Only yesterday I introduced some people to the concept of Geoengineering or (simply said) deliberate climate manipulation to avert planetary global warming. Many people treated the subject as yet other mad hatters, inconsequential made up load of blather! Sorry Folks but it is real and a meeting to discuss this as part of the IPCC’s agenda is taking place in Lima Peru on June 20-22, 2011.
(quote) It will provide a platform for exchange and discussion among experts from different disciplines in order to better address geoengineering, and encourage the consistent treatment of geoengineering options across the Working Group AR5 assessments.
Only recently have we discovered that plant earth is not warming so why would we need do something as evil as deliberately manipulating the climate to supposedly cool it down. This strikes me as akin to those who would play at being gods. The weather on earth has consistently changed down through the eons so why do we need to stabilize it through unnatural means (Geoengineering)? Once upon a time it was climate warming/ climate cooling, then it became manmade climate change AGW – in the following paragraphs you will read it referred to as Anthropogenic Climate Change….. a play on words. It still means we humans are responsible for the weather / climate changes happening worldwide. I wish someone would explain to me how we cause volcanoes to erupt, earthquakes to happen and tsunamis to occur!
From the IPCC’s own pen:
Geoengineering, or the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment, is increasingly being discussed as a potential strategy to counteract anthropogenic climate change. Prevailing uncertainty in the sensitivity of the climate system to anthropogenic forcing, inertia in both the coupled climate-carbon cycle and social systems, and the potential for irreversibility’s and abrupt, nonlinear changes in the Earth system with possible significant impacts on human and natural systems suggest that research is needed into geoengineering options as a possible complement to climate change mitigation efforts. Current discussions that suggest geoengineering as an option to support climate mitigation efforts remain rather abstract and lack comprehensive risk assessments that take into account possible adverse impacts over short and longer time frames. Major uncertainties exist regarding the effects of these techniques on the physical climate system and on biogeochemical cycles, their possible impacts on human and natural systems, and their effectiveness and costs. Unilateral action may have environmental side effects on other countries and regions, and may not appropriately address the global scale of the issue.
The understanding of the physical science basis of geoengineering is still limited and IPCC will, for the first time, assess this in several chapters of the WGI contribution to AR5. Improved scientific understanding of the impacts of geoengineering proposals on human and natural systems will be assessed by WGII. WGIII needs to take into account the possible impacts and side effects and their implications for mitigation cost in order to define the role of geoengineering within the portfolio of response options to anthropogenic climate change. Furthermore, this includes an evaluation by WGIII of options for appropriate governance mechanisms.
An IPCC Expert Meeting will provide a platform for exchange and discussion among experts from the different disciplines in order to better address this important cross-cutting issue, and encourage the consistent treatment of geoengineering options across the Working Group AR5 assessments.
2.2 Expected Outcome:
The expert meeting will provide a platform for exchange and discussion among experts from the different disciplines in order to better address the important cross-cutting issue of geoengineering.
This should also encourage the consistent treatment of geoengineering options across the WGs’ assessments that will build the basis for the AR5 Synthesis Report.
The Expert Meeting will produce a report that could include summaries of keynote presentations, abstracts of expert contributions, reports from breakout group discussions, and a noncomprehensive bibliography of recent literature related to geoengineering.
A Scientific Steering Committee will be formed with relevant experts in geoengineering from the IPCC Working Groups.
Participants: About 40 invited experts, with broad international representation. It is proposed that 25 journeys for experts from developing countries and economies in transition including Co- and Vice- Chairs from all Working Groups are allocated as part of the line item “expert meetings related to the AR5” in the IPCC Trust Fund budget for 2011. Participants will be needed with expertise in:
- • WGI: clouds/aerosols & climate, carbon cycle & climate, coupled climate – carbon cycle projections
- • WGII: impacts on human and natural systems
- • WGIII: bottom-up modelling experts, risk analysis, integrated assessment modelling groups, governance and international cooperation.
So there you have it folks, the meetings are scheduled and are taking place, but not for the first time. Other meetings and plans have been drawn up in years past, which we have not been privy too. Again you think I make up fairy tales?
A little history for you to read up on:
Department of Enginering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, GEOENGINEERING THE CLIMATE: History and Prospect1 DavidW. Keith
Geoengineering was specifically mentioned as an option to mitigate the effects of climate change in a report by the Presidential Science Advisory Committee to U.S. President Lyndon Johnson in 1965
Describing a meeting in the White House in September 2001 organized by the US President’s Climate Change Technology Program to discuss ‘Response Options to Rapid or Severe Climate Change’, the article frankly admits that ‘while administration officials were insisting publicly that there was no firm proof that the planet was warming, they were quietly exploring potential ways to turn down the heat.’
In March 2001 President Bush had withdrawn US support from the Kyoto Protocol. This meeting therefore represented something like a US counterproposal to Kyoto, an ‘alternative approach to climate change’.
Some years ago Edward Teller, in his ‘Sunscreen for Planet Earth’, made a similar ‘alternative’ proposal.
The physicist and economist David Keith, who was present at the White House meeting, is quoted in the article as saying ‘if they had broadcast that meeting live to people in Europe, there would have been riots.’ (emphasis mine)
Anyone can see what the ‘geoengineering’ proposals were simply by reading the relevant article in Popular Science.
The NY Times 2006 article: How to cool a planet maybe
SPENCER R. WEART Climate Modification Schemes
OK that should be enough for you to read (hopefully) and see that this scheme has been in the pipeline for a very long time, involving the highest levels of institutions and governments, and we – the plebs, have been kept mainly in the dark.
Now it will be out in the open due to the IPCC meeting in Lima Peru. But please do not for one minute think this is only going to be a discussion. Far too many years and billions of dollars have already been spent on research, to imagine a NO VOTE will simply end the discussion.
Yes, go on and laugh at the folks who have been writing and reporting on chemtrails and strange weather phenomena, but do some serious thinking now and look at the weird world weather patterns and changes that are becoming more frequent. I do not have answers or proof – only more questions. At least while I am questioning I know my brain has not given up on me as yet.
At an international symposium held in Ghent, Belgium May 28-30, 2010, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” It is “fully operational” with a solid sixty-year history. Though “hostile” environmental modification was banned by UN Convention in 1978, its “friendly” use today is being hailed as the new savior to climate change and to water and food shortages. Military forces stand poised to capitalize on controlling the world’s weather.
LISTEN TO Dr Coen Vermeeren Symposium speech, Afternoon Part 1 video, (starting at about 35 mins.) http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7299427
DOWNLOAD the “CASE ORANGE” Report (PDF without appendices)
“Weather manipulation through contrail formation … is in place and fully operational.”
Case Orange cites publicly available material that shows geoengineering has been ongoing for “at least 60 years.” Used as a weapon of war in Hamburg by the UK during World War II, it was also used in the Vietnam Conflict by the US. Controversy over its use, revealed by investigative reporter Jack Anderson, spurred Senate hearings in 1972. During those hearings, military officials denied the use of cloud seeding technology. Later, a private letter from Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird surfaced, admitting that his testimony was false. He, again unbelievably, claimed he didn’t know what was happening. 
Environmental modification (EnMod) weaponry was finally banned by treaty in 1978. The UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques forced the end of such programs, overtly anyway. (Case Orange authors seem unaware of this international ban, as it is one of their recommendations.)
However, with widespread reporting of rising global temperatures, increasing population, and degradation of water supplies, renewed interest in EnMod is now becoming broadly supported. (See, e.g., Top economists recommend climate engineering, 4 Sep 2009  and similarly, Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, 1 Sep 2009.)