26 November 2024 | ZeroGeoengineering.com | Note: New name, same acronym. 

SRM360 is rebranding solar radiation modification (SRM) to “sunlight reflection methods (SRM).”

A slick new marketing tool called SRM360 is promoting solar radiation modification (SRM), stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and other hazardous polluting interventions. Affiliations include United Nations and Carnegie as well as ‘expert’ academics.

This attempt to persuade the public to accept aerosol dispersion with acronyms and misleading language is necessary because these entities want to control policy and impose UN global governance of SRM. These promoters have tons of money and grant dependent academics but they do not have PUBLIC CONSENT so efforts are being focused on manufacturing consent.

According to their website, SRM360 is “supporting an informed, evidence-based discussion of sunlight reflection methods (SRM)” and supported by the LAD Climate Fund.

Source

Framing of aerosol dispersion activities known as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is described as involving the release of “tiny particles into the stratosphere … to create a thin, global layer that would reflect a small fraction of incoming light… specifically designed high-altitude jets would offer a practical means of deploying this on a global scale.”

One SRM360 post discusses the idea of SRM as a weapon, downplaying its ‘effectiveness’ due to lack of precision. What’s not acknowledged in the post is the psychological warfare aspect of atmospheric aerosol dispersion operations forced upon a civilian population.

Omitted from the climate hypothesis upon which SRM360 schemes are based is over 70 years of weather and climate modification undertaken without public consent. 

It’s interesting that SRM360 is promoting rebranded SRM activities that are also described in DARPA’s 1975 report, “Soviet Developments in Weather Modification, Climate Modification, and Climatology“: increasing the concentration of sulfate aerosol in the lower stratosphere.

SRM360 Advisory Group:

Source

In 2013 panelist David Keith stated that Geoengineering “might end up killing many tens of thousands of people a year.”

Source

“This is a really important moral point. So if I made a decision or if there was a collective decision to do a geoengineering program, and you put say, the kind of program I think that makes more sense is what about a million tons a year[of sulfur dioxide], let’s say, you might end up killing many tens of thousands of people a year as a direct result of that decision. I think that has moral consequences, I don’t sweep that under the rug. This is a case where I take this much differently from Alan and think it’s a much more serious issue. Now, it’s true that part of doing that, you would hope that the overall benefits of human mortality would be so that you would save many many more people than that. But the fact that you uh, would save more people than you kill, doesn’t mean there’s no moral impact of making a decision that directly kills people. And I think that we who talk about this have a duty to be clear-eyed about the direct risks involved in doing it.”  -August 7, 2013   David Keith Geoengineering Debate

#WeDoNotConsent       

Send a message to your elected legislators to BAN SRM  HERE

Research State Legislation HERE