Depopulation Deals & Geoengineering Governance
Spraying sunlight blocking chemicals will kill people, but the technocrats push for United Nations oversight to approve global deployment programs despite the potential of starting World War III.
The fix is in and I am not talking about fixing global warming. Despite numerous attempts to downplay the dangers of solar geoengineering, “scientists” are already running numerous open-air experiments and calling for a legal framework to pave the way for a global deployment program despite all the warning signs. So far, all attempts at global governance of geoengineering have failed.
Dealing With the Losers: Dead People
In 2010, Pete Irvine posed the question that has yet to be answered: geoengineering will cause damages and possibly loss of life so how to we deal with the losers?
It is likely that any SRM geoengineering intervention will create
winners and losers and some nations may always be against any
intervention whatsoever.Gregory Benford raised the issue of reaching agreement on the global
scale and how problematic it would be. If for example the arctic
council of nations agreed to initiate a decade-long field trial to
cool the arctic by 1 C, how could they deal with complaints from
nations who felt that this experiment had induced a negative change in
their climate?In any given year there are floods, droughts, heatwaves, etc. but
during this field trial a fraction of these events would be attributed
(rightly or wrongly, partially or fully) to the intervention. Two
questions arise:Could it be determined if any changes in the climate (outside of the
target area) had occurred as a result of the intervention during a 10
year trial?How would aggrieved nations or peoples seek reparations for perceived
negative impacts (scientifically proven or otherwise)?
This is the purpose of geoengineering governance: liability exemption and dispute resolution.
Geoengineering Will Kill People
David Keith admits geoengineering solar radiation modification (SRM) stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) will kill many tens of thousands of people:
“This is a really important moral point. So if I made a decision, or if there was a collective decision to do a geoengineering program, and you put say, the kind of program I think makes more sense, you put about a million tons of sulfur per year (in the stratosphere), you might end up killing many tens of thousands of people a year as a direct result of that decision.” …
“Now it’s true as part of doing that, you would hope that overall benefits of human mortality would be so that you would save many more people than that. But, the fact that you would save more people than you kill doesn’t mean there’s no moral impact of making a decision that directly kills people and I think that we who talk about this have a duty to be clear-eyed about the direct risks involved in doing it.
Deaths Per Watt Per m2
The Geoengineering Modeling Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) is an attempt to find consensus among various computer models that predict what a post-geoengineering world would look like. Weather prediction computer models can not accurately tell us what the weather will be seven days from now, but we are supposed to trust climate models because “it’s easier to predict long term climate changes than localized weather changes.” Compound these facts with this: solar geoengineering IS global weather modification. Any prediction is useless, laughable, and at worst, a dangerous tool for technocrats to lobby politicians using the good old argument from authority. “We are scientists. We have computer model, it says so. Trust us.”
Military Use of Geoengineering
Dr. Alan Robock’s presentation to the American Meteorological Society (AMS) gave us 27 reasons that geoengineering is a bad idea:
Dr. Alan Robock was contacted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Jose, California, where he took part in a debate on geoengineering to combat climate change, Prof Robock said:
" I got a phone call from two men who said we work as consultants for the CIA and we’d like to know if some other country was controlling our climate, would we know about it?
“I told them, after thinking a little bit, that we probably would because if you put enough material in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight we would be able to detect it and see the equipment that was putting it up there.
“At the same time I thought they were probably also interested in if we could control somebody else’s climate, could they detect it?"
Asked how he felt when the approach was made, he said: “Scared. I’d learned of lots of other things the CIA had done that haven’t followed the rules and I thought that wasn’t how I wanted my tax money spent. I think this research has to be in the open and international so there isn’t any question of it being used for hostile purposes.”
The CIA was previously involved in weather warfare by creating floods over Laos and Vietnam and creating droughts in Cuba. The fact that “rogue geoengineering” is undetectable as we cannot distinguish the difference between man-made and natural clouds is certainly a weapon of plausible deniability and makes the Environmental Modification Convention’s (ENMOD) weather warfare ban useless if you can never catch anyone doing it.
Geoengineering Causes World War III
ENMOD bans “military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.” Solar geoengineering could be seen as a hostile act if initiated by a single country, business, or individual and that could end badly.
Dr. Alan Robock:
In a worst-case scenario, a rogue country goes ahead with an atmospheric-transformation project despite global disagreement. Then something goes wrong somewhere else — perhaps a Category 5 storm slams into a coastal megacity. It would be hard to immediately know whether that disaster was related to geoengineering. If the original actor refused to stop, the consequences could escalate to nuclear war, according to Robock. - [SOURCE]
Presidential candidate Andrew Yang:
China is a likely candidate to initiate geoengineering projects, Yang said, because "they have the money, resources, and public-health stake in the problem."
He added that if the US lets China start atmospheric modifications first in a rogue manner, he expects the worst.
"I believe it could lead to war," he said. "If 15 years from now, China is launching sulfur clouds into the atmosphere, and they float over the ocean and wind up affecting the US, that could be taken really negatively." - [SOURCE]
And more…
When speaking on the sun blocking topic, geoengineering researcher Juan Moreno-Cruz told Business Insider: "The threat of war never is out of the question."
If geoengineering is going to happen then all countries would have to be informed and agree because some areas may be more negatively effected than others.
Andrea Flossmann, a scientist at the World Meteorological Organization, explained in a WMO report: "The atmosphere has no walls. What you add may not have the desired effect in your vicinity, but by being transported along might have undesired effects elsewhere.” - [SOURCE]
Death by Chemicals or by War
Sunlight blocking geoengineering is a lose-lose scenario: either the chemicals, weather changes, or global war will kill you.
This is why I have dedicated my life to warning people of the threat that geoengineering poses and trying to bring an end to solar geoengineering research and deployment.
We can adapt to a warming world if that comes to pass.
We cannot adapt to being dead.
Learn more by reading my previous posts:
Why is nuclear war and WW3 an issue when it's clear from many historical records that ALL nation states have been controlled by the same powerful entities since at least the early 1900s? This perspective can be understood from extensive research done by Professor Antony Sutton, Patrick Wood, James Perloff, David Livingstone, and many others. For years I've independently looked deeply into this hidden global governance and the extensive financial and policy fusion of supposed nemeses and found mountains of evidence that absolutely confirms we are already living in a very centralized global system of control that uses Kabuki theater (sometimes with deadly consequences for proles) to keep the public in a state of terrorized fear. Iran was taken over by the Masons in the early 1900s, its parliament building is a giant pyramid with 33 windows, several of its central banks are also pyramidal kowtowing to BIS and IMF as they've been privatizing banking. The Ayatollah, with a net worth of a billion or more (and his sons living lavish decadent lives in Europe as very wealthy men) makes pretenses over radical implementation of surveillance and Agenda 21 and 2030 reforms but does nothing of substance to oppose the transformation. The Revolutionary Guard was exposed by Iran's media as being very corrupt in their infrastructure management and then the "solution" became privatization of public assets. Russia and China are very much into absolute compliance with UN Agendas (and have also quietly deferred to the IPCC). This is why all nations bowed down to WHO covid edicts and it's also why Obama effectively transferred control of management of the internet to the UN via ICANN with the Wall Street Journal reporting at that time that China is poised to eventually take over the management of the net for the UN worth trillions of dollars in data collection fees alone. Why would the US give up control of such a valuable asset to say nothing of the national security importance of controlling a massive platform for communication and commerce? Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of DHS and member of the Trilateral Commission, sat on the international committee that decided the fate of the internet shifting to UN oversight.
As for Kill Bates God should find the end solution for David Keith and his club very quickly.