Geoengineering: Our Environment Under Attack

Geoengineering: Our Environment Under Attack

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

The greatest public health threat can no longer be denied

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
Monday, November 14, 2011

The fact that the planet is being bombarded with chemicals from high-altitude spraying as part of numerous geoengineering programs being conducted by U.S. government agencies and universities that have been approved with no oversight whatsoever can no longer be denied.

 

The re-classification of global warming, a highly contentious and often scientifically fraudulent pseudo-science, as a “national security threat” has been exploited by governments as an excuse to play God, green lighting secret experiments on a massive scale that carry innumerable dangers to humans and their environment.

However, now that increasing awareness of geoengineering as a result of the chemtrails phenomenon has propagated widely, authorities are slowly being forced to disclose certain aspects of the program. We are now not far away from full disclosure of the true extent of geoengineering experimentation.

Scientists now admit that vapor trails from aeroplanes are creating “artificial clouds” that block out the sun. This is no longer a matter of debate. The chemtrail “conspiracy theorists” were proven correct.

Reading University’s Professor Keith Shine told the Daily Mail last year that the clouds “formed by aircraft fumes could linger ‘for hours’, depriving those areas under busy flight paths, such as London and the Home Counties, of summer sunshine.”

“Experts have warned that, as a result, the amount of sunlight hitting the ground could be reduced by as much as ten per cent. Professor Shine added: “Over the busiest areas in London and the South of England, this high-level cloud could cover the sky, turning bright sunshine into hazy conditions for the entire area. I expect the effects will get worse as the volume of air traffic increases.”

The report also makes reference to a 2009 Met Office study which found that high-level winds did not disperse contrails that later formed into clouds which covered an astonishing 20,000 miles.

Of course, only the completely naive would suggest that there is no connection between chemtrails that block out the sun, a phenomenon that has been ongoing for over a decade, and open calls on behalf of scientists to ‘reduce global warming’ by injecting the atmosphere with aerosols.

Mainstream science and academia has gone from dismissing chemtrails as a fantasy of paranoid conspiracy theorists to now accepting that they exist but claiming that they are natural and not artificially induced, despite numerous patents and scientific proposals that focus around using man-made dispersal of aerosols to alter the atmosphere.

The proposal to disperse sulphur dioxide in an attempt to reflect sunlight was discussed in a September 2008 London Guardian article entitled, Geoengineering: The radical ideas to combat global warming, in which Ken Caldeira, a leading climate scientist based at the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California, promoted the idea of injecting the atmosphere with aerosols.

“One approach is to insert “scatterers” into the stratosphere,” states the article. “Caldeira cites an idea to deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide. Dispersing around 1m tonnes of sulphur dioxide per year across 10m square kilometres of the atmosphere would be enough to reflect away sufficient amounts of sunlight.”

Experiments similar to Caldeira’s proposal are already being carried out by U.S. government -backed scientists, such as those at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C, who in 2009 began conducting studies which involved shooting huge amounts of particulate matter, in this case “porous-walled glass microspheres,” into the stratosphere.

The project is closely tied to an idea by Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen, who “proposed sending aircraft 747s to dump huge quantities of sulfur particles into the far-reaches of the stratosphere to cool down the atmosphere.”

In 2008, scientist Tim Flannery also warned that “mankind might need to pump sulphur into the atmosphere to survive,” adding that, “gas sulphur could be inserted into the earth’s stratosphere to keep out the sun’s rays and slow global warming, a process called global dimming.”

Such programs merely scratch the surface of what is likely to be a gargantuan and overarching black-budget funded project to geoengineer the planet, with little or no care for the unknown environmental consequences this could engender.

Given that sulphur emissions cause ‘global dimming’, is it any wonder that the emergence of the chemtrails phenomenon coincided with an average 22% drop in sunlight reaching the earth’s surface?

What is known about what happens when the environment is loaded with sulphur dioxide is bad enough, since the compound is the main component of acid rain, which according to the EPA “Causes acidification of lakes and streams and contributes to the damage of trees at high elevations (for example, red spruce trees above 2,000 feet) and many sensitive forest soils. In addition, acid rain accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our nation’s cultural heritage.”

The health effects of bombarding the skies with sulphur dioxide alone are enough to raise serious questions about whether such programs should even be allowed to proceed.

The following health effects are linked with exposure to sulphur.

– Neurological effects and behavioral changes
– Disturbance of blood circulation
– Heart damage
– Effects on eyes and eyesight
– Reproductive failure
– Damage to immune systems
– Stomach and gastrointestinal disorder
– Damage to liver and kidney functions
– Hearing defects
– Disturbance of the hormonal metabolism
– Dermatological effects
– Suffocation and lung embolism

According to the LennTech website, “Laboratory tests with test animals have indicated that sulfur can cause serious vascular damage in veins of the brains, the heart and the kidneys. These tests have also indicated that certain forms of sulfur can cause foetal damage and congenital effects. Mothers can even carry sulfur poisoning over to their children through mother milk. Finally, sulfur can damage the internal enzyme systems of animals.”

Even pro-geoengineering scientist Mark Watson, admits that injecting sulphur into the atmosphere could lead to “acid rain, ozone depletion or weather pattern disruption.”

Rutgers University meteorologist Alan Robock also, “created computer simulations indicating that sulfate clouds could potentially weaken the Asian and African summer monsoons, reducing rain that irrigates the food crops of billions of people.”

“Imagine if we triggered a drought and famine while trying to cool the planet,” Robock told a geoengineering conference last year.

The Canada-based Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC) has called for such experiments to be shut down. “This experiment is only phase one of a much bigger plan that could have devastating consequences, including large changes in weather patterns such as deadly droughts,” the group said in a written statement.

Fred Singer, president of the Science Environmental Policy Project and a skeptic of man-made global warming theories, warns that the consequences of tinkering with the planet’s delicate eco-system could have far-reaching dangers.

“If you do this on a continuous basis, you would depress the ozone layer and cause all kinds of other problems that people would rather avoid,” said Singer.

Even Greenpeace’s chief UK scientist – a staunch advocate of the man-made global warming explanation – Doug Parr – has slammed attempts to geoengineer the planet as “outlandish” and “dangerous”.

Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who proposed a bizarre plan to send spaceships into the upper atmosphere that would be used to block out the Sun, admits that geoengineering could cause “conflicts between nations if geoengineering projects go wrong.”

As we have repeatedly highlighted, numerous universities and government agencies have been conducting studies in the field of geoengineering for years.

Discussion of geoengineering technology is often framed as a future consideration, yet governments are already conducting such programs at an advanced stage.

The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program was created in 1989 with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and is sponsored by the DOE’s Office of Science and managed by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research.

One of ARM’s programs, entitled Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign (ISDAC), is aimed at measuring “cloud simulations” and “aerosol retrievals”.

Another program under the Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Science Program is directed towards, “developing comprehensive understanding of the atmospheric processes that control the transport, transformation, and fate of energy related trace chemicals and particulate matter.”

The DOE website states that, “The current focus of the program is aerosol radiative forcing of climate: aerosol formation and evolution and aerosol properties that affect direct and indirect influences on climate and climate change.”

U.S. government scientists are already bombarding the skies with the acid-rain causing pollutant sulphur dioxide in an attempt to fight global warming by “geoengineering” the planet, despite the fact that injecting aerosols into the upper atmosphere carries with it a host of both known and unknown dangers.

In addition, the Obama administration’s interest in exploring “geoengineering” mirrors recent publications penned by the elite Council On Foreign Relations.

In a document entitled Geoengineering: Workshop on Unilateral Planetary Scale Geoengineering, the CFR proposes different methods of “reflecting sunlight back into space,” which include adding “small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere,” adding “more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere,” and placing “various kinds of reflecting objects in space either near the earth or at a stable location between the earth and the sun.”

The proposals in the CFR document match exactly the atmospheric effects observed in the aftermath of chemtrail spraying.

A report issued last year by the UK government also calls for the UN to exclusively regulate world wide geoengineering of the planet in order to stave off man made global warming.

Of course, killing millions of people in the third world through unintended consequences of geoengineering is probably seen as a price worth paying for the likes of John P. Holdren, White House science czar and strong geoengineering proponent, given that he and other luminaries in the global warming movement want to see global population drastically reduced by means of a “planetary regime” carrying out forced sterilization and other draconian population control measures.

It is now overwhelmingly obvious that geoengineering projects involving spraying chemicals at high altitudes are already underway through chemtrails.

In 2008, a KSLA news investigation found that a substance that fell to earth from a high altitude chemtrail contained high levels of Barium (6.8 ppm) and Lead (8.2 ppm) as well as trace amounts of other chemicals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium and silver. Of these, all but one are metals, some are toxic while several are rarely or never found in nature.

The newscast focuses on Barium, which its research shows is a “hallmark of chemtrails.” KSLA found Barium levels in its samples at 6.8 ppm or “more than six times the toxic level set by the EPA.” The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality confirmed that the high levels of Barium were “very unusual,” but commented that “proving the source was a whole other matter” in its discussion with KSLA.

KSLA also asked Mark Ryan, Director of the Poison Control Center, about the effects of Barium on the human body. Ryan commented that “short term exposure can lead to anything from stomach to chest pains and that long term exposure causes blood pressure problems.” The Poison Control Center further reported that long-term exposure, as with any harmful substance, would contribute to weakening the immune system, which many speculate is the purpose of such man-made chemical trails.

Indeed, barium oxide has cropped up repeatedly as a contaminant from suspected geoengineering experimentation.

Geoengineering programs conducted by politically-driven scientists who have proven adept at covering up and ignoring contradictory evidence in the global warming debate should not be empowered with the authority and funding to conduct such dangerous tests without a major public debate about the potential consequences.

The fact that individuals who embrace the dogma of global warming, alarmism which has already killed more people than man-made climate change in the third world through starvation linked to food price hikes caused by biofuel production, are now preparing to launch programs with government approval that could drastically alter weather patterns and cause droughts, is frightening.

More sober minds in the scientific community need to become far more public in their opposition to geoengineering to prevent a very real form of man-made climate change that could irrevocably damage our planet for decades to come.

In an effort to draw attention to this urgent issue which represents a threat to our health and our environment, we are launching the first Infowars.com ‘tweet bomb’ today, where we encourage all our readers to tweet the URL Infowars.com at 11am CST. Tune in to the Alex Jones Show today for further details.

Advertisements

Big Sis Set To Zap Travelers With MRI-Style Scans

Big Sis Set To Zap Travelers With MRI-Style Scans

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Janet Napolitano’s promise that Americans won’t be forced to remove their shoes comes at a price

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, September 8, 2011


Janet Napolitano’s promise that travelers will soon not be required to take their shoes off at airport security checkpoints comes at a cost – new MRI-style scanners that will zap Americans with a powerful magnetic field that has been linked with numerous health risks.

“Safran Morpho, a firm that was formerly a part of General Electric’s Security division, told POLITICO that their model could be mass produced in a matter of months and that a prototype was already ready.”

“Morpho’s device would scan shoes in three ways: using technology similar to MRIs used in medical settings; explosives trace scanners; and traditional magnetometer metal detection,” according to the Politico report.

However, the new technology is set to be unveiled with barely a whimper of public discussion about the potential health concerns associated with MRI scanning technology, which is normally only used in highly controlled medical settings, and the sanity of allowing such sensitive technology to be operated in busy airports by low-paid TSA security goons.

MRI scans can be dangerous and even fatal for individuals who have implants in their body which contain metal.

People with implants in their body should not use MRI-style scanners, because the magnetism generated by such technology can cause implants to move, causing physical damage to the body. If the device helps perform a bodily function, the scan can also cause it to malfunction. This is particularly dangerous to anyone who has a knee or hip replacement, because the scan can damage and weaken surrounding tissues.

The scan also causes metal objects to heat up, risking burns. This heating process can also be fatal for the babies of pregnant women.

People with damaged kidneys would also be at risk from the dye used in some MRI scanning technology, which can cause, “nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) in patients with impaired kidney function.”

MRI scans have to be conducted in highly controlled medical environments because the high magnetism of the device can cause loose objects to fly across the room like missiles. The hustle and bustle of a busy airport security checkpoint, where all kinds of objects are on display, is one of the least suitable situations in which such technology should be used.

In 2008, the Health Protection Agency was asked to investigate the risks associated with magnetic resonance imaging because, “The exposures to patients and medical staff from the magnetic fields can be high and there is a shortage of information on possible adverse long-term health effects,” said HPA chairperson Sir William Stewart.

The study, which was backed by the World Health Organization, was tasked with investigating whether there was a link to cancer because the powerful magnetic field generated by the technology “can interrupt normal body functions.”

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

The TSA’s record on properly evaluating the health risks posed by scanning technology does not bode well for the safe introduction of MRI-style scans, which are great for helping to diagnose medical problems in carefully regulated hospital environments, but have no place in airports being operated by minimum wage TSA goons.

In claiming their radiation-firing naked body scanners were completely safe, the TSA ignored studies by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety, Columbia University and the University of California, who all concluded that such scans would increase the risk of certain types of cancer.

When a “cluster” of cancer cases developed amongst TSA screeners at Boston Logan, the TSA attempted to cover up the story.

Documents obtained by Forbes show that the federal agency “Has been planning pilot programs to deploy mobile scanning units that can be set up at public events and in train stations, along with mobile x-ray vans capable of scanning pedestrians on city streets.”

“This would allow them to take these technologies out of the airport and into other contexts like public streets, special events and ground transit,” says Ginger McCall, an attorney with EPIC. “It’s a clear violation of the fourth amendment that’s very invasive, not necessarily effective, and poses all the same radiation risks as the airport scans.”

Indeed, mobile scanning vans are already roaming American streets and highways, conducting drive-by scans of the American people with technology that can see through walls, cars and clothing.

EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) filed a lawsuit in May against the DHS for attempting to keep the program secret.

EPIC’s suit asked a federal court to order disclosure of nearly 1,000 pages of additional records detailing the controversial program – records the agency has repeatedly refused to make public, despite freedom of information requests and appeals over the last seven months.

The lawsuit points to an agency under the DHS umbrella, the Science and Technology Directorate, which has released only 15 full pages of documents on the mobile scanners, whilst heavily redacting another 158 pages and withholding 983 pages of documents.

In February, EPIC discovered (PDF) that the DHS had paid contractors “millions of dollars on mobile body scanner technology that could be used at railways, stadiums, and elsewhere” on crowds of moving people.

Wikileaks Discloses The Reason(s) Behind China’s Shadow Gold Buying Spree

Wikileaks Discloses The Reason(s) Behind China’s Shadow Gold Buying Spree

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Zero Hedge
Sunday, September 4, 2011

Wondering why gold at $1850 is cheap, or why gold at double that price will also be cheap, or frankly at any price? Because, as the following leaked cable explains, gold is, to China at least, nothing but the opportunity cost of destroying the dollar’s reserve status. Putting that into dollar terms is, therefore, impractical at best, and illogical at worst.


We have a suspicion that the following cable from the US embassy in China is about to go not viral but very much global, and prompt all those mutual fund managers who are on the golden sidelines to dip a toe in the 24 karat pool. The only thing that matters from China’s perspective is that “suppressing the price of gold is very beneficial for the U.S. in maintaining the U.S. dollar’s role as the international reserve currency. China’s increased gold reserves will thus act as a model and lead other countries towards reserving more gold. Large gold reserves are also beneficial in promoting the internationalization of the RMB.” Now, what would happen if mutual and pension funds finally comprehend they are massively underinvested in the one asset which China is without a trace of doubt massively accumulating behind the scenes is nothing short of a worldwide scramble, not so much for paper, but every last ounce of physical gold…

From Wikileaks:

3. CHINA’S GOLD RESERVES

“China increases its gold reserves in order to kill two birds with one stone”

“The China Radio International sponsored newspaper World News Journal (Shijie Xinwenbao)(04/28): “According to China’s National Foreign Exchanges Administration China ‘s gold reserves have recently increased. Currently, the majority of its gold reserves have been located in the U.S. and European countries. The U.S. and Europe have always suppressed the rising price of gold. They intend to weaken gold’s function as an international reserve currency. They don’t want to see other countries turning to gold reserves instead of the U.S. dollar or Euro. Therefore, suppressing the price of gold is very beneficial for the U.S. in maintaining the U.S. dollar’s role as the international reserve currency. China’s increased gold reserves will thus act as a model and lead other countries towards reserving more gold. Large gold reserves are also beneficial in promoting the internationalization of the RMB.”

Perhaps now is a good time to remind readers what will happen if and when America’s always behind the curve mutual and pension fund managers finally comprehend that they are massively underinvested in the one best performing asset class.

From The Driver for Gold You’re Not Watching (via Casey Research)

You already know the basic reasons for owning gold – currency protection, inflation hedge, store of value, calamity insurance – many of which are becoming clichés even in mainstream articles. Throw in the supply and demand imbalance, and you’ve got the basic arguments for why one should hold gold for the foreseeable future.

All of these factors remain very bullish, in spite of gold’s 450% rise over the past 10 years. No, it’s not too late to buy, especially if you don’t own a meaningful amount; and yes, I’m convinced the price is headed much higher, regardless of the corrections we’ll inevitably see. Each of the aforementioned catalysts will force gold’s price higher and higher in the years ahead, especially the currency issues.

But there’s another driver of the price that escapes many gold watchers and certainly the mainstream media. And I’m convinced that once this sleeping giant wakes, it could ignite the gold market like nothing we’ve ever seen.

The fund management industry handles the bulk of the world’s wealth. These institutions include insurance companies, hedge funds, mutual funds, sovereign wealth funds, etc. But the elephant in the room is pension funds. These are institutions that provide retirement income, both public and private.

Global pension assets are estimated to be – drum roll, please – $31.1 trillion. No, that is not a misprint. It is more than twice the size of last year’s GDP in the U.S. ($14.7 trillion).

We know a few hedge fund managers have invested in gold, like John Paulson, David Einhorn, Jean-Marie Eveillard. There are close to twenty mutual funds devoted to gold and precious metals. Lots of gold and silver bugs have been buying.

So, what about pension funds?

According to estimates by Shayne McGuire in his new book, Hard Money; Taking Gold to a Higher Investment Level, the typical pension fund holds about 0.15% of its assets in gold. He estimates another 0.15% is devoted to gold mining stocks, giving us a total of 0.30% – that is, less than one third of one percent of assets committed to the gold sector.

Shayne is head of global research at the Teacher Retirement System of Texas. He bases his estimate on the fact that commodities represent about 3% of the total assets in the average pension fund. And of that 3%, about 5% is devoted to gold. It is, by any account, a negligible portion of a fund’s asset allocation.

Now here’s the fun part. Let’s say fund managers as a group realize that bonds, equities, and real estate have become poor or risky investments and so decide to increase their allocation to the gold market. If they doubled their exposure to gold and gold stocks – which would still represent only 0.6% of their total assets – it would amount to $93.3 billion in new purchases.

How much is that? The assets of GLD total $55.2 billion, so this amount of money is 1.7 times bigger than the largest gold ETF. SLV, the largest silver ETF, has net assets of $9.3 billion, a mere one-tenth of that extra allocation.

The market cap of the entire sector of gold stocks (producers only) is about $234 billion. The gold industry would see a 40% increase in new money to the sector. Its market cap would double if pension institutions allocated just 1.2% of their assets to it.

But what if currency issues spiral out of control? What if bonds wither and die? What if real estate takes ten years to recover? What if inflation becomes a rabid dog like it has every other time in history when governments have diluted their currency to this degree? If these funds allocate just 5% of their assets to gold – which would amount to $1.5 trillion – it would overwhelm the system and rocket prices skyward.

And let’s not forget that this is only one class of institution. Insurance companies have about $18.7 trillion in assets. Hedge funds manage approximately $1.7 trillion. Sovereign wealth funds control $3.8 trillion. Then there are mutual funds, ETFs, private equity funds, and private wealth funds. Throw in millions of retail investors like you and me and Joe Sixpack and Jiao Sixpack, and we’re looking in the rear view mirror at $100 trillion.

I don’t know if pension funds will devote that much money to this sector or not. What I do know is that sovereign debt risks are far from over, the U.S. dollar and other currencies will lose considerably more value against gold, interest rates will most certainly rise in the years ahead, and inflation is just getting started. These forces are in place and building, and if there’s a paradigm shift in how these managers view gold, look out!

I thought of titling this piece, “Why $5,000 Gold May Be Too Low.” Because once fund managers enter the gold market in mass, this tiny sector will light on fire with blazing speed.