Wednesday 8 February 2012

"We are all being sprayed with toxins'









Chemtrails 
or contrails?





From Seemorerocks;




This is an issue which I have always dismissed because the information was so often coming from sources I did not trust - people who believe in some overarching conspiracy by the Illuminati to control the world and to reduce the world's population. These are people who  will jump from some sort of credible argument into wild assertions about the British royal family being freemasons or Peak Oil/climate change being falsehoods spread by the NWO.

Having looked at the evidence it does seem that there IS something going on called geo-engineering and that the rationale for this is to spray the atmosphere with something that will purportedly reflect sunlight and reduce the greenhouse effect.

Somewhere in the film this was referred to as a "catastrophe response option"  - say to prevent runway climate change - in the event of the polar ice caps dropping off for example.

These are certainly not the solutions of environmentalists, ecologists or, God forbid, atmospheric scientists but the solution of the same people that are seeking to endlessly maintain the current paradigm of infinite growth.

These people are ANTI-environmentalists - the same people who will respond to Peak Oil with tar sands and fracking; who will save the planet with BIO-engineering ( genetic engineering).

There was enough empirical evidence in the film that I am recommending to come to a firm conclusion that populations in the northern hemisphere (notably countries from NATO) are being sprayed with something that is creating what are called chemtrails that are creating trails that do not disappear like jet con-trails and crisscross the sky.

There is evidence of high levels of toxic aluminium that is affecting the health of the soil and its micro-organisms and the health of people exposed to these toxins.

There is empirical evidence that this is linked to a range of human health problems such as respiratory problems, cancer and Alzheimer's disease.

But most alarmingly, it is the health of the soil and the wider environment that is being severely compromised, especially in pristine areas such as Hawaii.

The worry is that in the future natural, organic seeds will not grow in the new medium - so the solution will be touted - use GMO aluminium-resistant seeds that are reportedly already being developed.

The following film "What on Earth are they spraying?" certainly has made me more aware of this issue and made me want to know more about it.

Interestingly the film starts off with scenes of the New Zealand parliament and zombie Nick Smith, Minister for the Environment scoffing at the idea of chemtrails ("stuff that comes from jets - ha ha ha!")

Just from my own, subjective point-of-view I remember the skies of my childhood and the wonder of all the stars, the Milky Way and shooting stars.  That is is gone and the sky doesn't seem to be what it was. Can't put all that down to lights and pollution.

I can recommend that you take the time to watch this 1h30m film.












Just when I thought that chemtrails were restricted to places like North America and Europe I quickly found a New Zealand site that put me right!


I am someone whose health has been severely compromised by early exposure to agricultural chemicals like Paraquat - so I take these things very seriously.

This is one of the article mentioned in the film - that confirms at least that geoengineering is at least being discussed


Willing to give up blue skies for climate fix?
Geoengineering gets closer look as a 'Plan B' in case emissions don't fall


30 October, 2009

We can probably engineer Earth's climate to cool the planet, scientists say, but are we willing to live with the downsides? Those could include creating more droughts, more ozone holes and, oh yeah, a thin cloud layer that obscures blue skies and gives astronomers fits.

With potential negatives like that it's no wonder that "geoengineering," as the technique is called, has few hardcore advocates.

Instead, a growing cadre of scientists is asking whether it should be a "Plan B" in case emissions of greenhouse gases aren't reduced in time to head off major consequences.

Experts gathered Friday at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology were discussing just that at a seminar called "Engineering a Cooler Earth: Can We Do It? Should We Try?"

Two key geoengineering approaches have surfaced: removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and reflecting the Sun's rays away from Earth.

The former focuses on using the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide, which takes a long time and acidifies the seas, harming corals and shellfish.

The latter is seen as more realistic, especially the leading strategy of lobbing sulfur into the atmosphere the way volcanoes do. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled the planet by 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit.

While it doesn't remove CO2 — and as a result, ocean acidification would continue — adding sulfur could reduce temperatures quickly.

Weighing pros, cons

At issue, though, is whether the benefits would outweigh the costs.

In a study published this week on the sulfur approach, a Rutgers University team stacked benefits against costs. The key pros: a cooler planet; reduced or reversed melting of ice sheets and Arctic sea ice; and increased plant productivity.

The key cons: more droughts in Africa and Asia; oceans would still be acidifying; creation of ozone holes in the Arctic; reduced solar energy production; and those less blue skies and frustrated astronomers.
"We have not calculated how hazy yet, but it would be global," lead study author Alan Robock told msnbc.com. "Injection into the tropical stratosphere would produce a global cloud. It would have to be regular with the frequency depending on the injection method and the thickness of the desired cloud."

Writing in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters, the team concluded that, given existing technology, the best method of lobbing aerosols would be via high-altitude military jets at a cost of several billion dollars a year.
But it also warned that more needs to be learned before society is sufficiently informed to make a decision.

"Several billion dollars per year is a lot of money, but compared to the international gross national product, this amount would not be a limiting factor in the decision of whether to proceed with geoengineering," the authors wrote. "Rather, other concerns, including reduction of Asian monsoon rainfall, ozone depletion, reduction of solar power, psychological effects of no more blue skies, and political and ethical issues, will need to be compared to the potential advantages before society can make this decision."

'Last resort' strategy 
Leading scientific groups have also taken stands on the technique.

The American Meteorological Society, for one, has endorsed the idea of researching geoengineering as a Plan B.

"Geoengineering will not substitute for either aggressive mitigation or proactive adaptation," it said in a adopting a policy statement this year, "but it could contribute to a comprehensive risk management strategy to slow climate change and alleviate some of its negative impacts."

But the society is also among those emphasizing that geoengineering should not become an excuse for policymakers to back off action that reduces emissions.

"The possibility of quick and seemingly inexpensive geoengineering fixes could distract the public and policymakers from critically needed efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," it warned.

The Institute of Physics, a nonprofit with 36,000 members, echoed that view. "Climate geoengineering at scale must be considered only as a last resort," it says in its own statement. "There should be no lessening of attempts to otherwise correct the harmful impacts of human economies on the Earth’s ecology and climate."

Geoengineering, it adds, "should be seen as a prudent precautionary measure in case all other attempts to control dangerous climate change fail or are inadequate — for whatever reason."

Robock, for one, wants increased spending. "Absolutely," said the environmental sciences professor at Rutgers. "We need a research program now to evaluate different potential engineering designs and to look in much more detail at the climate and other effects."

In the United States, policymakers are starting to listen to the scientific discussion. The House Science Committee next Thursday will hold its first hearing on the implications of geoengineering. Robock is among those set to testify.

"The hearing is by no means an endorsement of deploying geoengineering, but an effort to begin a thoughtful, in-depth conversation," committee spokesman Alexandria Dery Snider told msnbc.com. "We don’t want to shy away from the issue because it is complex and potentially controversial."

"It’s important to note that we are not looking at geoengineering as an easy way out of changing how we consume energy," Dery Snider added. "Geoengineering may, however, be a stopgap to buy us some time, if we find ourselves in a dire situation.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.