Scientists to Create an “Artificial Volcano” in an Attempt to Geoengineer Our Climate

By Paul Joseph Watson

September 16, 2011

Despite the pseudo-science of global warming being discredited with each passing day, scientists are preparing to field test an “artificial volcano” which is eventually intended to lead to mammoth geoengineering programs which will inject sulfur particles in to the atmosphere at high altitudes, a process that other scientists have warned will cause widespread droughts and other drastic consequences.

“Next month, researchers in the U.K. will start to pump water nearly a kilometer up into the atmosphere, by way of a suspended hose,” reports Scientific American.
“The experiment is the first major test of a piping system that could one day spew sulfate particles into the stratosphere at an altitude of 20 kilometers, supported by a stadium-size hydrogen balloon. The goal is geoengineering, or the “deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment” in the words of the Royal Society of London, which provides scientific advice to policymakers. In this case, researchers are attempting to re-create the effects of volcanic eruptions to artificially cool Earth.”

Never mind the fact that the science behind global warming is only becoming more contentious, with Norwegian physicist and Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever this week quitting the American Physical Society because of its advocacy of the man-made climate change thesis, allowing scientists driven by the political agenda that global warming alarmism has become to conduct such dangerous experiments with the eco-system on such a massive scale is nothing short of insane.

As we have previously documented at length, this latest experiment is just one of a series of similar tests designed to investigate the feasibility of injecting aerosols into the atmosphere that have been carried out by scientific bodies under the control of both the British and American governments.

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 disinformation 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.”

However, as Caldeira well knows, experiments similar to his “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.”

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

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 the lead scientist heading up the latest experiment in the UK, Mark Watson, admits that injecting sulphur into the atmosphere could lead to “acid rain, ozone depletion or weather pattern disruption.”

The Canada-based Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC) responded to the announcement of the test by calling on the British government to shut down the research. “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.

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.”

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.

Of course, many would argue that geoengineering projects involving spraying chemicals at high altitudes are already underway through chemtrails. Indeed, last year scientists admitted that emissions from aircraft are forming artificial clouds that block out the sun, but ludicrously claimed that the effect was a natural phenomenon.

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.
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.