use for many years now.
Be sure to check out the film
What in the World are They Spraying?
for more shocking information about chemtrails...
Sources
Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying for...
Large-Scale Geo-engineering
by John Vidal
environment editor
6 February 2012
from
TheGuardian Website
Other wealthy individuals have also funded
a series of reports into the
future use of
technologies to geo-engineer the climate
The billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates is backing a group
of climate
scientists lobbying for geo-engineering experiments.
Photograph: Ted S.
Warren/AP
A small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by
billionaires including
Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and
international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a
global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.
The scientists, who advocate
geo-engineering methods such as spraying
millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above
earth, argue that a "plan B" for climate change will be needed if the UN and
politicians cannot agree to making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases,
and say the US government and others should pay for a major program of
international research.
Solar geo-engineering techniques are highly controversial:
while some climate
scientists believe they may prove a quick and relatively cheap way to slow
global warming, others fear that when conducted in the upper atmosphere,
they could irrevocably alter rainfall patterns and interfere with the
earth's climate.
Geo-engineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the technology
could undermine efforts to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who
fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich countries to their advantage.
In 2010, the
UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on
experiments in the sea and space, except for
small-scale scientific studies.
Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists,
and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions
about geo-engineering research and policy.
"We will need to protect ourselves from vested interests [and] be sure that
choices are not influenced by parties who might make significant amounts of
money through a choice to modify climate, especially using proprietary
intellectual property," said Jane Long, director at large for the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory in the US, in a paper delivered to a recent
geo-engineering conference on ethics.
"The stakes are very high and scientists are not the best people to deal
with the social, ethical or political issues that geo-engineering raises,"
said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace.
"The idea that a
self-selected group should have so much influence is bizarre."
Pressure to find a quick technological fix to climate change is growing as
politicians fail to reach an agreement to significantly reduce emissions.
In
2009-2010, the US government received
requests for over $2bn (£1.2bn) of
grants for geo-engineering research, but spent around $100m.
As well as Gates, other wealthy individuals including,
...have funded a series of official reports into future use of the
technology.
Branson, who has frequently called for
geo-engineering to combat
climate change, helped fund the Royal Society's inquiry into solar radiation
management last year through his
Carbon War Room "charity." It is not known
how much he contributed.
Professors
David Keith, of Harvard University, and
Ken Caldeira of Stanford,
are the world's two leading advocates of major research into geo-engineering
the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield.
They have so
far received over $4.6m from Gates to run the Fund for Innovative Climate
and Energy Research (Ficer).
Nearly half Ficer's money, which comes directly
from Gates's personal funds, has so far been used for their own research,
but the rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of
large-scale interventions.
According to statements of financial interests, Keith receives an
undisclosed sum from Bill Gates each year, and is the president and majority
owner of the geo-engineering company
Carbon Engineering, in which both Gates
and Edwards have major stakes - believed to be together worth over $10m.
Another Edwards company, Canadian Natural Resources, has plans to spend
$25bn to turn the bitumen-bearing sand found in northern Alberta into
barrels of crude oil.
Caldeira says he receives $375,000 a year from Gates,
holds a carbon capture patent and works for
Intellectual Ventures, a private geo-engineering research company part-owned by Gates and run by Nathan Myhrvold, former head of technology at Microsoft.
According to the latest Ficer accounts, the two scientists have so far given
$300,000 of Gates money to part-fund three prominent reviews and assessments
of geo-engineering:
Keith and Caldeira
either sat on the panels that produced the reports or contributed evidence.
All three reports strongly recommended more research into solar radiation
management.
The fund also gave $600,000 to Phil Rasch, chief climate scientist for the
Pacific Northwest national laboratory, one of 10 research institutions
funded by the US energy department.
Rasch gave evidence at the first Royal Society
report on geo-engineering 2009
and was a panel member on the 2011 report. He has testified to the US
Congress about the need for government funding of large-scale
geo-engineering.
In addition, Caldeira and Keith gave a further $240,000 to
geo-engineering
advocates to travel and attend workshops and meetings and $100,000 to Jay
Apt, a prominent advocate of geo-engineering as a last resort, and professor
of engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.
Apt worked with Keith and
Aurora Flight Sciences, a US company that develops drone aircraft technology
for the US military, to
study the costs of sending 1m tonnes of sulphate
particles into the upper atmosphere a year.
Analysis of the eight major national and international inquiries into
geo-engineering over the past three years shows that Keith and Caldeira,
Rasch and Prof
Granger Morgan the head of department of engineering and
public policy at Carnegie Mellon University where Keith works, have sat on
seven panels, including one set up by
the United
Nations.
Three other strong advocates
of solar radiation geo-engineering, including Rasch, have sat on national
inquiries part-funded by Ficer.
"There are clear conflicts of interest between many of the people involved
in the debate," said Diana Bronson, a researcher with Montreal-based
geo-engineering watchdog ETC.
"What is really worrying is that the same small group working on high-risk
technologies that will geo-engineer the planet is also trying to engineer the
discussion around international rules and regulations. We cannot put the fox
in charge of the chicken coop."
"The eco-clique are lobbying for a huge injection of public funds into
geo-engineering research. They dominate virtually every inquiry into
geo-engineering. They are present in almost all of the expert deliberations.
They have been the leading advisers to parliamentary and congressional
inquiries and their views will, in all likelihood, dominate the
deliberations of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
as it grapples for the first time with the scientific and ethical tangle
that is climate engineering," said Clive Hamilton, professor of Public
Ethics at the Australian National University, in a Guardian blog.
The scientists involved reject this notion.
"Even the perception that [a
small group of people has] illegitimate influence [is] very unhealthy for a
technology which has extreme power over the world. The concerns that a small
group [is] dominating the debate are legitimate, but things are not as they
were," said Keith.
"It's changing as countries like India and China become
involved. The era when my voice or that of a few was dominant is over. We
need a very broad debate."
"Every scientist has some conflict of interest, because we would all like to
see more resources going to study things that we find interesting," said
Caldeira.
"Do I have too much influence? I feel like I have too little. I
have been calling for making CO2 emissions illegal for many years, but no
one is listening to me. People who disagree with me might feel I have too
much influence. The best way to reduce my influence is to have more public
research funds available, so that our funds are in the noise. If the federal
government played the role it should in this area, there would be no need
for money from Gates.
"Regarding my own patents, I have repeatedly
stated that if any patent that I am on is ever used for the purposes of
altering climate, then any proceeds that accrue to me for this use will
be donated to nonprofit NGOs and charities.
I have no expectation or interest in
developing a personal revenue stream based upon the use of these patents
for climate modification."
Rasch added:
"I don't feel there is any conflict of interest. I don't lobby,
work with patents or intellectual property, do classified research or work
with for-profit companies.
The research I do on geo-engineering involves
computer simulations and thinking about possible consequences. The Ficer
foundation that has funded my research tries to be transparent in their
activities, as do I."
What is Geo-Engineering?
18 February 2011
from
TheGuardian Website
Geo-engineering
aims to tackle climate change
by removing CO2
from the air
or limiting the sunlight reaching the planet
Engineer Stephen Salter's design for an unmanned ship
designed to generate
clouds and reflect sunlight away from the earth.
Geo-engineering schemes are projects designed to tackle the effects of
climate change directly, usually by removing CO2 from the air or limiting
the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface.
Although large-scale
geo-engineering is still at the concept stage, advocates claim that it may
eventually become essential if the world wants to avoid the worst effects of
climate change. Critics, by contrast, claim that geo-engineering isn't
realistic - and may be a distraction from reducing emissions.
The first category of scheme - those designed to remove CO2 from the air -
include machines (sometimes called "artificial trees") that pull the gas
from the atmosphere using plastic polymers.
Other proposals seek to increase
the amount of CO2 absorbed by the oceans - for example by
adding large
quantities of lime to the water.
Other related schemes - sometimes but not always described as
geo-engineering - involve harnessing the capacity of trees and plants to
absorb CO2 from the air.
These include,
In the second category - schemes designed to reduce the amount of sunlight
reaching Earth - proposals include,
-
firing sulphate aerosols into the
stratosphere to reflect sunlight back to space
-
using
unmanned ships to
increase above-ocean cloud cover by spraying sea water into the air
-
painting the world's roofs white to increase reflectivity
-
even floating thousands of tiny mirrors
in space between Earth and the sun
Some geo-engineering schemes, such as adding aerosols to the stratosphere,
have
attracted heavy criticism for their possible side effects.
Even if
these side-effects weren't severe, schemes that "mask" the temperature rise
rather than removing the CO2 come with some serious disadvantages, such as
the fact that they don't deal with CO2's other major impact: ocean
acidification.
Administering any such scheme would also raise obvious issues
of geopolitics and global governance.
Other schemes, such as the machines designed to suck CO2 directly out of the
air, are far less controversial, since all they aim to do is remove a
pollutant that humans are adding to the air.
The main challenges in this
case are reducing manufacturing and running costs to make the devices
commercially viable, and finding reliable and inexpensive ways to store the
captured gas.
