Local economy has many enemies that deny people in my hometown — Chattanooga — and yours a large measure of autonomy. One enemy is the state factory school. Another is paper currency issued by the Fed. One makes puny the family and emasculates parents. The other corrupts economic transactions and feeds false confidence into the marketplace.
A third enemy of local economy has identified itself this week: National government’s proposed cutbacks in carbon emissions. President Obama’s environmental protection agency announced a crackdown upon industry and vehicle use that would impose a 39 percent reduction of private and corporate pollutants upon Tennessee. The rules are being sought because these emissions are “regarded as the leading cause of global warming,” says a report in The Tennessean newspaper. “The *** announcement was widely praised by environmental groups as setting an example for the world to follow, one that would lead to new investment and lower energy costs for ratepayers.” (Italics are, laughingly, mine).
Senator Bob Corker immediately readied a bill that would block the EPA scheme by ordering certification by officials that electricity rates wouldn’t rise under any aspect of the program.
Behind the sweatless suns
The official narrative on climate control — as on any topic other topic addressed by the U.S. — is very likely quite remote from the real problem and the real story that officials are obscuring for the benefit of their own operation, their own “crisis management.” The climate warming scenario is ideologically driven — the theory being distinctly anti-capital, anti-people, anti-God and anti-free market. It favors increasing the powers of the state over the vestiges of personal and family liberty that have survived the rise of the modern state (1789, we could say, to simplify, the French Revolution) and its ongoing gains in absolutism.
It is almost certain that the deep state and its figurehead, the government, see an entirely different story than that relayed by the press this week regarding the proposed rules.
Emergency measures to slow global warming by reducing solar radiation have been in effect since at least 2010 under the premise of environmental security. Geoengineering — yes, chemtrailing — is public policy, ramped up so strongly that sunny skies over Chattanooga are a thing of the past; today Hamilton County enjoys muzzy, murky, white skies, an eternal backdrop among regular cloud cover. This program is worsening global warming. More rounds of ground-level control (reducing industry, population) are required. Deep state actors benefit from nationalization, as always, even an hour before collapse.
A professor’s warning
Alan Robock is a distinguished professor of climatology at Rutgers. He provides ammunition for my concern about the military’s geoengineering over Chattanooga, even though he is one of many academicians who would have us believe the program that we see with our own eyeballs does not exist, but is a theoretical prospect, a public policy option.
In an essay at Huffingtonpost.com (“A Case Against Climate Engineering,” May 5, 2014), Dr. Robock argues against chemtrailing, providing links to his academic papers that weigh chemtrailing with more costly proposals to seed the atmosphere with reflective materials. In other words, his corpus of work proposes theoretical alternatives — chemtrailing being just one. These alternatives the EPA proposal this week ignores, as it focuses on the other area of climate control. EPA focuses on carbon dioxide reduction (CDR). In contrast, Dr. Robock and other academicians focus on solar radiation management (SRM).
“SRM,” the professor says, “by creating a cloud of sulfuric acid droplets in the stratosphere like volcanic eruptions occasionally do, could potentially be quick and cheap. But this is a big question, since it has never been done and the equipment to implement either cloud brightening or creation of stratospheric clouds does not exist.”
One study considers outlandish and pipsqueak solutions to blot out the sun with sulphur. The solar tower would be 20-mile tower, a giant elevator, piping particulates in the thin, high atmosphere. In the 1990s, a university sage conducted a study of firing banks of 16-inch cannons into space, “They envisaged 40 10-barrel stations operating 250 days per year with each gun barrel replaced every 1500 shots.”
Chemtrails are cheapest
The professor comes down on the side of chemtrail planes as the best buy.
We postulate a schedule of three flights per day, 250 days per year, for each plane. If each flight were 2 hours, this would be 1500 hours per year. As a rough estimate, we take $5 million per 300 hours times 5, or $25 million per year in operational costs per airplane. If we use the same estimates for the KC-10 and the F-15C, we can get an upper bound on the annual costs for using these airplanes for geoengineering, as we would expect the KC-10 to be cheaper, as it is newer than the KC-135, and the F-15C to be cheaper, just because it is smaller and would require less fuel and fewer pilots.
Is suphur the best pollutant to limit light hitting the earth? It has problems. “[R]esearch shows that if we continued to inject sulfur into an existing cloud, as we would have to do to maintain it, the existing particles would grow rather than having new particles form. This means that for the same amount of sulfur, they would scatter less sunlight and would fall out of the atmosphere faster.” Sulphur is not an ideal ingredient, he says.
Sky striping — plusses, minuses
Solar radiation management promises to bring
a reduction in surface air temperatures, which could reduce or reverse some of the negative impacts of global warming, including floods, droughts, stronger storms, sea ice melting, land-based ice sheet melting, and sea level rise [in theory, anyway. — DJT]
Still, for 26 reasons, the professor says SRM should not be launched.
The hazards visible among the unknowns: Drought in Africa, disturbance of natural economy and farmed vegetation, ozone depletion, whiter skies, less solar electricity generation, rapid warming if stopped, commercial control (profiteering among insiders), social disruption and conflicts among countries, “effects on airplanes flying in the stratosphere,” and effects on electrical properties of the atmosphere. He includes a fluffy “more sunburn” with two serious questions, “Moral hazard: The prospect of it working could reduce drive for mitigation” (bulldozing factories and closing highways), and “moral authority: Do we have the right to do this?”
Dr. Robock opposes SRM as a future program “because outdoor research needs strict governance to prevent dangerous pollution in the name of science. And such a governance system does not now exist.” He says climate is “noisy, chaotic, and variable,” and human efforts to change it globally would certainly increase drought — but where, upon which people or nation?
But spraying program will stir hatreds
Wresting the weather from God, he suggests, will create new causes of conflict among people. “It's not hard to imagine a country suffering droughts or floods blaming it on the geoengineers and demanding that it stop now. That they could not prove it would be beside the point. If it were halted at once, we would have faster and more dangerous climate change than we have now without geoengineering. For these reasons, such a large-scale deployment of climate engineering, whether labeled an experiment or actual implementation, will produce unmanageable governance challenges.” That’s his way of saying conflict among nations oppressed by weather conditions (drought, hurricane) produced by people elsewhere, who are assailed as oppressors.
Dr. Robock in his academic theorizings warns against climate engineering. In a science paper, he says, “So here is my prediction. Global warming will continue with only meager mitigation actions for the next decade or two.”
He says research will show the perils of any theoretical sky striping program. “Ongoing geoengineering research using computer models will identify clear risks,” Dr. Robock says, “of both cloud brightening and stratospheric aerosol production, including ozone depletion and reduction of water supplies to large natural areas, such as the Amazon, and large regions that depend on water supplies for food production. *** I can imagine worse scenarios, including global nuclear war started in response to unilateral geoengineering implementation.”
In other words, climate engineering and chemtrails — perceived only as future technology — are dangerous to nature and will bring strife among chemtrailer nations and those that don’t partake of the sulphuric or metallic atmospheric insertion program.
Hold your breath; a remarkable oversight
Dr. Robock says nothing about the hazard of aerosolized sulphur on human health. He does not touch on the widespread evidence of today’s program over Cleveland, Knoxville, Dandridge, Chattanooga and Memphis, for which photos are now starting to appear. Much more likely: the dumping of aluminum particulates to create cloud cover over vast swaths of the earth, creating the white or yellowish haze that lasts for days without being refreshed with new overflights.
— David Tulis hosts Nooganomics.com on Hot News Talk Radio 910, 1240 and 1190 in Chattanooga, South Pittsburg and Dunlap, covering local economy and free markets here and beyond. http://www.hotnewstalkradio.com/
The show airs 1 to 3 p.m. weekdays.
Alan Robock, “A Case Against Climate Engineering,” Huffingtonpost.com, May 5, 2014
Alan Robock, “Will Geoengineering With Solar Radiation Management Ever Be Used?” Ethics, Policy and Environment, Vol. 15, No. 2, June 2012, 202–205
Alan Robock et al, “Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 36, L19703, Oct. 2, 2009. These two essays are downloadable through Dr. Robock’s Huffpo essay.