Home

This document is a concise, independent presentation of the crucial, lesser-known factors that must be embraced before contemplating geoengineering and other climate change action.


Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Global Warming Perspectives
  3. Climate Model Omissions
  4. Proposed Solutions to Global Warming
  5. Recommendations
  6. Quotes about the IPCC from Prominent Scientists
  7. Glossary

Introduction

The concept of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) occurring as a result of escalating greenhouse gas emissions is widely reported by the IPCC.

Consistent with the principles of the scientific process, consideration must also be given to the portion of the scientific community that seeks to revise and improve some of the IPCC’s claims.

Given the severity of the consequences of climate change and the extremity of the solutions being proposed, it is imperative that such consideration is carefully and duly applied.

This document provides such consideration, concluding with a recommendation for the next step of action which includes a sound basis for the rejection of geoengineering proposals and the refusal of any agreements that may encompass such activities.

Global Warming Perspectives

TThis section briefly presents the two main entities that are involved in the climate change discussion, along with an overview of some of the key issues that are involved.

IPCC

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is a branch of the United Nations that claims the support of 2,500 scientists. 1 2 It publishes regular reports on its latest findings into the state of AGW. The severity of global warming and the probability of its link to greenhouse gases increase with each published report. The IPCC’s claims are:

  1. 1. Global temperatures have been increasing over the last 150 years, in accordance with industrialisation and the increased burning of fossil fuels.
  2. Sea levels are rising.
  3. Arctic and Antarctic ice is reducing.
  4. The apparent global warming slowdown is due to more heat being absorbed by the oceans.3

A number of claims previously made by the IPCC have since been proved false. 4 5 6 It is also claimed that every error the IPCC has made has been in favour of exaggerated AGW. 7

The Oregon Petition

There are thousands of independent scientists that challenge the IPCC’s claims and procedures. Amongst this opposition lay the following counter claims:

  1. Despite us putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, there has been no measured global increase in temperatures for 17 years. 8
  2. There has been an ongoing sea level rise of approx. 7″ per century since the last ice age. 9
  3. The amount of Arctic and Antarctic ice is increasing not decreasing, indicating that the planet is actually cooling.
  4. Increased solar activity may be the cause of warming trends, as experienced on other planets in our solar system. 10
  5. Today’s temperatures are lower than they were in medieval times. 11 12

Having addressed the available evidence, over 30,000 US scientists applied the scientific model before signing the Oregon Petition, which reads: 13

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Of the 31,487 scientists that have signed this petition, over 9,000 have PhDs.

Climate Model Omissions

Any model that does not take acknowledged, major contributing factors into account is incomplete and, therefore, inherently flawed.

This section looks at three of the major influences of climate change that have, thus far, been overlooked in the IPCC climate models.

Aircraft Trails

IPCC’s own climate scientist, Dr Joyce Penner, has stated, “The contrails that are spreading that you can identify as contrails, those would tend to warm the atmosphere.” Her words (speaking on Detroit’s WXYZ News) correspond to those in the IPCC Special Report: Aviation and the Global Atmosphere 14 which states:

  • “Contrails tend to warm the Earth’s surface, similar to thin high clouds.”
  • “Extensive cirrus clouds have been observed to develop after the formation of persistent contrails”
  • “On average an increase in cirrus cloud cover tends to warm the surface of the Earth.”
  • “…however, the mechanisms associated with increases in cirrus cover are not well understood and need further investigation.” [our emphasis]

The IPCC, therefore, has repeatedly acknowledged the influence that these aircraft trails and the resultant cirrus cloud cover have on global warming.

Climate Chang Sense - before during and after
By trapping heat in the lower atmosphere, persistent aircraft trails are a regular, global phenomenon that the IPCC says are already having an adverse effect on global warming.

By trapping heat in the lower atmosphere, persistent aircraft trails are a regular, global phenomenon that the IPCC says are already having an adverse effect on global warming.

Existing Global Weather Modification Projects and Geoengineering Programmes

There are a large number of acknowledged weather modification programmes that have been occurring for decades. These programmes have no government oversight yet are known to have a profound impact on climate. 15 16

HAARP

The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) was funded by the US Air Force, US Navy, the University of Alaska and DARPA.

Methods and functionalities developed at this facility have long since been distributed to other platforms and facilities, such as the the Nexrad grid, which includes 156 stations in the US alone.

HAARP’s 3.6 million watt antenna array, located in Alaska, will be superceded by a more powerful EISCAT installation in Norway. This is in addition to the 19 other existing HAARP installations. Each installation heats the ionosphere, with the potential of shifting the jet stream, creating earthquakes and changing the climate. 17 18

 

The IPCC’s failure to include these known factors in their climate models render the models flawed and further exacerbate the uncertainty of the IPCC’s claim that climate change is due to greenhouse gas emissions.

It is necessary that the effects of persistent aircraft trails, weather modification projects, geoengineering programmes and HAARP on climate change must be fully quantified. Only then will we be able to establish to what extent the remainder of climate change may be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions.

The inclusion of these factors is, therefore, essential in order to develop a complete climate model. Such a model must then be independently and publicly reviewed and publicly debated in an open forum. Only then can we begin know to what extent CO2 is affecting the climate and, indeed, if it is a primary factor at all.

Proposed Solution to Global Warming

Despite the aforementioned controversies surrounding climate change, a selection of scientists is proposing to use geoengineering to cool down the surface temperature of the planet. This document focuses on one aspect of geoengineering that is highly controversial – stratospheric aerosol geoengineering.

Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering & Consequences

Also known as climate engineering and climate intervention, stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG) is a solar radiation management (SRM) technique 19 that involves using aircraft to spray millions of tons of toxic substances such as aluminium, barium, strontium and sulphur into our atmosphere in an attempt to block out sunlight and reduce global warming. 20

This document has already presented how aircraft trails have been officially acknowledged as a contributing factor to exacerbated warming. It is no wonder, therefore, that SAG proposals are being received with concern, perplexity and increased skepticism.

The question of why geoengineers are proposing to spray chemicals from aircraft to block out sunlight when the same effect is already being achieved with “ordinary condensation trails” 21 is one of many questions which the geoengineers appear to be unwilling to answer. 22

Of particular concern are the widely-acknowledged consequences of SAG:

  • 10,000 human deaths from SAG pollution in the first year alone. (This rate is expected to increase as geoengineers admit they will subsequently have to spray “a little more” each year. 23)
  • The Solar Radiation Management Research Governance Initiative (SRMGI) itself concludes the range of SRM research includes “potentially risky, large-scale experiments in the real world.” 24
  • The United States’ own Government Accountability Office states “not one geoengineering technique is safe and their implementation could cause more damage than the supposed catastrophe they intend to avoid.” 25
  • A Harvard University study also reveals the lethal consequence of tiny particles in the atmosphere. 26 (Such toxic particulates in the atmosphere are one of the consequences of SAG spraying.)
  • The Neurotoxicology (brain poisoning) division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that exposure to airborne Particulate Matter “is an environmental health risk of global proportions.” 27
  • Increases in neurological disorders, like Alzheimer’s disease, that are linked to aluminium which raises concerns about the fallout of aluminium from Aerial Aerosol Spraying. 28 29
  • Increase of ‘global dimming’ 30 – Over 20% of the sun’s direct rays are no longer reaching the planet – believed to be caused by an increase in air pollution.
  • Poor crop yields caused by abiotic stress (e.g., drought, heavy metal contamination, too much moisture, fungal overgrowth – all consequences of SAG spraying) 31 increasing the likelihood of farmers needing to purchase aluminium- and abiotic stress-resistant GM seed. 32 33
  • Increase in diseases based on vitamin D deficiency, like Rickets, due to lack of sunlight on the skin. 34
  • Increase in cancer. 35
  • Further damage to the ozone layer. 36 37 38
  • Blue skies artificially turning white. 39
  • Severe weather conditions, droughts and flooding. 40
  • Increased chances of climate-related international conflict. 41 42
  • The CO2 emissions of the SAG aircraft, around 23 metric tons per hour, will exacerbate the greenhouse gas issue. 43
  • Contravention of the 1979 Geneva Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP). 44 and the ENMOD treaty. 45
  • Reduced solar power generation which will result in higher energy prices and increased carbon emissions as more fossil fuels will need to be used to generate electricity. 46

Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering presents a major risk.

Moreover, owing to the aforementioned oversights in the IPCC climate model, this is a risk that may also be entirely unnecessary.

With the acknowledged suffering that SAG will inflict on nature, animals and mankind, speculation that alludes to a potential military advantage 47 of implementing SAG and the expected progression of GMO/biotechnology 48 may not be misplaced.

Recommendations

Taking drastic action in response to a problem that is misperceived, misattributed or not fully understood would be entirely inappropriate.

Any support for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering or other extreme action plans should be totally withheld until all the underlying factors (three of which as set out in this document) are fully understood.

Specifically, the influences of aircraft trails, existing weather modification programmes, HAARP and any other major factors that have not been given consideration must be fully understood and accounted for in climate models when performing climate analysis and projections.

Rather than immediately embracing a universal climate agreement or geoengineering, a more appropriate strategy would be to go back to square one and re-address the issues of global warming and climate change. This time, however, it must be done in a manner that is independent, public and transparent – done so with a spirit that allows and encourages public, televised, scientific debate from both sides of the scientific chasm.

It is obvious that, within this process, the exact influence of aircraft trails, weather modification programmes and HAARP on warming trends and climate change must also be determined and fully understood.

Initial priority, therefore, must be given to suspending weather modification activities in order to quantify their effect on the climate, with a view to a permanent prohibition.

Until that happens, the promotion of activities such as stratospheric aerosol geoengineering can only be reckoned as unscientific, partially-sighted and, therefore, entirely unacceptable.

It is also appropriate to note that the deployment of any universal climate agreement may facilitate global governance 49, as promoted in the United Nations’ Agenda 21 scheme 50, thereby endangering the sovereignty of every country that signs it.

Future Recommendations

HAARP, discussed earlier in this document, is strongly associated with Nikola Tesla’s free energy transmission technologies 51 which, if made available to the public, would bring benefits that include lowering the carbon footprint of virtually every person and organisation worldwide. 52 53

Quotes about the IPCC from Prominent Scientists 54

  • Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
    UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
  • “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.”
    Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
  • “Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”
    UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
  • UN IPCC Scientist, Kenneth P. Green, declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’
    September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ – Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001
  • “I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007.
    Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
  • “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.”
    South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
  • “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense”
    declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications.
  • UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?
  • One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,”
    explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
  • In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.'” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.
  • Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.
  • Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”
  • Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”

Glossary

AGW – Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming

CLRTAP – The 1979 Geneva Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution

ENMOD – Environmental Modification Convention

HAARP – High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program

IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

SAG – Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering

SAI – Stratospheric aerosol injection

SRM – Solar radiation management

SRMGI – Solar Radiation Management Research Governance Initiative

UN – United Nations

Endnotes