Comments on: Is Obama’s Pick for Surgeon General “Fit” for the Job

Geeze man, you are totally fucked up. You take passages from a book you haven’t read. Instead you rely upon someone else for their interpretation and then you twist the words to suit your schizoid mind.

What about the first 500 pages? Were they filled with qualifying material? Aahhh, you don’t have a fucking clue.

Then, to explain it all, you go flying off on multiple tangents. You use blogs, opinions, and youtube for sources.

When someone proposes something to counter the proved effects of Climate Change you start ranting about how the Over-Government is in charge of all this.

They are ideas, worthy of discussion for the good that may, or may not, come of them. They provide a learning experience for all. For example, seeding the upper atmosphere with sulfur will never fly. Simply because as it joins with moisture in the atmosphere in the presence of ozone, WILL create sulfuric Acid. BUT it is an idea worthy of thought. Maybe something other than sulfur could be used.

As far as I’m concerned, someone is thinking about it. I would be more worried if no one was. There are too many questions about our own atmosphere we don’t know the answers to.

And I bet you believe there is a massive cover-up of aliens in Roswell New Mexico too. And the CIA got Kennedy. And Foster was murdered to cover up illegalities by Hillary. 9/11 was a Bush operation to take over the government. The black helicopters are coming for you.

By: Stars & Bars

Stars & Bars — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:53:01 +0000

(part3)

Experiments similar to Caldeira’s proposal are already being carried out by U.S. government -backed scientists, such as those at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C, who last year began conducting studies which involved shooting huge amounts of particulate matter, in this case “porous-walled glass microspheres,” into the stratosphere.

The project is closely tied to an idea by Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen, who “proposed sending aircraft 747s to dump huge quantities of sulfur particles into the far-reaches of the stratosphere to cool down the atmosphere.”

Such programs merely scratch the surface of what is likely to be a gargantuan and overarching black-budget funded project to geo-engineer the planet, with little or no care for the unknown environmental consequences this could engender.

http://crosswalk.com/news/11572945/

What is known about what happens when the environment is loaded with sulphur dioxide is bad enough, since the compound is the main component of acid rain, which according to the EPA “Causes acidification of lakes and streams and contributes to the damage of trees at high elevations (for example, red spruce trees above 2,000 feet) and many sensitive forest soils. In addition, acid rain accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our nation’s cultural heritage.”

The health effects of bombarding the skies with sulphur dioxide alone are enough to raise serious questions about whether such programs should even be allowed to proceed.

Local news station KSLA in Shreveport, Louisiana investigated a strange substance found by a man from the Arkansas-Lousiana-Texas border, which the man collected on the ground from a chemtrail overhead. He noticed the crisscrossed cloud-like lines in the sky as well as the unusual residue it left behind on vehicles after descending in a “haze.”

KSLA’s Jeff Ferrell noted that these chemtrails “do not fade away like a normal contrail.”

KSLA ran the substances through a lab and found high levels of Barium (6.8 ppm) and Lead (8.2 ppm) as well as trace amounts of other chemicals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium and silver. Of these, all but one are metals, some are toxic while several are rarely or never found in nature.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI

http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/web/jet-fuel-additive

From a mainstream perspective, I have never seen a more idiotic bunch of smart people in my life. I have plenty of friends on prescription medication and frequently the side effects outweigh the intended effect. These scientist are in error because they are not treating the actual cause of the perceived problem.

From a tinfoil hat perspective they know exactly what they are doing.

Either way, we are in big trouble…with these ass-hats using 2000’s knowledge, Holdren et al are tinkering with the unproven effects of human caused climate change.

By: Stars & Bars

Stars & Bars — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:52:24 +0000

(part2)

John Holdren told the Associated Press that the Obama administration has held discussions regarding the possibility of artificially altering the earth’s climate, with the justification of countering global warming.

According to the report, Holdren discussed methods of geo-engineering such as shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays and other radical terraforming programs such as creating an “artificial volcano”.

“It’s got to be looked at,” Holdren was quoted as saying, “We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.” The AP also reported that Holdren said he has raised the concept in administration discussions.

Once the mainstream media got wind of Holdren’s comments he quickly backpedaled
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/science-adviser-lists-goals-on-climate-energy/

Truth is, the GOVERNMENT is already be conducting these experiments on a mass scale.

One of U.S. Department of Energy’s programs, entitled Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign (ISDAC), is aimed at measuring “cloud simulations” and “aerosol retrievals”.

http://acrf-campaign.arm.gov/isdac/

Another program under the Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Science Program is directed towards, “developing comprehensive understanding of the atmospheric processes that control the transport, transformation, and fate of energy related trace chemicals and particulate matter.”

The DOE website states that, “The current focus of the program is aerosol radiative forcing of climate: aerosol formation and evolution and aerosol properties that affect direct and indirect influences on climate and climate change.”

http://www.asp.bnl.gov/

The proposal to disperse sulphur dioxide in an attempt to reflect sunlight was discussed in a September 2008 London Guardian article entitled, Geoengineering: The radical ideas to combat global warming, in which Ken Caldeira, a leading climate scientist based at the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California, promoted the idea of injecting the atmosphere with aerosols.

“One approach is to insert “scatterers” into the stratosphere,” states the article. “Caldeira cites an idea to deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide. Dispersing around 1m tonnes of sulphur dioxide per year across 10m square kilometres of the atmosphere would be enough to reflect away sufficient amounts of sunlight.”

http://guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/01/climatechange.endangeredhabitats

By: Stars & Bars

Stars & Bars — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:50:57 +0000

(part1)

#71 – Mr. Fusion

Using 1970s knowledge, Holdren et al are pointing out the limits of growth in the US and world.

The alarmist predictions about overpopulation which were made in the 1960’s and 70’s have proven to be spectacularly wrong, wrong and wrong again in every instance.

What we have is faulty reasoning as illustrated in this May 2000 article from Reason Magazine. http://reason.com/news/show/27702.html

Phrases such as “it has been concluded” are used in the book alongside proposals for forced abortion, such as the passage on page 837 which reads, “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

Holdren and the Ehrlich’s do not identify who “it has been concluded” by, leaving the reader in no doubt that “it has been concluded” by the writers themselves that forced abortion should be introduced. This is called “hiding behind the passive voice.” It provides the writers plausible deniability, but only the idiotically naive would deny that it represents anything other than an endorsement of forced abortion and sterilization.

Furthermore, the whole tone of the Ecoscience book is directed against those who would disagree with coercive population control measures. These people are even referred to in a derisory tone as “pro-natalists,” a word invented purely for the purposes of the book. The book does not merely present a neutral stance on “formulations” as is claimed – the endorsement of these proposals is implicit in the fact that opponents of them are scorned throughout the book.

Holdren’s attempt to use the fact that the book is over 30 years old to distance himself from its content is also a deceptive move, because before this controversy arose, Holdren was perfectly happy to conduct a major interview with the Associated Press with the book proudly displayed on his bookshelf in the background. If Holdren has changed his mind about the proposals in the book, or never agreed with those presented by his fellow authors in the first place, then why does he prominently display a copy during this interview? Watch the clip below.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mmr5gdOOWU8

In the video, Holdren talks about “geoengineering,” effectively terraforming the planet by injecting untested aerosols into the upper atmosphere in an apparent attempt to offset “global warming,” with unknown side effects.