Category Archives: Climate Change / Global Warming

Connecticut First U.S. State To Force Students To Learn About Climate Change.

download (2)

Teach kids about climate change? This state might require it

By MICHAEL MELIAJanuary 16, 2019

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A legislative proposal in Connecticut would mandate instruction on climate change in public schools statewide, beginning in elementary school.

Connecticut already has adopted science standards that call for teaching of climate change, but if the bill passes it is believed that it would be the country’s first to write such a requirement into law.

“A lot of schools make the study of climate change an elective, and I don’t believe it should be an elective,” said state Rep. Christine Palm, a Democrat from Chester who proposed the bill. “I think it should be mandatory, and I think it should be early so there’s no excuse for kids to grow up ignorant of what’s at stake.”

Some educators have questioned whether it’s necessary in light of Connecticut’s adoption in 2015 of the Next Generation Science Standards, which include climate change as a core aspect of science education beginning in middle school.

“I do believe if the state has adopted standards, you’re teaching those standards, you’re going to be assessed on those standards,” said Fran Rabinowitz, executive director of the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents. “If you’re a district in Connecticut, your curriculum is addressing it already.”

A similar proposal was introduced in the last legislative session but ultimately failed to win approval.

A total of 19 states and the District of Columbia so far have adopted the Next Generation Science Standards, which indicate what a state hopes students will know. Typically, states leave the specific curriculum and instruction up to the districts.

The bill apparently would be country’s first to make climate change instruction a matter of statute, according to the National Center for Science Education. In several other states, legislation has been proposed in recent years to allow or require teachers to present alternatives to widely accepted viewpoints on topics such as climate change.

Palm, who represents towns along the Connecticut River in southeast Connecticut, said climate change deserves a more prominent place in children’s education because of the urgency of the threat posed by global warming.

“I’d love to see poetry be mandated. That’s never going to happen,” she said. “That’s not life or death.”

YouTube Is Adding ‘Fact Checks’ to Videos that Question ‘Climate Change’

Delingpole: Now YouTube Is Adding ‘Fact Checks’ to Videos that Question ‘Climate Change’

breitbart.com
By James Delingpole August 10, 2018

And so it begins: YouTube is now adding “fact checks” to videos which question the man-made global warming scare narrative.

According to Buzzfeed News:

YouTube is now adding fact checks to videos that question climate change, BuzzFeed News has confirmed, as a part of its ongoing effort to combat the rampant misinformation and conspiratorial fodder on its platform.
On July 9, the company added a blurb of text underneath some videos about climate change, which provided a scientifically accurate explainer. The text comes from the Wikipedia entry for global warming and states that “multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming.”

This new feature follows YouTube’s announcement in March that it would place descriptions from Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica next to videos on topics that spur conspiracy theories, such as the moon landing and the Oklahoma City bombing. In doing the same for climate videos, the company seems to be wading into more fraught and complex intellectual territory.

Sure, in many ways it’s a trivial and pathetic gesture. Quoting Wikipedia as your credible source is a bit like citing CNN as the go-to site for all the latest info on Donald Trump. And anyway, that “scientifically accurate explainer” is at best vague, at worst far more misleading than the videos it is supposed to be “fact checking.”

It says:

“Global warming, also referred to as climate change is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth’s climate system and its related effects. Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming.”

So the records show that there has been some gentle warming of less than 1 degree C since the world began emerging from the Little Ice Age a century and a half ago. So what? This whole line of argument is a Straw Man, which wilfully misrepresents the sceptical position. It’s not whether or not climate changes that preoccupies sceptics. It’s whether recent warming is significantly man-made – and if it is, whether, it’s something we should worry about, and whether it’s within our means or in our interest to do anything about it anyway.

But the real issue here, of course, is that like Big Tech’s near-blanket banning of Alex Jones, it’s the thin end of the wedge.

We know that, given half the chance, Big Tech would like to go much, much further in its censorship of viewpoints which run counter to the prevailing Silicon Valley ‘progressive’ narrative.

We also know that it is being pushed in that direction by leftist politicians and activists and media outlets.

The George-Soros-funded Media Matters for America, for example, recently published a long screed excoriating Mark Zuckerberg for hosting climate sceptical articles, videos and adverts on Facebook.

Facebook, well-known as a breeding ground for misinformation, has a particular problem with disseminating false and misleading messages about climate change science. The platform spreads climate-denying videos and other posts, hosts climate-denying ads, and officially partners with climate-denying media outlets and organizations.

So far, Zuckerberg has held firm. But for how much longer?

What cannot be stated often enough about “climate change” is that it is much more of a political issue than it is a scientific one.

There is no credible evidence that recent warming is unusual, worrying or unprecedented. Nor is there any credible evidence that it is significantly man-made. Nor yet is it obvious that we have the power to control the climate – or that it would be advisable to try to do so.

So, because the actual science has been so unhelpful to their cause, the people pushing the alarmist narrative have been forced to promote it by other means. To a large degree, these “other means” have entailed shutting down the opposition.

After all, if you can’t win an argument on facts, you only hope of victory is to ensure the other side never gets heard.

And what better way to silence your opponents by declaring their articles and videos “fake news” – and hiding the truth in the guise of public interest?

 

Four Reasons Why Man Made ‘Climate Change’ Is a Flat-Out Hoax

Global Warming HOAX

4 Reasons Why ‘Climate Change’ Is a Flat-Out Hoax

October 8, 2018

By John Eidson americanthinker.com

First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist. In fact, I am not a scientist of any kind. But I do have a degree in electrical engineering, which I mention only to point out that I am at least as qualified as the next non-scientist to form rational opinions about global warming claims.

In obtaining my degree, I took enough classes in chemistry, physics, and geology to develop a keen appreciation of the scientific method, the best way ever devised for winnowing the truth from fakery and deception. If taking the scientific method into account, no intelligent person can fail to see that the constant drumbeat of wild and hysterical claims about the climate are insults to the search for Truth.

Following are four reasons why I will bet my life that “climate change” is the greatest scientific and political hoax in human history.

1. Rampant scientific fraud

Ordinary people like me don’t understand climate science, but we can spot cheating a mile away. Without the assistance of a complicit Western media in burying multiple indisputable cases of outright scientific fraud, man-made global warming theory would have been blown out of the water years ago.

One of the most brazen instances of inexcusable scientific misconduct is documented by photographic evidence gathered during a three-month investigation by a veteran meteorologist. As reported by Dr. David Evans, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) placed hundreds of official global warming thermometers in locations entirely unsuitable for gathering natural temperatures:

● Adjacent to hot engines of parked vehicles

● On asphalt-covered roofs

● Near hot exhaust vents of air conditioning units

● On heat-retaining airport tarmacs and paved parking lots

● Next to heat-retaining rock formations and brick buildings

Global warming is measured in tenths of a degree, so every artificial upward nudge creates a deceptive picture of actual temperatures. To avoid artificially elevated readings, NOAA’s own official site location standards require that thermometers be placed at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface, and in a level, open area with natural ground cover. Those standards were clearly subverted, and every voter should demand to know why.

No supporter of man-made global warming theory who sees the photographs in the PDF linked to above – all of which have been downplayed, or outright ignored, by the complicit Western media – can fail to ascertain that the theory they support is being kept on life support by scientific fraud.

2. The duping of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public

As reported in Forbes, the following unguarded statement was made by one of the climate crisis industry’s loudest drum-beaters, the late Dr. Steven Schneider, lead author of numerous alarming U.N. climate reports and former professor of climatology at Stanford:

We need broad-based support to capture the public’s imagination, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

In other words, one of the climate crisis lobby’s most loyal sycophants told his like-minded colleagues that they not only must conceal evidence that casts doubt on global warming theory, but also craft their research in dishonest ways designed to create terror in the minds of a trusting public. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that dishonesty and concealment of contrarian views have no place in legitimate science.

3. A long trail of wildly inaccurate predictions

As reported by Fox News, a 2015 report published in the journal Nature Climate Change compared 117 computer model projections during the 1990s with the amount of actual warming that occurred. Of the 117, only three were roughly accurate, while 114 over-estimated the recorded warming. (The lopsided results suggest that those doing the modeling may have been guilty of using an unscientific technique known as garbage in, garbage out.) On average, the computer models predicted twice as much warming as that which actually occurred.

The wildly inaccurate predictions reported by Nature Climate Change were not alone. In a terrifying May 11, 1982 prediction trumpeted in the Western media, Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP)decreed that an environmental “tipping point” was closing in: “Earth faces environmental disaster as final as nuclear war by the end of this century unless governments act now.” That bone-chilling assessment was seconded seven years later, in July 1989, by another senior U.N. climate official, Noel Brown, whowarned: “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by 2000.” When that tipping point came and went 19 years ago, others were concocted, including one by NASA scientist Dr. James Hanson, who declared in January 2009, “President Obama has just four years to save Earth.” As one frantic tipping point after another falls by the wayside, a new one is invented, each of which is breathlessly reported by the complicit Western media.

4. Intentional concealment of inconvenient parts of climate history

In serving as willing propagandists for the climate crisis industry, Western media portray every severe weather event as the “worst ever,” which they are now doing regarding the drought in the Southwestern U.S. and the flooding caused by Hurricane Florence. What the alarmists try to hide from voters at all costs are inconvenient parts of Earth’s climate history, such as these:

● Ancient mega-droughts were infinitely worse than anything people living in modern times have seen. Example: Around the year 850 AD, a mega-drought in what is now the Desert Southwest lasted a staggering 240 years, and that catastrophic climate event was preceded a half-century earlier by another mega-drought that lasted 180 years. Absent that kind of information, it’s no wonder so many otherwise intelligent Americans have been conned into believing that the current drought is the “worst ever.”

● The Great Hurricane of 1780 killed 20,000 people in the Caribbean. On Sept. 8, 1900, a Cat-4 hurricane obliterated the island of Galveston, Texas, killing an estimated 10,000 residents. In 1927, weeks of heavy rains along the Mississippi River caused flooding that covered 27,000 square miles, leaving entire towns and surrounding farmland submerged up to a depth of 30 feet and displacing 640,000 people, from Louisiana to Illinois. The Yangtze River flood of 1931, one of thedeadliest single events in human history, was responsible for a death toll estimated at 3.7 million.

Hurricane Florence and the flooding it caused were unquestionably devastating. But the worst ever? You decide.

You won’t hear a peep about past ecological disasters in the debate over global warming. The climate crisis industry conceals inconvenient parts of Earth’s climate history that undermine its “worst ever” claims.

Bottom line: Listed above are four reasons – I have many more – why I will bet my life that “climate change” is a flat-out hoax.

John Eidson is a 1968 electrical engineering graduate of Georgia Tech; a lifelong conservative; and the father of two law-abiding, self-reliant sons.

Top Ten Reasons Man Made Climate Change is a Hoax

TopTenAlGore23

Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax

by ElmerB on January 23, 2015 in NewsOpinion

globalclimatescam.com

 

The Senate voted this week on whether Climate Change is real or a hoax, I think it’s a hoax and here’s why.

I’m sure you’ve heard in the news that 2014 was supposed to be the hottest year ever. If it actually was “hottest year ever” you’d think all the terrible calamities that are supposed to happen would be happening now but instead the opposite is happening.

1. Record Ice

In 2014 there was record sea ice in Antarctica in fact a global warming expedition got stuck in it. Arctic sea ice has also made a nice comeback in 2014. The Great lakes had record ice Lake Superior only had 3 ice free months in 2014. You’d think that in the hottest year ever that ice would be melting like Al Gore said.

2. Record Snow

2014 saw record snowfall in many areas, remember when they said that global warming would cause snow to disappear and children won’t know what snow is.

3. Record Cold

In 2014 we saw all kinds of cold records remember the Polar Vortex? You’d think that we’d be breaking all kinds of heat records in “the hottest year ever”

4. Oceans Are Rising Much Less Than Predicted

Al Gore predicted that oceans would rise 20 feet by 2100, it looks like were on track for about a foot. 80% of the tide gauges show less rise than the official “global average”. Many tide gauges show no rise in sea level, and almost none show any acceleration over the past 20 years.

5. Polar Bears Are Thriving

You’d think that Polar Bears would really be in trouble in 2014 “the hottest year ever” but they are thriving.

6. Moose Are Making A Comeback

A few years ago the moose population in Minnesota dropped rapidly and they immediately blamed global warming, then they did a study and found out it was actually wolves that were killing the moose. Wolves have been taken off the endangered species list and are now endangering other species so they opened a wolf hunting season in Minnesota and the moose are coming back. It turns out it had nothing to do with global warming in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.

7. 99% of Scientists don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming

You’ve probably heard over and over that 99% of scientist believe in global warming well the opposite is true. That talking point came from a study where only 75 scientists said they believe in global warming on the other hand over 31,000 scientists have signed a petitionsaying they don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming.

8. Nature produces much more CO2 than man

In 2014 NASA finally launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America, Africa and China.

9. It Isn’t Actually the Warmest Year.

If you look at the satellite data 2014 was not the warmest year ever in fact there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The Reason they can say it’s the warmest year is because they are using the ground weather station data which is heavily influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect, many of which are near pavement. Even still they had to cherry pick that data to get at the warmest year ever and it is only the warmest by only two-100ths of a degree within a dataset that has a variability of a half of a degree. The fact they they had to ignore accurate data and fudge sketchy data to push their agenda proves (IMHO) that climate change is a hoax.

10. The Hypocrisy of the Main Players

One of the main reasons you can tell that global warming is a hoax is that the main purveyors of global warming live lifestyles opposite of what they preach, they all own multiple large homes and yachts and they fly around the world in private jets pushing their propaganda. Not to mention some people such as Al Gore actually profit from Carbon Taxes and other green energy laws. If they actually believed what they preached they would be leading quite different lives.

The Government Is Already “Geo-Engineering” The Environment

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, April 8, 2009

 

The Associated Press reports today that the Obama administration has held discussions regarding the possibility of “geo-engineering” the earth’s climate to counter global warming by “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays.” However, such programs are already being conducted by government-affiliated universities, government agencies, and on a mass scale through chemtrail spraying.

The AP report states that Obama’s science advisor John Holdren is pushing for radical terra forming programs to be explored such as creating an “artificial volcano”. Despite Holdren’s admission that such measures could have “grave side effects,” he added that, “we might get desperate enough to want to use it.”

“Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering more seriously. The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program. The British parliament has also discussed the idea,” reports AP.

“The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on geoengineering that says “it is prudent to consider geoengineering’s potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment.”

However, a study of past and ongoing upper atmosphere aerosol programs confirms that the government has been active in this field for years.

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 “geo-engineering” the planet, despite the fact that injecting aerosols into the upper atmosphere carries with it a host of both known and unknown dangers.

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 last year 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 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.”

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 geo-engineer the planet as “outlandish” and “dangerous”.

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

Given all the immediate dangers associated with bombarding the atmosphere with sulphur dioxide, along with the unknown dangers of other geo-engineering projects, many people are concerned that “chemtrails” are a secret component of the same agenda to alter the Earth’s eco-system.

The Government Is Already Geo Engineering The Environment 050908geo2

This graphic proposes, “Spraying aluminum powder and barium oxide into high levels of the atmosphere, again delivered by aircraft, to increase planetary reflectance (albedo) and cloud cover.” High levels of barium have been found in substances associated with chemtrails.

Reports of chemtrails, jet plumes emitted from planes that hang in the air for hours and do not dissipate, often blanketing the sky in criss-cross patterns, have increased dramatically over the last 10 years. Many have speculated that they are part of a government program to alter climate, inoculate humans against certain pathogens, or even to toxify humans as part of a population reduction agenda.

In conducting Google searches, one finds discussion, such as this example, of using sulphur dioxide as a jet fuel additive to be dispersed over the world during routine commercial flights.

“I suggest that both the sulphur dioxide and the silica particles could be delivered into the stratosphere by dissolving an additive in jet aviation fuel,” writes engineer John Gorman, who has conducted experiments to test the feasibility of such a scenario.

“We would want to burn fuel containing the additive specifically when the aircraft was cruising in the lower stratosphere,” he adds.

Earlier this year, 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.

KSLA also put aerosolized-chemical testing in its historical context, citing a voluminous number of unclassified tests exposed in 1977 Senate hearings. The tests included experimenting with biochemical compounds on the public. KSLA reports that “239 populated areas were contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969.”

One of the accepted truisms of scientific study is the fact that if scientists are proposing an idea, then those scientists with access to the bottomless pit of black-budget secret government funding are already doing it.

It is highly likely that chemtrails are merely one manifestation of “geo-engineering” that is taking place without proper debate, notification or any form of legality, and with a callous disregard for the potential dangers to both our health and our environment.

Obama’s Plan To “Geo-Engineer” The Planet Mirrors CFR Policy Documents

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, April 9, 2009

The Obama administration’s announcement that it is to consider radical planetary “geo-engineering”, such as “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays”, exactly mirrors recent publications penned by the elite Council On Foreign Relations.

Yesterday the Associated Press reported that the Obama administration has held discussions regarding the possibility of “geo-engineering” the earth’s climate to counter global warming.

The AP report states that Obama’s science advisor John Holdren is pushing for radical terra forming programs to be explored such as creating an “artificial volcano”. Despite Holdren’s admission that such measures could have “grave side effects,” he added that, “we might get desperate enough to want to use it.”

Such ideas exactly mirror those put forth by the CFR in previous years.

In briefing notes (PDF) published in May 2008 from the CFR’s Geoengineering: Workshop on Unilateral Planetary Scale Geoengineering, the elite internationalist group lays out the exact same radical ideas now being touted by the Obama administration.

The following excerpts are taken from the document:

Geoengineering Strategies

Among all geoengineering schemes, those currently considered most feasible involve increasing the planetary albedo, that is, reflecting more sunlight back into space before it can be absorbed. There are a number of different methods that could be used to increase the planet’s reflectivity:

1. Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere (the stratosphere which is located between 15 and 50 kilometers above the Earth’s surface).

2. Add more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere (the troposphere)

3. Place various kinds of reflecting objects in space either near the earth or at a stable location between the earth and the sun.

4. Change large portions of the planet’s land cover from things that are dark (absorbing) such as trees to things that are light (reflecting) such as open snowcover or grasses.

[…]

Stratospheric Aerosols that might be engineered to migrate to particular regions (e.g. over the arctic) or to rise above the stratospher (so as not to interfere in stratospheric chemistry).

Adding more of the right kind of fine particles to the stratosphere can increase the amount of sunlight that is reflected back into space.

Applied to geoengineering, various technologies could be used to loft particles into the stratosphere, such as naval guns, rockets, hot air balloons or blimps, or a fleet of highflying aircraft. Potential types of particles for injection include sulfur dioxide, aluminum oxide dust or even designer self-levitating aerosols.

The CFR’s geo-engineering research program is directed by David G. Victor a Professor at Stanford Law School and an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Also involved are M. Granger Morgan, head of Carnegie Mellon University’s Department of Engineering, Jay Apt, Professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, and John Steinbruner, Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland.

In an article entitled The Geoengineering Option: A Last Resort Against Global Warming? published in this month’s Foreign Affairs, the CFR’s monthly magazine, the directors once again lay out their ideas for planetary terraforming, calling for a worldwide 60-80 percent cut in carbon emissions.

Obama’s push toward a so called “cap and trade” carbon taxation program is also a direct descendant of Victor et al’s CFR policy formation.

A CFR geo-engineering meeting summary document from 1999 (PDF pages 12,13,14) also categorically states that the ultimate goal under “A technology strategy for global warming” is the implementation of a global Carbon Tax.

The memo also pedantically explains how the perceived fear of global warming can be used to sell to Americans what is essentially a tax on air:

“While taxing tea pales in comparison to taxing air as a perceived government affront, the clear benefits of a taxation policy to combat global warming might convince even the descendents of our tax-resistant Founding Fathers.”

The tentative announcement by the Obama administration of the existence of geoengineering research programs is a first step toward introducing the idea to the wider public.

However, as we highlighted in our master article yesterday, geo-engineering is undoubtedly already being conducted by government-affiliated universities, government agencies, and on a mass scale through chemtrail spraying.

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

Further Research: Here is an extremely valuable file folder containing 8 PDFs, all published by the CFR, and all concerning their Geo-Engineering Program.