policy paper
smoking gun proof
Imagine our surprise when we discovered extensive proof of government involvement, funding, sponsorship, multidisciplinary research, policy making and implementation of global atmospheric modification under the classification of ‘Geoengineering.’ This is the chemtrail smoking gun we have been looking for.
Authorized by Congress and sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, a monumental and in-depth study on global warming and possible corrective measures (mitigations) was undertaken in the early 1990s. Represented were senior researchers, faculty, theoreticians, atmospheric scientists, department heads and CEO’s from a multitude of prestigious institutions. The Smithsonian, Harvard, General Motors, Cambridge, MIT, Yale, World Resources Institute, National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Oxford, Brookings Institution, Columbia University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Carnegie-Mellon University, Princeton University, Brown University, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and many more. This colossal study recalls the scope, expense and secrecy of the Manhattan Project, yet the goals and eventual impacts of it are far greater.
Link: v. ramaswamy aerosols manipulation climate
chemgrid
spraying effects 2billion worldwide, without spraying 90% chance species extinct within 20 years
There are several causatives for this. Some people are more sensitive to metals, whiles others are sensitive to the polymer chemicals. As stated in a previous email, people will get sick, and some will die. It is estimated that 2 billion worldwide will be affected to some degree by the spraying. Without spraying we have a 90% + chance of becoming extinct as a species with in the next 20 years.
From: http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/shieldproject.html#added
aerail spraying most effective method to mitigate
From: http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/shieldproject.html
The Chemtrail Smoking Gun - Geoengineering
geoengineering and chemtrails
What would a Climate Change Manhattan Project look like? In the first stage, it would consist of a shifting of existing environmental agencies' climate change priorities: away from more research into whether the globe is warming, away from further negotiations and unpopular incentive programs, and towards research into how to solve global warming if it happens.
In some ways, this phase has already begun, as geoengineering has moved from the pages of science fiction to respectable scientific and policy journals. [FN127] One of the most encouraging proposals today focuses on the creation of vast carbon sinks by artificially stimulating phytoplankton growth with iron "fertilizer" in parts of the Earth's oceans. [FN128] Another proposal suggests creating miniature, *106 artificial "Mount Pinatubos" by allowing airplanes to release dust particles into the upper atmosphere, simulating the greenhouse- arresting eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. [FN129] Such findings, though encouraging, remain on a very preliminary level. Phase One of a Clim
From: http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two
a climate change manhattan project
From: http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two
tragedy of commons: who benefits from action
The case of climate change presents an imperfect tragedy of the commons, because international actors face varying degrees of expected harm and benefit from their use of the common resource. [FN112] Some (e.g., France, Germany, and most other developed nations) face an ordinary prisoner's dilemma, in which they benefit from cooperative action, but would benefit more if all other actors cooperated and they did not. [FN113] Others (e.g., China, and possibly the United States) face what has recently been termed a "cooperator's loss," where some nations would prefer no cooperation at all to universal cooperation. [FN114] Still others (e.g., island nations) *100 while still perhaps facing the prisoner's dilemma, expect far more serious captured harms from climate change. At the same time, some nations have an incentive for no action at all because most international actors face at least as much benefit (in terms of present-day financial gain and stability) from the status quo as harm from climate change.
From: http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two
