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,

  • co-founder of Skype Niklas Zennstrom

  • owner of the Virgin Group Sir Richard Branson,

...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...




  • Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying for Large-Scale Geo-engineering (below report)











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



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.