Debunked: CIA studying Geoengineering, Climate Engineering, Weather Warfare

You keep running around in circles. First you say that pollutants and carbon emissions need to be curbed. Now you say that even though the CAA is good and works, it doesn't save the world from Global Warming. Only legislation of CO2 can save the world from Global Warming when it is considered among scientists now to be a pollutant. I think it is you who needs to get facts straight here...

Fact 1: CAA has worked for regulated pollutants.

Fact 2: CAA has not been applied to CO2

Assertion. CAA has worked for other pollutants. Similar legislation or addition of CO2 to CAA as a regulated pollutant should work to reduce carbon emissions.

Explain how that is circular?

I said that Cap and Trade worked for sulfur (even though Rush Limbaugh speaking on behalf of The Heartland Institute and the GOP said that regulating sulfur was stupid between volcanos bla bla). Why wouldn't cap and trade also work to reduce carbon emissions?
 
Fact 1: CAA has worked for regulated pollutants.

Fact 2: CAA has not been applied to CO2

Assertion. CAA has worked for other pollutants. Similar legislation or addition of CO2 to CAA as a regulated pollutant should work to reduce carbon emissions.

Explain how that is circular?

I said that Cap and Trade worked for sulfur (even though Rush Limbaugh speaking on behalf of The Heartland Institute and the GOP said that regulating sulfur was stupid between volcanos bla bla). Why wouldn't cap and trade also work to reduce carbon emissions?


Because liberals said that curbing pollutants would save the world. Now they say curbing C02 will save the world. I wonder what's next...
 
Raising taxes to fund green programs or green initiatives or green startup companies that fail horribly because the technology is not yet perfected, while "progressive" isn't smart business guidelines.

Then you go on to advocate for such spending?

Yeah, a piece of paper is going to be much more efficient at getting things done, than the creation of an entirely new industry.

What I mean is, half the time you don't know that you need a new industry until it's already created. Who would have thought in 1960, that computers would be on every desk and even in your pockets!!! That was fifty years ago. Who knows what technology will be around in 2060!

I would buy an electric car and/or solar panels if they were practical and not so expensive.


This is why while completely supportive of Green technology, most major companies like Google, and Microsoft have stopped funding kooky environmental ventures.

The technologies aren't economically viable (impractical and too expensive by your measure) then who will do the initial research in to the "kooky environmental ventures"?
 
I've never bought into the weather warfare line of reasoning for studying the influences human activities might be having on our planetary system as whole. But I do believe we're very likely over the tipping point when it comes to CO2. I'm not sure even an immediate reversal of the present trend will make much difference. Every new assessment report from the IPCC ends up having to use worst case scenario in its next set of considerations. That and the state of the oceans, which is the magic bullet of the climate system, is pretty grim. See http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...-tXx4A&usg=AFQjCNEuZF9XOKBaAi2aVk5yu1V7p2wLvQ for a lecture by DR J Jackson ( probably the worlds leading researcher on the ocean systems ) at Browns university
 
Because liberals said that curbing pollutants would save the world. Now they say curbing C02 will save the world. I wonder what's next...

You fail to demonstrate circular reasoning here.

Curbing pollutants improved air quality and cut down on the loads of certain pollutants. Mercury levels in bass in the Everglades as dropped when trash incinerators in south Florida were brought up to standard (and/or closed). Some say we need to ratchet down further. Some say we've done enough. Some say air pollution was never really a problem. Fact stands that legislation did lead to reduction in regulated pollutants. Your statement that such is impossible is, therefore, false.
 
I've never bought into the weather warfare line of reasoning for studying the influences human activities might be having on our planetary system as whole. But I do believe we're very likely over the tipping point when it comes to CO2. I'm not sure even an immediate reversal of the present trend will make much difference. Every new assessment report from the IPCC ends up having to use worst case scenario in its next set of considerations. That and the state of the oceans, which is the magic bullet of the climate system, is pretty grim. See http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fRPiNcikOU&sa=U&ei=zx7wUaWaA4SWiALys4HICg&ved=0CBkQtwIwAA&sig2=-PFOFQIHzSohJnbl-tXx4A&usg=AFQjCNEuZF9XOKBaAi2aVk5yu1V7p2wLvQ for a lecture by DR J Jackson ( probably the worlds leading researcher on the ocean systems ) at Browns university

Quite possibly things are going to be bad. But that does not mean we should simply give up. Things can get worse, and long term we still want to return CO2 to a more reasonable level.

Tipping points in climate are complex and poorly understood. We should not assume we are over one.
 
Steve, you are correct, but the ocean currents are slowing now even at our present levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Once that vertical circulation is disrupted sufficiently, its aerobic stratification time, which means curtains for the human race IMHO

Mick, I wouldn't suggest giving up, I run all my vehicles and now my house as well on alternative fuels, My latest project is sustainable living units for a mobile home park and a commune in the area. Should make me a pretty penny and also make the footprint of each dwelling significantly smaller. So no, giving up just isn't really an option.

But it is important to realize just how bad things are, if we look at the paleo climate record ( which isn't complete but we do have significant knowledge of many era's ) we can see that a temp change of roughly 4° C over a million year period seems to trigger major extinctions. Since 1800 we've altered the atmospheric temp by about 1.7° C and its accelerating. Even the Berkeley study confirmed this



a reasonable prediction can be made that by somewhere between 2035 and 2050 we will hit that critical + 4° C. The hard reality is we are highly unlikely to make an significant change unless there is also a significant monetary benefit. The corporate industry is a mindless machine and has no interest in long term ecological realities.

Oh and if your curious where I got those estimates from go check out the KT boundary extinction, one of the better understood occurrences within the paleo climate record.

I don't advocate giving up, but I'm not under any illusions as to our chances. +4°C , and just like in the KT boundary extinction, everything down to about 2lbs cannot survive, there's just not enough oxygen. The issue is we've altered the system about 2000 times faster than in that event, so the depth of the climate reaction might be more like the Cambrian ( everything down to about amoeba died off for about 50 million years ) extinction than the KT ( everything down to about 2lbs died off for about 30 million years ) . Either way, its not looking to good for the race to survive it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't the KT (or K-Pg) boundary extinction generally thought to be from an asteroid impact or large volcano? Not really related.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event
It is generally believed that the K-Pg extinction was triggered by a massive comet/asteroid impact and its catastrophic effects on the global environment, including a lingering impact winter that made it impossible for plants and plankton to carry out photosynthesis.[5] The impact hypothesis was bolstered by the discovery of the 180-kilometre-wide (112 mi) Chicxulub crater in the Gulf of Mexico in the late 1970s,[6] which provided conclusive evidence that the K–Pg boundary clay represented debris from an asteroid impact.[7] The fact that the extinctions occurred at the same time as the impact provides strong evidence that the K–Pg extinction was caused by the asteroid.[7] However, some scientists maintain the extinction was caused or exacerbated by other factors, such as volcanic eruptions,[8] climate change, and/or sea level change.
Content from External Source
 
Either way, its not looking to good for the race to survive it.

I agree with much of what you've said, the rate of change is insane thanks to our own activities, and who knows just how bad it will be in 50/100/500 years time. But I think we can survive it, just not at our current population. I see a lot of disasters, famine and wars to come up fairly soon, once the costs of living (oil/energy) reach a certain level... It'll be tough, and not very pleasant.
 
Isn't the KT (or K-Pg) boundary extinction generally thought to be from an asteroid impact or large volcano? Not really related.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event
It is generally believed that the K-Pg extinction was triggered by a massive comet/asteroid impact and its catastrophic effects on the global environment, including a lingering impact winter that made it impossible for plants and plankton to carry out photosynthesis.[5] The impact hypothesis was bolstered by the discovery of the 180-kilometre-wide (112 mi) Chicxulub crater in the Gulf of Mexico in the late 1970s,[6] which provided conclusive evidence that the K–Pg boundary clay represented debris from an asteroid impact.[7] The fact that the extinctions occurred at the same time as the impact provides strong evidence that the K–Pg extinction was caused by the asteroid.[7] However, some scientists maintain the extinction was caused or exacerbated by other factors, such as volcanic eruptions,[8] climate change, and/or sea level change.
Content from External Source

No that was the Permian Triasic extinction about 65 million years ago, the KT boundary extinction happened about 250 million years ago and gave rise to the dinosaurs. If memory serves, which it may not ;-)

The KT boundary extinction was caused by a basalt flow we now know at the Siberian trap event. In a nut shell it took about 1 million years to raise world average temps 4°C which triggered an anaerobic stratification of the oceans, that in turn dropped oxygen levels to unlivable levels, or at least for much over 2 lbs. It also killed off a huge percentage of oxygen breathing organisms in the oceans
 
I agree with much of what you've said, the rate of change is insane thanks to our own activities, and who knows just how bad it will be in 50/100/500 years time. But I think we can survive it, just not at our current population. I see a lot of disasters, famine and wars to come up fairly soon, once the costs of living (oil/energy) reach a certain level... It'll be tough, and not very pleasant.


This will be very very different, the atmospheric chemistry itself will change, instead of our oceans producing 2/3 of our oxygen they will now produce an even greater amount of sulfur, ammonia and methane. Not stuff we can easily breath. Once disturbed the vertical circulation of the oceans will have to somehow return to there natural condition before the atmospheric balance would be restored. We'd end up wearing environmental suits for a few hundred years as the population dwindled and we were forced to basically eat pond scum. Within the paleo climate record the oceans tend to remain stratified for millions of years. Its where all the blue and black shale deposits come from, or at least most of them. Trophic cascade is a virtual guaranteed within just a few years of stratification. DR Jackson goes over all of this in his lecture. He even predicts we have 10 to 20 years at the current rate of change. Meaning somewhere between 2020 and 2035, although the lecture is a few years old. I give it a bit longer but the outcome is the same.

Another wake up call is the new IPCC report. Holly molly people just don't realize what a 4~6°C rise in temps really means or they'd all be freaking out.
 
No that was the Permian Triasic extinction about 65 million years ago, the KT boundary extinction happened about 250 million years ago and gave rise to the dinosaurs. If memory serves, which it may not ;-)

The KT boundary extinction was caused by a basalt flow we now know at the Siberian trap event. In a nut shell it took about 1 million years to raise world average temps 4°C which triggered an anaerobic stratification of the oceans, that in turn dropped oxygen levels to unlivable levels, or at least for much over 2 lbs. It also killed off a huge percentage of oxygen breathing organisms in the oceans

You seem to have those the wrong way around. And the PT extinction is not exactly the same thing as the Siberian Trap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event
The Permian–Triassic (P–Tr) extinction event, informally known as the Great Dying,[2] was an extinction event that occurred 252.28 Ma(million years) ago,[3] forming the boundary between the Permian and Triassicgeologic periods, as well as the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras. It is the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marinespecies[4] and 70% of terrestrialvertebrate species becomingextinct
Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Traps
This massive eruptive event spanned the Permian-Triassic boundary, about 250 million years ago, and is cited as a possible cause of the Permian-Triassic extinction event.[6][2] One of the major questions is whether the Siberian Traps was directly responsible, or if it was itself caused by some other larger event, such as an asteroid impact.
Content from External Source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event
The Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event,[a] formerly known as the Cretaceous–Tertiary (K–T) extinction,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event#cite_note-3 was a mass extinction of some three-quarters of plant and animal species on Earth—including all non-aviandinosaurs—that occurred over a geologically short period of time 66 million years (Ma) ago.
Content from External Source
 
You seem to have those the wrong way around. And the PT extinction is not exactly the same thing as the Siberian Trap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event
The Permian–Triassic (P–Tr) extinction event, informally known as the Great Dying,[2] was an extinction event that occurred 252.28 Ma(million years) ago,[3] forming the boundary between the Permian and Triassicgeologic periods, as well as the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras. It is the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marinespecies[4] and 70% of terrestrialvertebrate species becomingextinct
Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Traps
This massive eruptive event spanned the Permian-Triassic boundary, about 250 million years ago, and is cited as a possible cause of the Permian-Triassic extinction event.[6][2] One of the major questions is whether the Siberian Traps was directly responsible, or if it was itself caused by some other larger event, such as an asteroid impact.
Content from External Source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event
The Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event,[a] formerly known as the Cretaceous–Tertiary (K–T) extinction, was a mass extinction of some three-quarters of plant and animal species on Earth—including all non-aviandinosaurs—that occurred over a geologically short period of time 66 million years (Ma) ago.
Content from External Source

yah well its been about 25 years since I sat in that class ;-) I certainly did seem to get it reversed. Although I'd check something other than Wiki before I'd take it for gospel. Appreciate you pointing it out tho, I don't think we learn much unless we're willing to admit when we're mistaken.

Oh and the trap event is what caused the extinction event, or at least they're connected, the traps being the source of the CO2 which sent the atmospheric chemistry into a spasm that ended up causing the release of methane hydrate which ended up really raising hell
 
oh and one more little tidbit. Particularly applicable to this website actually. There is a hypothesis in astronomy called the nemesis theory. I don't really accept it as a working theory so I tend to view it as a hypothesis. It basically states that the cyclical nature of the extinctions ( and there's ample argument even about that ) is caused by a companion star ( named Nemesis ) which interacts with our solar system every 25 million years or so. IE its on a wide orbit of about 25 million years rotation. There is also some evidence of it carrying its own planetary system, as well as there being some intra system anomalies like Sedna's odd ball orbit. This would tend to support the asteroid/comet theory.

My take on the PT ( fixed it ;-) boundary extinction is that it was caused by vulcanism and specifically the largest volcanic event of the times was the Siberian trap event. What we don't really know is what caused the gigantic basalt flow of that event. So I tend to refrain from claiming it was an asteroid when the juries still out on that one. What we do know is that alterations in the atmospheric levels of CO2 was involved in the chain reaction of events that led to one of the largest mass extinctions ever.
 
The Serbian trap event is not proven to cause the extinction event, that's just one theory.

yah but its a pretty damn strong theory. The rock strata of that time contain certain isotopes of carbon that are predominantly volcanic in nature.

yah don't really get absolute proof in climate sciences. But you do tend to get high probabilities
 
It still comes back to a massive impact.

The problem of methane clathrates may have been lessened some by what we learned during the Macondo blow out. It seems that much of what was coming from that well was methane. The studies of the 'hydrocarbon plumes' that showed up and then vanished, showed that they were methane and not oil. The Gulf of Mexico has native bacteria that fed on the methane. The rapid bloom of them and their ability to remove the methane was not expected. Mother Nature may be evolving to 'fix' some natural causes

I do still think that we need to address CO2 emissions. I am more moderate than many on the degree.


Many paleontologists have been skeptical of the theory that an asteroid caused the extinction. Early studies of the fossil record suggested that the die-out happened gradually over millions of years -- not suddenly like an impact event. But as their methods for dating the disappearance of species has improved, estimates of its duration have shrunk from millions of years to between 8,000 and 100,000 years. That's a blink of the eye in geological terms.

"I think paleontologists are now coming full circle and leading the way, saying that the extinction was extremely abrupt," Becker notes. "Life vanished quickly on the scale of geologic time, and it takes something catastrophic to do that."

Such evidence is merely circumstantial -- it doesn't actually prove anything. Becker's evidence, however, is more direct and persuasive:

Deep inside Permian-Triassic rocks, Becker's team found soccer ball-shaped molecules called "fullerenes" (or "buckyballs") with traces of helium and argon gas trapped inside. The fullerenes held an unusual number of 3He and 36Ar atoms -- isotopes that are more common in space than on Earth. Something, like a comet or an asteroid, must have brought the fullerenes to our planet
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
found this in google news I'm not sure if fits the thread or the strength of articles legitimacy but wished to post give it to some who can make analysis of claims

http://wtexas.com/content/15022057-cia-concerned-foreign-power-may-develop-ability-manipulate

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has expressed concern that a foreign power could develop the ability to manipulate the global climate in a manner that could be difficult to detect.

Professor Alan Robock of Rutgers University in New Jersey has been asked by consultants working for the US Central Intelligence Agency that it would be feasible for a nation to meddle with the climate without being discovered.

“I got a phone call from two men who said we work as consultants for the CIA and we'd like to know if some other country was controlling our climate, would we know about it”, Professor Robock said.

Professor Robock replied the men after thinking that they probably would because if enough material is put in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight, they can detect it and see the equipment that was putting it up there. The CIA was concerned because hostile nations were making efforts to control the world's weather.

US government agents were worried that they made contact with a leading environmental expert in order to ask how many attempts could be detected. Professor Alan Robock has been asked that whether foreign countries might be triggering droughts and flooding. But Alan Robock believes that they were in fact trying to find out whether any foreign countries might pick up their attempts to manipulate the climate.

According to Alan Robock, large-scale weather interference would be detectable and presently there is no evidence that it is taking place. A report into albedo modification has been largely funded by the CIA.
 
Geoengineering, if it were happening, would leave a signature similar to what it is designed to mimic, the natural affect of volcanic eruptions:

mauna loa4.JPG
 
“I got a phone call from two men who said we work as consultants for the CIA and we'd like to know if some other country was controlling our climate, would we know about it”, Professor Robock said.

Maybe i'm becoming too cynical in my old age, but two guys claiming to be consultants (for the CIA)? Very thin evidence "the CIA" is asking these questions.

Just saying. :)
 
The products I mentioned will not be discussed on chemtrail CT advocate websites partly because they are more technical than the average believer but mainly because they provide a real-world view which debunks the idea that geoengineering is taking place.

The bottom line is that "chemtrails are geoengineering" is simply a 'scapegoat' which seems plausible but falls short when examined:

G Edward Griffin 1.jpg G Edward Griffin.jpg
 
Back
Top