Geo-Engineering: The Real Climate Change Threat

Geoengineering - The real climate change threat - James Corbett

By James Corbett

Guest Writer for Wake Up World

For decades now, we have been told to be afraid of the long-term effects of manmade carbon dioxide on our climate. Seemingly every day some new storm, drought, warm spell or cold snap is featured on the news, with government-funded scientists warning us that this is a sign of things to come unless the world reduces its CO2 production.

The problem, of course, is that this is a third-rate scientific hoax propagated on the strength of the public’s ignorance of the underlying science, or lack thereof. The models and predictions used to scare the public into believing that CO2 alone is driving climate and will continue to do so in an increasingly dangerous fashion share the distinction of being universally wrong in their predictions of trends over the past 15 years, yet we are still asked to believe in the long-term validity of these same falsified models.

As Robinson et. al. noted in their 2007 study, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, published by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, “Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.”

Also in 2007, J. Scott Armstrong, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “Long-Range Forecasting”, a standard textbook on the principles of forecasting, co-authored an audit of the procedures that the IPCC used for its global warming projections, finding that those procedures violated 72 of the 89 relevant principles of scientific forecasting.

Last year the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres published a study showing that climate prediction models examining periods of less than 30 years on the geographical scale of continents are riddled with inaccuracies.

Earlier this year, the UK’s Met office was forced to revise downward their projections for temperature increase over the next four years after a 15 year standstill in global annual temperatures. Ironically, this divergence from the continuous temperature increases that had been predicted by the CO2 alarmists is now being blamed on “natural variability” including “the cycles of changes in solar activity,” which leaked drafts of the IPCC AR5 report due out next year indicate has been vastly underestimated.

Sadly, the fearmongering, hype and misleading predictions on this issue have become so internalized that there is a subsection of the population that is now willing to question whether every conceivable event in the galaxy is the result of carbon dioxide, even near-earth asteroids.

That so many are concentrating so much time and attention on the question of carbon dioxide, a trace gas in the atmosphere which itself is only partially manmade, is only to be expected. Scientists, pundits, writers and businessmen are only responding to the market incentives that are at play. Governments and universities around the world are now sinking billions of dollars a year into grants to fund research related to the supposed CO2 threat, and entire industries such as carbon trading and carbon sequestration, are developing in response to this interest. Quite simply, too much money and potential political power is at stake for the threat of global warming to be revealed as a false alarm.

One of the most worrying possibilities to arise from this trend, however, is the political legitimization of a concept that, ironically, has the potential to become a real threat to our environment: geoengineering.

The practice of geoengineering is now well over half a century old. As early as the late 1940s, American mathematician John von Neumann was researching weather modification and its potential uses in climatic warfare for the US Department of Defense. In the 1950s early cloudbursting experiments were performed by Wilhelm Reich and in 1956 Dr. Walter Russell was writing of the potential for complete weather control.

In the 1960s, Dr. Bernard Vonnegut, brother of the famous writer, vastly improved the techniques then in use by employing silver iodide crystals in the cloud seeding mixture. Silver iodide’s hygroscopic qualities insure water particles quickly bond with its crystalline structure. As the recent documentary Skywatcher points out, the process of cloud seeding is now so widely and routinely employed that it is having profound effects on our climate.

Given that CO2 is not the problem it is made out to be, coupled with the admitted advent of modern weather modification technologies in DoD research programs, it is impossible not to inquire into the possible links between the current push toward geoengineering and the military-industrial complex. Last year I had the chance to talk to Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Research on Globalization about the past, present, and future of weather warfare technology.

The potential military benefits to the wartime deployment of weather modification technologies are self-evident. In fact, they are so self-evident that, as Professor Chossudovsky notes, the UN was compelled to introduce a convention in 1977 prohibiting the use of environmental modification technology in warfare. The US ratified that convention in 1980.

Other potential benefits to the deployment of this technology suggest themselves in the monetary sphere. So many events in the course of human activity are predicated on short-term weather and long-term climate phenomena that the ability to determine (or even influence) either could be extremely valuable. Insurance companies, for example, stand to lose billions (and reconstruction-related industries stand to make those same billions) every time a strong storm makes landfall in populated areas.

So it should not be surprising that a market has evolved for “weather derivatives”, effectively allowing large financial institutions to make money gambling on the weather. And it should also come as no surprise that this market was largely pioneered by that infamous globalist-connected insider corporation, Enron.

Last year I had the chance to talk to researcher Peter Kirby about Enron’s involvement in weather derivatives and the vast sums that stand to be made as geoengineering projects continue to be deployed under the threshold of public awareness.

Even if we were to assume that weather modification technologies are not currently being used for the purposes of weather warfare or market manipulation, the potential for such abuses alone should be more than enough to dissuade us from pursuing these technologies. Even more worrying, perhaps, are the true unknown environmental ramifications of the long-term effects of these technologies on our environment.

Ironically enough, those who are warning us of the potentially disastrous consequences of manmade climate change may be exactly right in their assessment after all. But in the end, it may not be the manmade CO2 they are worried about that is the real culprit of this coming catastrophe, but the geoengineering technologies that are being proposed as the “solution” to this problem.

Geo-Engineering and Weather Warfare

James Corbett discusses geo-engineering and weather warfare on Global Research TV.

Previous articles by James Corbett:

About the author:

James Corbett is editor, webmaster, writer, producer, host, and the inspiration behind The Corbett Report, an independent, listener-supported alternative news source. The Corbett Report operates on the principle of open source intelligence and provides podcasts, interviews, articles and videos about breaking news and important issues, from 9/11 Truth and false flag terror to the Big Brother police state, eugenics, geopolitics, the central banking fraud and more.

James has been living and working in Japan since 2004. He started The Corbett Report website in 2007 as an outlet for independent critical analysis of politics, society, history, and economics. Since then he has written, recorded and edited over 1000 hours of audio and video media for the website, including a weekly weekly podcast and several regular online video series. Corbett also produces video reports for GRTV, the video production arm of the Centre for Research on Globalization, and BoilingFrogsPost.com, the website of noted FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds. He is also an editorial writer for The International Forecaster, the weekly e-newsletter created by the late Bob Chapman.

To subscribe to the The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter and become a member of The Corbett Report website, please sign up for a monthly or annual membership here.

 


Wake Up World's latest videos

 

Join Wake Up World's Ever Evolving Social Communities

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google Plus

 

  • To me there is no doubt that global warming is happening, even with the hiatus in average temperatures…and I have been skeptical for a long time, because I have a decent understanding of some of the more nefarious agendas of the ruling interests.

    But the increase in ocean temperatures and the cyclic loss of arctic ice are two of the undeniable effects of climate change. See the recent climate council video on the cycles of arctic ice, based on NASA data, from 1980 to present at https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=588398287963435. This is a compelling video for any remaining climate change deniers.

    The question does stand, however, whether current provable climate change rests well within the framework of historical cyclic extremes that seem to have been “handled” reasonably well by the planet, or if the current trends are a springboard for much more radical extremes and feedback loops into the future. To me, the latter seems to be the greatest possibility. But not solely due to C02 by any means…due to a multiplicity of factors derived from the carbon-based energy economy.

    While I understand and agree with resistance against climate change policies that look to further control or manage humanity with centralized power structures (Agenda 21) or to profit from climate change (Wall Street is licking its chops relative to energy trading and derivatives) or to monitor, assess and tax everything humans do, or, as this article discusses, to implement massive and highly problematic geo-engineering projects, to me there should be NO resistance to climate change policies that are aimed at expanding technology to move us beyond a carbon-based energy economy. The policy approach should use the carrot, and not the stick, and should provide for decentralized solutions.

    To me it is very clear that some of the forcers have “got to go” and we MUST graduate as a planet or continue to force climate change faster than necessary. For example, if all the carbon nano-particles generated from coal-fired plants in the atmosphere were to suddenly disappear, the problem of climate change would pretty much turn into a non-issue.

    I believe that many in the “no anthropogenic climate change” boat are there simply because they don’t trust centralized authority telling them what to do. And with good reason. But they would trust them a lot more if the focus was on the abundance associated with transitioning towards new technologies and methodologies to move us beyond the carbon-energy economy as fast as possible, and increase efficiency as fast as possible, rather than punishing the laggards or trying to “fix” the situation with geo-engineering. Again, the carrot instead of the stick. And they would trust them a LOT more if they created a safety net for the broad and rapid dissemination of the REALLY radical decentralized technologies that are available even now (google “Breakthrough Energy Movement”).

    However, the biggest problem associated with transitioning out of the carbon-energy model anytime soon is the fact that very wealthy people have invested hundreds of billions of dollars into existing technologies and they need to find a way to get their money back. If this were not an issue, the transition would move a lot faster. We need to get to the bottom of this issue. How, in a transitional approach, can we compensate those who have so heavily in invested in the old approach?

    I write all of the above simply for a context to respond to this article, which asserts that C02 really has nothing to do with global warming. I don’t believe that is true, because when considering the greenhouse model, the issue of C02 is more complex than most understand. To me the strongest perspective on this debate is that it is appropriate to include C02 as one of the forcers of the greenhouse effect, but not necessarily in the way most people think. It is a forcer BECAUSE IT WORKS IN SYNERGY WITH OTHER FORCERS. Here is an explanation of the mechanism from a friend who is deeply involved in a bio-mimicry project called marine cloud brightening, whose focus is to increase planetary albedo by injecting minute water particles in the atmosphere:

    “The greenhouse effect is actually the combined effect of several different gases that each cause more long-wave radiation, namely heat, to be reflected back to the surface of the Earth rather than escaping into space. The planet is only warmed when solar radiation strikes the surface and warms solid, or liquid, matter. That matter then also re-radiates long-wave radiation, which can either escape to space, or be reflected back toward earth.

    The greenhouse gas that we hear most about is CO2 because it is already the dominant greenhouse gas and has already increased to far above previous levels. Additional CO2 will last for hundreds of thousands of years unless we can find new ways to remove it. There are also other greenhouse gasses including, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and CFC’s. Water vapor is actually so dominant that it is not even listed in the attached illustration from the UNIPCC AR5 showing the consensus.

    Black carbon (carbon nano-particles) is significant, responsible for maybe 1/3 the forcing of CO2, and 1/4 of total forcing in 2011.

    Water vapor is THE main greenhouse gas, and is a well understood feedback multiplier amplifying the effect of CO2, as warmer air can hold more moisture.

    The direct warming effect of CO2 must be multiplied by other feedbacks to arrive at the total net warming. The current consensus is that the total multiple will be about 3 times the direct effect of CO2, but one systems theorist in the UK (David Wasdell) believes — based on the paleoclimate record — that the multiple will ultimately be 7x, as warming will cause more warming feedback over many centuries.

    Water vapor in the atmosphere is already counted as the major warming feedback in all climate models. It is important to understand that the effect of water condensed into different types of clouds is NOT the same as gaseous water vapor in the atmosphere. Water accounts for 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect for clear sky conditions but 66% to 85% when clouds are included. Different types of clouds have different effects.

    High cirrus clouds reflect long-wave radiation back to earth. So, a new climate engineering technique called “cirrus thinning” has been proposed to reduce this effect and thereby cool the earth.

    However, low-lying marine stratuscumulous clouds reflect incoming sunlight back to space before it can strike the surface of the earth, or in this case the ocean. Marine Cloud Brightening seeks to increase this reflective effect.

    More water vapor will itself act as a greenhouse gas, which is already included in the models. The effect of that vapor on the formation of different types of clouds is also included. The net effect of each of those types of clouds on the climate is included. Are the models perfect? No. Is anything that is a very large forcer left out? Almost certainly not.

    The models show that in a warmer world with far more CO2, and more water vapor, MCB could still cool the oceans enough to reduce the thermal energy of the global system enough to restore the Arctic ice.

    If we fail to keep the Arctic from melting, methane (CH4), which is currently estimated at about the same forcing as black carbon, could rapidly increase to dwarf CO2 and cause a runaway heating feedback.”

    The point of displaying his analysis in its entirety is simply to underscore the following: C02 DOES play a part in global warming, but only in relation to the other forcers. If we as a species take on a massive effort to transition out of the carbon-based economy as fast as possible, then we won’t need to worry about C02, as the other forcers will be radically reduced.

    Anyway, that’s my take on it at the moment.

  • DONMATEO

    I have huge respect for James Corbet. I was an early aggregator of information on “global warming” in the early 90s, mainly researching “science” papers on the info trac at the university I was attending. I even went so far as to put together a slide show, which I took to Japan, about the ancient forests of the Pacific NW. It showed their amazing role as the second most efficient and largest forest carbon sinks in the world. I tied it all together with ice core samples and ocean currents pretty much the John Kerry did, except mine was better. And mine was not tied with an agenda (cap and trade) to further insure the thieving class stayed cemented in their castles. When an inconvenient truth came out I thought, ‘wow, typical of their ilk to exploit a situation like this.’ … but I digress.
    Long story short imagine my surprise and confusion when the cracks in the “all the science on global is conclusive” story began to appear. To the point of misrepresentation and misinterpretation of data and downright fraud that fits right into the Kerryesque et al agenda.
    I am strengthened to know their are people like James critically thinking and educating the those willing to go there. There is some laughable yet sad conclusions in this piece (see here: which I’d guess James does not agree with, which is that nuclear is determinately the answer to the “energy problem” and that carbon based fuel is leaving a more lush world for future generations. Nuclear, oil, gas, and coal extraction and industry is hugely destructive and polluting to our natural environment that that so brilliantly sustains us.

  • Linda MacLeod Goodman

    Thank you, James Corbett! I’d just like to add that the word ‘hoax’ implies a joke and there’s nothing funny about this fraud. “What’s in a name?”
    hoax: humorous or malicious deception. [‘or malicious’ is not in my old dictionary.. hmmm]
    fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

  • Linda MacLeod Goodman

    What of the radionuclides from Fukushima pouring into the Pacific 24/7 and affecting the climate and ocean temps?