{"id":2138,"date":"2023-06-02T04:05:59","date_gmt":"2023-06-02T04:05:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/prendergast.net\/?p=2138"},"modified":"2023-06-02T04:05:59","modified_gmt":"2023-06-02T04:05:59","slug":"climate-change-a-geoengineering-myth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/prendergast.net\/?p=2138","title":{"rendered":"Climate Change a Geoengineering Myth?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

Climate Change, a Geoengineering Myth?<\/span><\/span><\/h1>\n

<\/p>\n

\nIn this article, I examine the concept and process of geoengineering<\/strong> as it relates to climate change, with particular scrutiny on whether geoengineering is solving a problem or engineering a problem.  <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As we continue through to the halfway point of 2023, the so-called emergency issues of the climate have once again come to the fore as the health topic of covid 19 regresses somewhat, although, as we shall see later, none of these things are standalone events.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As I write this article, pilot sites have sprung up in England, which are trial runs of 15-minute cities. It is based on the idea that everything you need can be accessed within a 15-minute radius. If you venture out of that zone, you risk fines and possible imprisonment. It is directly connected with the climate agenda, which you can read more about in Agendas 21 and 30.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I start with a speech by Prince Charles where he spoke of the need for a war-like approach to climate change in the form of a military-style campaign<\/u><\/a>. On reflection, it sounded like more of a confirmation of something that was already happening.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n


\nImage Source: archdaily.com <\/a><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

What has humanity done to deserve such impending and extreme restrictions, with all the hallmarks of a more permanent lockdown? Let’s start with some definitions of the issue at hand.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The reported ‘climate crisis’ appears to stem from a belief about the threat of global warming to the survival of this planet. Regular conventions and summit meetings<\/u><\/a> have been held since the 1960s to discuss the severity of this perceived issue and plan accordingly. In tandem, there have also been summit meetings on population control, such as the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994, suggesting that both themes are connected.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Here is a video of scientist Carl Sagan explaining the greenhouse effect<\/u><\/a> to Congress. According to the Council for Foreign Relations, there is a consensus of opinion about the science concerning climate change. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

They cite a summary of that science from David Victor, an American Professor of International Relations, who summarises that the earth's temperature is rising at unprecedented rates, which will result in damaging effects across the world. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

He puts this down to human activities using fossil fuels, deforestation, coal, oil, and natural gas. As a consequence of these activities, greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide have been emitted in sufficient amounts to cause the planet to trend toward global warming.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

There are a group of climatologists that dispute this stance in that they claim there is no emergency as such. These include climatologists Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. John Christy<\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n


\nImage source: World Climate Declaration.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Moreover, a global network of over 1100 scientists and professionals known as the “Global Climate Intelligence Group” or The CLINTEL Group has prepared an urgent message explained in this article<\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Perhaps the use of the phrase climate change is something of a tautology since the earth is not a static ecosystem. If indeed there is a climate crisis, is it as described by the powers that be, or does the issue lie elsewhere?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

FALSE PROPHECIES or INEXACT SCIENCE<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

Since as far back as the 1960s<\/strong>, many global leaders and political figures have been sending out alarming warnings in the form of predictions. This X22 report<\/u><\/a> cites some of them from a Twitter feed. Here is a paraphrase of some of the identified warnings:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  • 1966 – No more oil in 10 years<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
  • 1967 – Dire famine forecast by 1975<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
  • 1970 – Nitrogen build-up will make all land unusable <\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
  • 1970 – Ice Age by 2000<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
  • 1974 – Ozone depletion will make life perilous<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
  • 1980 – Acid rain will kill life in lakes<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
  • 1989 – Rising sea levels will obliterate nations if nothing is done by 2000<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
  • 2008 – Al Gore predicts an ice-free Arctic by 2013<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
  • 2009 – British Prime Minister says we have 50 days to save the earth<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    None of the above has come to pass. This poses a fundamental question. Bearing in mind that science and political science<\/u><\/a> are not one and the same, are the above merely false prophecies from the domain of political science, or is it a case of science not being so exact as to be predictable? <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    Maybe both have some truth to them, yet as this short clip<\/u><\/a> about an ongoing project in Greenland shows, context and relativity are essential in research.  In this project, ice is extracted from the ice sheet in Greenland over thousands of years to determine temperatures during that time. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    Their results underline that when certain political authorities raise the alarm about the increase in warming by 1.5 degrees, they need to put relativity in context. In isolation, you can make research support many inaccurate viewpoints.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    There is a third, more serious consideration when we consider context and the interface with political science. What if the political powers in question are creating the problem and then creating a solution to put the control of power firmly in their domain? <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    To appreciate why this is an important consideration, I refer to the book The Creature from Jekyll Island by G Edward Griffin<\/strong>, a highly acclaimed documentarist and writer with a flair for taking the complexity out of complex subjects to make them easier to understand. This book first came out in 1994.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    Although the creature referred to in the title is the Federal Reserve, and the book focuses on the nature of its creation and the money agenda, various interconnected threads arise in his discovery which has a direct bearing on the climate agenda.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    Griffin makes reference to the influence of the Fabian School of Economics in London, whose underpinning ideology was the achievement of a new world order by a more covert expression of socialism as opposed to a more forceful approach, such as what is experienced in communism.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    In this approach, money moves from the government and, through various means, gets recycled back to them, which helps to give them more control and power and ultimately morphs them into a new world order, now known as the great reset<\/u><\/a>. Back then, they discussed a one-world currency too.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    Within this context, a new unconventional war was proposed in the pursuit of one-world governance, whose echoes found their way into Prince Charles's speech, and it has more to do with eliminating life than enhancing human lives.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    It involves the Council of Foreign Relations, and The Club of Rome, who seek to express this ideology, and everything we are witnessing today is coming out of that playbook. I will return to this shortly. Within this historical context, we now look at a process called GeoEngineering.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n


    \nImage Source:     Wikimedia Commons<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

    GEOENGINEERING<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

    Britannica defines geoengineering as<\/strong> ‘the large-scale manipulation of a specific process central to controlling Earth’s climate for the purpose of obtaining a specific benefit.’<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    Solar radiation is a key influencing factor in how much is absorbed by the earth and reflected into space. The earth’s surface, cloud formation, and gases in the air are all dynamics in this process. Solar radiation management as a core theme of this process means a combination of technologies would need to be created and managed for this to happen.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    Few would deny that our earth needs to be taken care of in a much more responsible way. I recall watching a documentary called A Plastic Ocean<\/u><\/a> years ago, in which it was plain to see that our oceans are polluted due to human neglect.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    The industrial revolution saw an increase in certain gas emissions and air pollution by corporate giants far beyond what any one individual could emit, but does the climate agenda change amount to such an issue of significant human neglect that it now requires geoengineering to correct the imbalance? <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    Collectively harm has been caused to the earth, so one could understand the corrective application of technology to restore balance to the earth’s ecosystem. However, in light of the findings of The Creature from Jekyll Island, it is necessary to probe further as to whether geoengineering is being deployed for a benefit or otherwise.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    There is a data-rich website specifically dedicated to examining this question and the core related issues, and recently a powerful documentary was released called The Dimming<\/u><\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n