Climate Intervention — 2 Comments

  1. May this quote from your post stir up some interest. May we exercise curiosity which helps us push onward trough onerous reading!

    RE: “….the authors take several paragraphs to criticize the negative public reaction to deliberate climate intervention by labeling dissenters and objectors to the toxic air pollution-generators, as “chemtrail conspiracy theorists.”

    Well now, they focus on “dissenters and objectors”, but neglect meritorious researchers and scientists.

    In my humble opinion, “conspiracy theorist” forces 2 incompatible words together. A “conspiracy” is a key feature of capitalism, where competing interests attempt to out market each other, using every available means, harmful or benign. A “theorist” is a key player in scientific modeling, to describe and explore nature. Join these words together and we actually got “corporate science”, where the largest bidder controls governance, claiming totalitarian supremacy.

    Regarding the article(s): Bare mention of barium and aluminum is made without description of the form of release. Aluminum as an element actually appears in countless forms from ruby gems to highly contested substances in world acidification. Will funded science explore this. Or are we left with backyard-science to explore this?

    Acid rain as a subject, already has much funding to plot out harms to human existence. Yet perhaps the evidence is still not accepted in the courts. Payoffs and pension-protectors persist.

    Brave scientist are muted unfairly. Where is the funding to test for all aerosol safety? Will the totalitarians allow academia to test aerosols for mycoplasma ? Recall that each substance requires a unique test and that countless types are required, in judicious science. Of particular note is the scientist Cliff Carnicom of Carnicom Institute: Why is all of his research spurned and underfunded?

    Bo Atkinson

    • Thanks for your thoughtful post Bo Atkinson. You raise some very good points.

      The underfunded pioneering research of Clifford Carnicom is incredible and extensive, and because of his heroic dedication to stopping the Aerosol Crimes, countless people have been educated on Geoengineering science and technology, as well as the military parameters of these programs, and the need to prohibit them. Cloud Cover

      The omission of harmful Geoengineering consequences to life, health, and our environment, is glaring.

      Military and privately funded universities and businesses have been programmed to look the other way on ethics, as they manipulate and control nature for profit. As many are well aware, there are a number of reasons for Geoengineering, and “owning the weather” is only one of them.

      Additionally, experimentation, use, development and research of Geoengineering and weather modification without full public knowledge and informed consent, violates many important worldwide laws and treaties including:
      “…THE NUREMBERG CODE was established in 1948, stating that “The voluntary consent of the human participant is absolutely essential,” making it clear that participants should give consent and that the benefits of research must outweigh the risks.”
      History of Ethics

      Hopefully the public will step in to stop the war on our environment, and demand the enforcement of pre-existing Clean Air & Water regulations and protections, impose state specific resolutions banning Geoengineering, climate remediation, weather modification, cloud seeding, and other climate intervention schemes, shut down EPA loopholes that enable toxic polluters, specifically those that allow military exemptions on jet fuel and emissions, and end any further side-stepping of pre-existing health and safety regulations that strictly prohibit toxic pollution generation from any source.