Scientists Plan To Geoengineer Planet Earth To Save Us From Global Warming

Authored by Barry Brownstein via The Foundation for Economic Education,

…but some scientists warn geoengineering will have unintended consequences.

Harvard’s Gernot Wagner wants to save the world from global warming. His method? Develop a new type of plane that will fly more than 4,000 missions a year dumping particulates into the stratosphere.

Wagner and his colleague Wake Smith call the proposed plane “SAI Lofter (SAIL).” Anonymous individuals at “Airbus, Atlas Air, Boeing, Bombardier, GE Engines, Gulfstream, Lockheed Martin, NASA, Near Space Corporation, Northrup Grumman, Rolls Royce Engines, Scaled Composites, The Spaceship Company, and Virgin Orbit” provided input.

Estimates for SAIL’s design and operation seem sophisticated but are fabricated. Wagner and Smith admit, “No existing aircraft design—even with extensive modifications—can reasonably fulfill [their] mission.”

Wagner and others believe that scientists can calculate how many particulates will be needed to cool the Earth to a desired temperature.

Wagner and Smith are not alone in their geoengineering dreams. As early as 2006, Paul J. Crutzen, Nobel laureate in chemistry, called for “stratospheric geoengineering research.” Harvard professors David Keith and Frank Keutsch hope to experiment via balloons spraying “a fine mist of materials such as sulfur dioxide, alumina, or calcium carbonate into the stratosphere.” Wagner, Keith, and Keutsch are all part of the Solar Geoengineering Research Program at Harvard.

Geoengineering is gaining global traction. Last fall, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report saying geoengineering could be used as an emergency “temporary remedial measure.”

Spraying aerosols in the stratosphere would mimic what large volcanoes do.”

In 1815, Mount Tambora in Indonesia erupted, spewing “millions of tons of dust, ash, and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, temporarily changing the world’s climate and dropping global temperatures by as much as 3 degrees.” As the particulates moved around the global atmosphere, “1816 became the year without a summer for millions of people in parts of North America and Europe, leading to failed crops and near-famine conditions.”

No doubt, Wagner and others will tell you careful calculations will limit global cooling to just the right degree. Skeptics might conclude otherwise: scientists blinded by unlimited hubris are partnering with crony capitalists to threaten humanity.

To be sure, some scientists warn geoengineering will have unintended consequences. MIT’s Daniel Cziczo, an atmospheric scientist, warns that geoengineering could destroy the ozone layer. Without the ozone layer, photosynthesis would be difficult, the food chain would be destroyed, and life on Earth would perish. In this case, unintended consequences would be apocalyptic.

In his book The Fatal Conceit, F.A. Hayek observed, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” Is Hayek’s statement equally applicable to scientists imagining they can safely modify the biosphere?

Regardless of your beliefs about global warming, Nassim Taleb’s “precautionary principle” would rule out plans altering the biosphere. Taleb writes:

The precautionary principle (PP) states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing severe harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment globally), the action should not be taken in the absence of scientific near-certainty about its safety.

In the late 1980s, outside Tucson, Arizona, scientists built a closed ecosystem (all food and water had to be obtained from inside the dome) to replicate the Earth’s biosphere. Eight humans resided in the biosphere for a short period of time. Not long into the experiment, project organizers had to open the sealed doors of Biosphere 2: “Oxygen levels got so low halfway through the first year that they had to put more in over fear for the safety of the Biosphere residents.”

John Adams, deputy director of Biosphere 2, clearly states the takeaway: “What they did learn, and in my opinion the single most important lesson, was just how little we truly understand Earth’s systems.” I suspect that Wagner won’t be calling Adams soon.

If you think Wagner’s plan to cool the atmosphere by mimicking the effects of volcanoes is bonkers, consider the Atlantropa project—the craziest, most megalomaniacal scheme from the 20th century that you never heard of.”

After World War I, German engineer Herman Sörgel had a plan to prevent mass starvation in Europe. Sörgel called his plan the Atlantropa Project. The heart of the Atlantropa madness was to block the Atlantic Ocean from entering the Mediterranean by damming the Strait of Gibraltar. Deprived of a significant source of water flow, the Mediterranean would drain.

Sörgel imagined the dams would produce almost unlimited energy and the reclaimed land used for farming. World peace would reign when Europe and Africa were linked as a giant continent—Atlantropa.

Sörgel’s mad scheme had the enthusiast support of many expert engineers and the German public.

Yet, problems with Sörgel’s mad scheme were endless. An enormous amount of concrete would be requiredto build a dam across the Strait of Gibraltar. If the dam would fail, millions might die by floods. As for the reclaimed land, salt left behind on the seabed would prevent farming and turn the land into a desert.

Herman Sörgel’s crazy scheme is not so different from Gernot Wagner’s—both imagine they know how our biosphere works. In Sörgel’s case, dams would have altered the Gulf Stream with catastrophic global cooling the result.

Without government support, Sörgel had no power to impose his crazy dream on others. Humanity averted disaster when the Nazis rejected Sörgel’s engineered “utopia.” In another instance, the Soviets were not as lucky.

Consider the Aral Sea. The Aral Sea—once the fourth largest body of water on the planet—is now a vast wasteland that has shrunk to less than 25 percent of its former size.

The Aral Sea in Uzbekistan (formerly part of the Soviet Union) stands as a tragic monument to the environmental carnage that often occurs under socialism. How could this have happened? Was it a change in weather? No, the destruction of the Aral Sea was the consequence of the Soviet decision to divert waters that flowed into the Aral Sea to irrigate land for cotton farming.

In their book World Politics: International Politics on the World Stage, John Rourke and Mark Boyer write of the Aral Sea:

Then, beginning in the 1960s, Soviet agriculture demands and horrendous planning began to drain water from the sea and from the two great rivers that feed it (the Amu Darya from the north and the Syr Darya from the south) faster than the water could be replenished.

The sea started to shrink rapidly. As it did, the level of its salinity rose, and by 1977 the catch from the once-important fishery had declined by over 75 percent. Still the water level continued to fall, as the sea provided irrigation for cotton fields and for other agricultural production. The same Soviet planning that brought the world the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster in Ukraine, stood by paralyzed as the Aral Sea began to disappear before the world’s eyes.

Now, in reality, geographical name Aral Sea is a fiction, because it has shrunk in size and depth so much that a land bridge separates the so-called Greater Sea to the north from the Lesser Sea to the South. What was a single sea has lost 75 percent of its water and 50 percent of its surface area in the past 40 years. That is roughly equivalent to draining Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. The Uzbek town of Munak was once the Aral Sea’s leading port, with its fishermen harvesting the sea’s abundant catch. Now there are few fish, but even if there were many, it would not help the people of Munak. The town is now in the middle of a desert; the shoreline of the Lesser Sea is 50 miles away.

Let’s put all of this together. Human hubris and madness will always exist. Scientists can dream of controlling the uncontrollable, but they need an agent of coercion to implement their dangerous schemes. Their tool of coercion can only be government.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise
As an Amazon Associate I Earn from Qualifying Purchases
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
40 Comments
DD
DD
February 28, 2019 7:22 am

Oh, good. The Social Science crowd can continue to modify the behavior of people while the Technical Science crowd controls the information and minimizes input with mind numbing drivel.

That frees up the atmosphere for the Global Warming zealots to bring in the Weather Scientists to help out.

Good. All will be a cool breeze with sunshine now.

Here’s the two minute down and dirty…

ordo ab chao
ordo ab chao
  DD
February 28, 2019 3:20 pm

Where/how in the world did you know to post these clips? I thought I got around, but never heard of this flick. Was it a kid’s movie?…..anyway, have you seen geoengineeringwatch.org with Dane Wigington ?

annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum- the ‘all seeing eye of destruction’

DD
DD
  ordo ab chao
February 28, 2019 7:26 pm

Ah, Ordie… once upon a time there was a really nice lady who wrote an article about posting images and links here. I got pretty good at it, even though I seem to be locked out of my postimage account because my give a damn’s been busted.

It is in rehab.

Anonymous
Anonymous
February 28, 2019 7:33 am

What if they are successful and through careful planning and exact measurements they are able to do what they think they can do. What if after cooling the planet however many degrees these scientists what it cooled. Five volcanoes erupt and and add a few degrees cooler. What next? Set off a couple of nuclear devices to burn off the particles in the atmosphere to warm it back up?

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
  Anonymous
February 28, 2019 9:45 am

Good idea! We can carefully fine-tune it to maintain the optimal temperature. What is the Earth’s temperature supposed to be again?

Monkey Slayer
Monkey Slayer
  Iska Waran
February 28, 2019 1:09 pm

How many of the “experts” can explain the difference between climate and weather?

Just wondering.

Rossa
Rossa
  Iska Waran
March 1, 2019 6:41 am

The global average is somewhere between 14-15c. Not exactly warm, but then it is an average. Most people would probably be happy if temps were 1-3c higher, on average. Humans do better in warm than cold conditions and certainly it helps with plants and therefore our food supply.

Clearly, the average indicates there are more cold places than hot, but then we are in between ice ages at the moment and seem to be headed into the next one. So this is more a case of fiddling while Rome burns, or in this case freezes!

Even the ‘official’ temp is suspect because they don’t have temperature monitoring stations all over the world. Not many in Siberia for instance. Add in the fact that a lot of the surface measements are from stations affected by UHI (Urban Heat Island, i.e.cities), others at airports etc and no one actually knows what the ‘average’ is or should be.

Rossa
Rossa
  Anonymous
March 1, 2019 6:46 am

Finally an answer to a question I’ve been asking for ages. If we cool the planet as the ‘scientists’ say we should, what happens when we go into the next ice age? Put all that CO2 back in to the atmosphere? All assuming we still have one if they’ve burnt off the ozone layer, by spraying particulates all over the place.

Mind you if they do that we won’t need a couple of nukes as the Sun will do the job for us, for free, and we’ll end up like Mars!

gatsby1219
gatsby1219
February 28, 2019 7:41 am

So Chem-trails are real after all….

grace country pastor
grace country pastor
  gatsby1219
February 28, 2019 11:40 am

Too many people catching on. It must be admitted, but in a controlled manor.

Diogenes
Diogenes
  grace country pastor
February 28, 2019 4:10 pm

BINGO GCP Too many people are seeing the chemtrailing that has been going on for years.

CCRider
CCRider
February 28, 2019 7:48 am

So the same geniuses who gave us the split atom, the 20th century slaughter and central banking are going to save us from global warming/cooling/climate change/Melanoma/spastic colons and erectile dysfunction? Suddenly I’m rooting for the Yellowstone eruption.

MrLiberty
MrLiberty
  CCRider
February 28, 2019 10:58 am

I always root for the volcano, the asteroid, or the comet.

Monkey Slayer
Monkey Slayer
  MrLiberty
February 28, 2019 1:10 pm

That is what the dinosaurs did.

Rossa
Rossa
  Monkey Slayer
March 1, 2019 6:59 am

Funny how the dinosaurs were around for 200 million years and never had to worry about any of it until one day it was all over for them and some small mammal survived to take over the world !!

Donkey Balls
Donkey Balls
February 28, 2019 8:16 am

A short time ago, TBP (or was it a QOTD?) asked what was the biggest danger to mankind. I anwered…humans. I stand by that.

MrLiberty
MrLiberty
  Donkey Balls
February 28, 2019 10:59 am

You couldn’t get away with this shit without the direct assistance of powerful central governments. I still stand by government (but of course that is a human creation).

MrLiberty
MrLiberty
  MrLiberty
February 28, 2019 12:40 pm

To clarify, I stand by my original statement that GOVERNMENT is the biggest danger to mankind….not that I stand by government.

Boat Guy
Boat Guy
February 28, 2019 8:25 am

I see no mention of the grand solar minimum or maximum science fact regarding heating and cooling of our planet . NASA has done an in debth study of this 11 year cycle of solar energy increase and decrease and the findings point to a natural cyclical peak and valley sine wave of solar energy . This creates natural heating and cooling of our biosphere .
I fail to see how these maniac brainiacs should be allowed to stick their dick beaters into implementing a plan to experiment on all of us and our living conditions on a planetary scale . Especially when they will expect us to pay for their feel good folly .
There are far to many examples of this nonsense already like electric cars now incenerating the occupants and pesticides of one form or another ending up in our food chain . All seemed like a good idea at the time . This is not to say I am a Luddite regarding science and technology I’m just not willing to run into the dark with no clue of potential hazards till I break my fall with my face !

Diogenes
Diogenes
  Boat Guy
February 28, 2019 4:15 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60knBFueOTY
Yeah it’s a solar minimum alright

Boat Guy
Boat Guy
  Diogenes
February 28, 2019 9:00 pm

She is an idiot Diogenes

Diogenes
Diogenes
  Boat Guy
March 1, 2019 11:42 am

Defeat her agruments with logic rather than name calling. I have validated many things she is saying with my own photos. Do you want to see actual footage of simulator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWg8KfCP0kw

hardscrabble farmer
hardscrabble farmer
February 28, 2019 8:40 am

If I had to pick my favorite of all the contradictory, hypocritical, back-asswards logic ever applied by these lunatics, it’s this one.

“It is a fundamentally bad thing that human beings alter the climate. The fundamentally good thing to do is for human beings to alter the climate.”

*insert sound of springs uncoiling, here*

My head would explode. I don’t know how they do it.

And since no one else has asked, can we get a vote on what temperature we’re going to adjust it to? It seems like these control freaks want to be the ones with their hands on Earth’s thermostat like they’re like Jimmy Carter circa 1977.

I actually saw a headline last week that read “Colder temperatures a natural result of global warming”.

Naturally.

Monkey Slayer
Monkey Slayer
  hardscrabble farmer
February 28, 2019 1:12 pm

Jimmy wanted the optimum temperature for his peanuts. So he could maximize his Government price support take home.

Rossa
Rossa
  hardscrabble farmer
March 1, 2019 6:55 am

“Colder temperatures a natural result of global warming”. Think you answered your own question with the dichotomy of it being one and the same, like ‘you humans caused/solved it’.

As night follows day, ‘global warming’ will soon be over and the climate doom porn merchants will be shivering in the next mini ice age.

Anonymous
Anonymous
February 28, 2019 9:12 am

The quotes by Hayak and Talib are attempts at reason and caution, ignored by intellectuals with a flawed sense of duty that could / would affect all of humanity. Stereotypical mad scientists. And meddling government.
And greedy corporations.

Arrogant pricks. How dare they make decisions to try and manipulate nature, to redirect effects, with potential catastrophic consequences, under the guise of knowing all the causes and answers. Infuriating.

Enough to make normally moral humans want to just start offing some of the main initiators of such mayhem.

P2
P2
February 28, 2019 9:21 am

While the UN (& their agents) have demonized the miracle molecule CO2 (plant food), we’re only about 250ppm above the extinction level for life. Think about that!

You might begin to wonder why anyone would want to reduce CO2 levels? That’s where you start encountering ‘rabbit holes’ & tinfoil futures, that, if they hadn’t published it themselves, you’d think you’d lost your mind. Remember Bill Gates’ equation for reducing CO2 called Innovating to Zero:

CO2 = P x S x E x C
P = people
S = services/person
E = energy/service
C = CO2/unit energy

IluvCO2
IluvCO2
  P2
February 28, 2019 11:37 am

ILuvCO2

Anonym
Anonym
February 28, 2019 9:33 am

It could not be more obvious, they want to depopulate the earth, this is the only logical conclusion.

this is Agenda 21 -Section 2 Chapter 9 – protecting the Atmosphere

Who do these people think they are? GODS?

next up on the Agenda: placing breathing monitors on humans and taxing us for oxygen.

oh, and the 0.1% absolutely must be able to fly rockets to Mars and fly Jets to the Antartic, while the plebes will be allowed to ride bicycles, as long as their oxygen meters are pre-paid.

KeyserSusie
KeyserSusie
February 28, 2019 9:59 am

The movie Geostorm is running on cable tv. It makes for some fun fantasy fiction prophecies about weather control.

MrLiberty
MrLiberty
February 28, 2019 10:57 am

Of course there are planes that can accomplish the goal…especially if they have been flying for the past decade or more:

comment image
comment image
comment image
comment image

John
John
  MrLiberty
February 28, 2019 2:52 pm

And I thought the chem trails were bad in Central Texas! John

KeyserSusie
KeyserSusie
February 28, 2019 11:00 am

Yes CO2 is plant food. Many say the more the merrier it is for earth’s carbon accumulators. I have reservations about that common idea.

It occurs to me that O2 level has a delicate range for animals.

“Safe Oxygen Levels
For humans and many animals to sustain normal functions, the percentage of oxygen required to sustain life falls within a small range. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, determined the optimal range of oxygen in the air for humans runs between 19.5 and 23.5 percent.”

I do not know what could alter the percentage in our atmosphere but suffice to say if it changed by a modest fraction , we would all be dead unless we adopted CO2 or O2 augmentation of our environment.

“We are constantly being bombarded by the toxic effects of oxygen, and our bodies are constantly repairing the damage that it does to our cells. If you’ve ever heard of the importance of antioxidants in your diet, this reflects the ability of these compounds to help protect us from damage that certain oxygen-based compounds can do in our bodies. However, as we have evolved in an oxygen-rich environment, we are better at dealing with the damage done by atmospheric levels of oxygen than we are at dealing with the deleterious effects of insufficient oxygen. That is to say, even though oxygen is toxic, we nevertheless evolved to use it to power our bodies, and so we have also evolved ways to help mitigate the damaging effects. However, it is still inevitable that oxygen will do irreparable damage to our bodies, which can have cumulative effects over time.

The more oxygen that is introduced to the air, the greater the toxic effects will be. At a certain point, the “LD50” will be achieved; this is the level at which 50% of those exposed will die of acute toxicity. A look at the Material Safety Data Sheet for Oxygen lists no information for what this limit is. There is also no information provided on safe long-term exposure levels. This is probably because levels of oxygen high enough to create a poisoning hazard are far higher than those needed to create another imminent hazard; reactivity. At levels high enough to be acutely toxic, your body would be exposed to oxygen levels far higher than would be needed to make it inflammable. Your own body may well generate enough heat to spontaneously combust, long before levels needed to kill you from acute poisoning were reached. If atmospheric oxygen reached such levels, pretty much every living thing on Earth would ignite and burn furiously at the slightest spark of heat or lightning, creating a world-wide firestorm. Massive amounts of oxygen would be bound up in the process, returning oxygen to more sustainable atmospheric levels.”
https://www.quora.com/How-much-higher-should-the-percentage-of-oxygen-be-in-our-atmosphere-in-order-to-become-toxic-for-humans-and-for-all-terrestrial-living-organisms

And then there is this:
!!! “A number of studies conducted in a simulated (controlled) office environment have revealed that CO2 present at commonly found levels indoors (ranging approximately from about 600 to 5000 ppm) can impair cognitive function. (Allen et al., 2015) (Satish et al., 2012) (Kajtár & Herczeg, 2012)

“Exposure assessment studies conducted at schools have found elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, in some instances as high as 4000 ppm and 6000 ppm. (Vehvilainen et al., 2016) (Haverinen-Shaughnessy, Moschandreas, & Shaughnessy, 2011) Studies measuring CO2 levels and student academic performance have varied in design but have utilized CO2 as a surrogate for ventilation rates or indoor environmental quality (IEQ) to determine the effect of ventilation rates on academic performance. Thus, such studies may only be suggestive of the direct effects of CO2 concentrations on student health and cognition. Additional studies are needed, in a classroom setting, that control for several confounders to shed light on the potential causal link between elevated CO2 levels and student academic performance and health.”
http://www.ecothinkgroup.com/the-effects-of-elevated-carbon-dioxide-levels-in-schools/

So who knows what elevated CO2 levels have to do with humanity.

Decreased SAT scores anyone?

Monkey Slayer
Monkey Slayer
  KeyserSusie
February 28, 2019 1:14 pm

Plant trees.

Monkey Slayer
Monkey Slayer
  Monkey Slayer
February 28, 2019 1:18 pm
AC
AC
February 28, 2019 2:40 pm

They put together a film outlining how this will work in practice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colony_(2013_film)
comment image

Gloriously Deplorable Paul
Gloriously Deplorable Paul
February 28, 2019 7:26 pm

A few years ago someone had a plan to seed low iron areas of the oceans with iron to promote phytoplankton activity that would draw Co2 from the atmosphere.
It was shot down because of the possibility of unintended consequences causing more harm than good.

MrLiberty
MrLiberty
  Gloriously Deplorable Paul
February 28, 2019 9:07 pm

It was probably shot down because the folks with the power, weren’t going to profit from the iron sales.

yahsure
yahsure
February 28, 2019 10:46 pm

I think global cooling is happening from the solar minimum. Dumb fuk scientists concern me. leave shit alone!