Is Mr. George a propaganda mouthpiece for one world terraforming operations or just a lone mad scientist?

By Shepard Ambellas

theintelhub.com

November 25, 2012

Self taught geoengineer and terraformer Russ George has been experimenting with manipulating mother nature in a God-like manner despite his own admissions of the potential repercussions to the planet.

Russ George advocates high-risk large scale manipulation of our planetary environment to counter ‘man made’ climate change. This would involve the manipulation of our oceans and skies possibly changing our planet in unrecoverable or undesired ways.

The implications of geoengineering programs are extremely dangerous and need to be analyzed further. Naomi Klein recently wrote, “The risks are huge. Ocean fertilization could trigger dead zones and toxic tides. And multiple simulations have predicted that mimicking the effects of a volcano would interfere with monsoons in Asia and Africa, potentially threatening water and food security for billions of people.”

Yet others want to play god as well.

In fact, billionaire Bill Gates has toyed with the idea of playing God as he prepares a “StratoShield”, which is essentially a hose that is 19 miles long suspended by helium balloons in the atmosphere spraying sulfur dioxide particles into the air apparently deflecting solar-radiation.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents Solar Radiation Management (SRM) is a big concern amongst those who have designed the programs to profit off destroying the planets natural state. However, this is likely propaganda as the sun has been around for a long time. Why regulate it now?

An excerpt from an IPCC document out of Lima Peru reads;

It is useful in this context to refer back to the definition of mitigation and adaptation previously used by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report. It should be noted that the expert meeting did not address the question of whether these definitions should be updated to differentiate them better from geoengineering.

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) methods refer to a set of techniques that aim to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere by either (1) increasing natural sinks for carbon or (2) using chemical engineering to remove the CO2, with the intent of reducing the atmospheric CO2 concentration. CDR methods involve the ocean, land, and technical systems, including such methods as iron fertilization, large-scale afforestation, and direct capture of CO2 from the atmosphere using engineered chemical means. Some CDR methods fall under the category of geoengineering, while this may not be the case for others, with the distinction being based upon the magnitude, scale, and impact of the particular CDR activities. The boundary between CDR and mitigation is not clear and there could be some overlap between the two given current definitions.

Solar Radiation Management (SRM) refers to the intentional modification of the Earth’s shortwave radiative budget with the aim to reduce climate change according to a given metric (e.g., surface temperature, precipitation, regional impacts, etc). Artificial injection of stratospheric aerosols and cloud brightening are two examples of SRM techniques. Methods to modify some fast-responding elements of the longwave radiative budget (such as cirrus clouds), although not strictly speaking SRM, can be related to SRM. SRM techniques do not fall within the usual definitions of mitigation and adaptation.

Geoengineering refers to a broad set of methods and technologies that aim to deliberately alter the climate system in order to alleviate the impacts of climate change. Most, but not all, methods seek to either (a) reduce the amount of absorbed solar energy in the climate system (Solar Radiation Management) or (b) increase net carbon sinks from the atmosphere at a scale sufficiently large to alter climate (Carbon Dioxide Removal). Scale and intent are of central importance. Two key characteristics of geoengineering methods of particular concern are that they use or affect the climate system (e.g., atmosphere, land or ocean) globally or regionally and/or could have substantive unintended effects that cross national boundaries. Geoengineering is different from weather modification and ecological engineering, but the boundary can be fuzzy.

At the Expert Meeting, an attempt was made to provide a set of common definitions for the most important terms related to geoengineering. These definitions are intended for consideration by the author teams of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Many of the definitions below reflect the broad usage of these terms in climate science. While some terms are occasionally used interchangeably in the literature, the definitions presented here attempt to provide clear distinctions between them:

The concept of geoengineering can be traced back to the 1960s with a US report calling for research on “possibilities to deliberately bringing about countervailing climatic changes” to that of CO2 (Marchetti, 1977). The term geoengineering itself was originally used in the 1970s by Marchetti (1977) to describe the context of the idea of injecting CO2 into the ocean to reduce the atmospheric burden of this greenhouse gas. Since that time, the term has evolved considerably, coming to encompass a broad, and ill-defined, variety of concepts for intentionally modifying the Earth’s climate at the large scale (Keith, 2000). As a result, discussions of geoengineering in both academic and public contexts have sometimes convoluted characteristics from different techniques in ways that have unhelpfully confused discussions. Nonetheless, since Paul Crutzen’s 2006 editorial essay (Crutzen, 2006), scientific, policy and media attention to geoengineering concepts has grown rapidly. Several assessments have been conducted at the national level (The Royal Society, 2009; GAO, 2011; Rickels et al., 2011)….

The New York Times reported;

There will be other visceral, life-changing consequences. A study published this spring in Geophysical Research Letters found that if we inject sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere in order to dial down the sun, the sky would not only become whiter and significantly brighter, but we would also be treated to more intense, “volcanic” sunsets. But what kind of relationships can we expect to have with those hyper-real skies? Would they fill us with awe — or with vague unease? Would we feel the same when beautiful wild creatures cross our paths unexpectedly, as happened to my family this summer? In a popular book on climate change, Bill McKibben warned that we face “The End of Nature.” In the age of geoengineering, we might find ourselves confronting the end of miracles, too.

The geopolitical ramifications are chilling. Climate change is already making it hard to know whether events previously understood as “acts of God” (a freak heat wave in March or a Frankenstorm on Halloween) still belong in that category. But if we start tinkering with the earth’s thermostat — deliberately turning our oceans murky green to soak up carbon and bleaching the skies hazy white to deflect the sun — we take our influence to a new level. A drought in India will come to be seen — accurately or not — as a result of a conscious decision by engineers on the other side of the planet. What was once bad luck could come to be seen as a malevolent plot or an imperialist attack.

The scariest thing about this proposition is that models suggest that many of the people who could well be most harmed by these technologies are already disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Imagine this: North America decides to send sulfur into the stratosphere to reduce the intensity of the sun, in the hopes of saving its corn crops — despite the real possibility of triggering droughts in Asia and Africa. In short, geoengineering would give us (or some of us) the power to exile huge swaths of humanity to sacrifice zones with a virtual flip of the switch.

While the United Nations’ climate negotiations proceed from the premise that countries must agree to a joint response to an inherently communal problem, geoengineering raises a very different prospect. For well under a billion dollars, a “coalition of the willing,” a single country or even a wealthy individual could decide to take the climate into its own hands. Jim Thomas of the ETC Group, an environmental watchdog group, puts the problem like this: “Geoengineering says, ‘we’ll just do it, and you’ll live with the effects.’ ”

Geoengineering operations have taken place for over 25 years in a militarized manner, experiments have been conducted on the populace and congress has approved it. That is the bottom line.

A select group of diabolic oligarch globalists and their puppet cronies embedded within the United States government are now involved in what some would say are crimes against humanity. These tyrants will stop at nothing to usher their hush, hush global aerosol agenda into full swing.

According to a report prepared for the Air Force titled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the WeatherBy 2025” the U.S. Air Force wants to fully control the weather on earth by the year 2025.

Far surpassing even the most horrific act of terror (real or staged), posing as literal gods, these globalists will stop at nothing to control the world by not only controlling the fraudulent banking systems but by owning the weather through a process (blanket term) calledGeoengineering.

According to globalist sponsored reports, our planet is in a constant state of threat and is being bombarded with radioactive solar rays increasing planetary temperatures due to human carbon emissions.

However, vast bodies of research now show that that is not the case and that global warming is a another globalist myth, a ponzi scheme to collect a Carbon Taxworldwide, benefitting the very same group behind the curtain.

The myth the global warming “Carbon Tax” pushers have been spouting apparently can only be fixed by spraying deadly toxins in an aerosol particulate form into the earths atmosphere via large sprayer converted aircraft specifically assigned to perform Geoengineering tasks.

Aerosol sprays (slang: Chemtrails) are filled with a variety of chemical and metal compounds and are known to be very hazardous to human, plant, and animal health worldwide. This danger to plant and human and animal health has been documented in films such as “What In the World Are They Spraying” by Michael Murphy & G. Edward Griffin, who have also appeared on the Intel Hub Radio Show with Shepard Ambellas.

Ultimately, this issue was originally a matter for the EPA to rule over considering that they have the authority to sanction geoengineering activities under the National Environmental Policy ACT of 1969. However, documents such as the report to the chairman, Committee of Science and Technology, House of Representatives – “Climate Change” – Sept. 2010, U.S. Gov. Accountability Office which was submitted to all members of congress in 2010 attempt to put control into the hands of even a smaller group of people.

This report clearly is slanted and leans to take control away from the EPA along with other regulatory provisions such as; the Endangered Species ACT, and the Conformity Provision in the Clean Air ACT – total Geoengineering dis-info submitted to members of the Congress and other government branches alike.

The source of most of the dis-info is Obama’s White House Science Czar John P. Holdren. The following was written on USGCRP letterhead;

“January 2011, Members of Congress: On behalf of the National Science and Technology Council, I am transmitting a copy of Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Global Change Research Program for Fiscal Year 2011. The report describes the activities and plans of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) established under the Global Change Research Act (GCRA) of 1990. The USGCRP coordinates and integrates scientific research on climate and global change and is supported by 13 participating departments and agencies of the U.S. government. This Fiscal Year 2011 edition of Our Changing Planet highlights recent advances and progress made by participating agencies and includes budget information on each agency’s contribution. This report describes a program in transition. In accordance with the GCRA, the USGCRP agencies requested guidance from the National Research Council on how to best meet the changing needs of the nation to understand climate change and respond to its impacts, and the NRC responded with a 2009 report entitled “Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change”. In accord with that report’s recommendations, the USGCRP is undergoing a strategic realignment that will ensure that the science produced is maximally useful for decision makers at all scales. As described in the new edition of Our Changing Planet, the program going forward will place greater emphasis on impacts, vulnerabilities, and on understanding the options for adapting to the changing climate. The program will also continue its long-standing support for activities that contribute to a better understanding of the Earth system, including observations, research, and predictive modeling. All of these focuses will be reflected in the USGCRP’s new strategic plan and its National Climate Assessment. The USGCRP is committed to its mission to build a knowledge base that informs human responses to global change through coordinated and integrated federal programs of research, education, communication, and decision support. I appreciate the close cooperation of the participating agencies, and I look forward to working with the Congress in the continued development and implementation of this essential national program. Sincerely, John P. Holdren Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy Assistant to the President for Science and Technology” – Our Changing Planet Even more disturbing then that is the fact that your so called representatives have been approving yearly geoengineering budgets in the upwards of billions of dollars per year (as outlined in the document “Our Changing Planet – The US Global Change Research Program for the Fiscal Year of 2011, which is a supplement to the Presidents Budget for 2011, much of which is unaccounted for and not even included in the budget possible signifying even a more nefarious plot involving some black budget.

Back tracking to the year 2001, President elect George W. Bush established the (CCRI) Climate Change Research Initiative. A year later it was made public that the USGCRP or United States Global Change Research program and the CCRI both would become what is known as the (CCSP) Climate Change Science Program. Now, under the Obama Administration the legacy continues to move forward as the USGCRP.

A report entitled “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” released in 2009, documents how the USGCRP divided the US into nine regions similar to FEMA regions. Also tucked into the report was the statement “A central finding of the report was that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is unequivocal and primarily human induced” – Source: Our Changing Planet.

The document goes on to mention the devastating effects of climate change, including the effect on crops, human health and livestock.

But the most startling fact in the document is the actual budget itself, a mere 2.7 billion for 2011 alone (not including many costs) 24% higher than 2010’s budget.

The Global Change Research ACT of 1990, SEC. 102, Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences states;



SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCHa) ESTABLISHMENT.–The President, through the Council, shall establish a Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences. The Committee shall carry out Council functions under section 401 of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6651) relating to global change research, for the purpose of increasing the overall effectiveness and productivity of Federal global change research efforts. (b) MEMBERSHIP.–The Committee shall consist of at least one representative from– 1. the National Science Foundation; 2. the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 3. the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce; 4. the Environmental Protection Agency; 5. the Department of Energy; 6. the Department of State; 7. the Department of Defense; 8. the Department of the Interior; 9. the Department of Agriculture; 10. the Department of Transportation; 11. the Office of Management and Budget; 12. the Office of Science and Technology Policy; 13. the Council on Environmental Quality; 14. the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health; and 15. such other agencies and departments of the United States as the President or the Chairman of the Council considers appropriate. Such representatives shall be high ranking officials of their agency or department, wherever possible the head of the portion of that agency or department that is most relevant to the purpose of the title described in section 101(b). (c) CHAIRPERSON.–The Chairman of the Council, in consultation with the Committee, biennially shall select one of the Committee members to serve as Chairperson. The Chairperson shall be knowledgeable and experienced with regard to the administration of scientific research programs, and shall be a representative of an agency that contributes substantially, in terms of scientific research capability and budget, to the Program. (d) SUPPORT PERSONNEL.–An Executive Secretary shall be appointed by the Chairperson of the Committee, with the approval of the Committee. The Executive Secretary shall be a permanent employee of one of the agencies or departments represented on the Committee, and shall remain in the employ of such agency or department. The Chairman of the Council shall have the authority to make personnel decisions regarding any employees detailed to the Council for purposes of working on business of the Committee pursuant to section 401 of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6651). (e) FUNCTIONS RELATIVE TO GLOBAL CHANGE.–The Council, through the Committee, shall be responsible for planning and coordinating the Program. In carrying out this responsibility, the Committee shall– 1. serve as the forum for developing the Plan and for overseeing its implementation; 2. improve cooperation among Federal agencies and departments with respect to global change research activities; 3. provide budgetary advice as specified in section 105; 4. work with academic, State, industry, and other groups conducting global change research, to provide for periodic public and peer review of the Program; 5. cooperate with the Secretary of State in– (A) providing representation at international meetings and conferences on global change research in which the United States participates; and (B) coordinating the Federal activities of the United States with programs of other nations and with international global change research activities such as the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program; 6. consult with actual and potential users of the results of the Program to ensure that such results are useful in developing national and international policy responses to global change; and 7. report at least annually to the President and the Congress, through the Chairman of the Council, on Federal global change research priorities, policies, and programs.” The following is a list of the members included in the Subcommittee on Global Change Research;

Made up of the following members:

Thomas Karl -Department of Commerce Chair

-Department of Commerce Chair Thomas Armstrong - Department of the Interior Vice Chair, Adaptation Research

- Department of the Interior Vice Chair, Adaptation Research Mike Freilich - National Aeronautics and Space Administration Vice Chair, Integrated Observations

- National Aeronautics and Space Administration Vice Chair, Integrated Observations Timothy Killeen - National Science Foundation Vice Chair, Strategic Planning

- National Science Foundation Vice Chair, Strategic Planning William Breed -U.S. Agency for International Development

-U.S. Agency for International Development John Balbus - Department of Health and Human Services

- Department of Health and Human Services William Hohenstein - Department of Agriculture

- Department of Agriculture Jack Kaye - National Aeronautics and Space Administration

- National Aeronautics and Space Administration Chester Koblinsky - Department of Commerce

- Department of Commerce Linda Lawson - Department of Transportation

- Department of Transportation Leonard Hirsch - Smithsonian Institution

- Smithsonian Institution Anna Palmisano - Department of Energy

A description of the subcommittee on (p.2) Our Changing Planet Reads;

“The USGCRP is directed by the Subcommittee for Global Change Research (SGCR), which falls under the National Science and Technology Council. The SGCR comprises representatives from 13 departments and agencies and is led by a Chair from one of the participating agencies (currently from the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]). In order to align the program’s governance with the needs, Vice- Chairs have been identified for Strategic Planning, Integrated Observations, and Adaptation Research. Additional vice-chairs will be identified as needed. The program is supported by the USGCRP Integration and Coordination Office and conducts many of its activities through interagency working groups that plan and implement research and crosscutting activities, such as communications, decision support, and information and data concerns. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) work closely with the SGCR, the Integration and Coordination Office, and the interagency working groups to establish research priorities and funding plans to ensure that the program is aligned with national priorities, reflects agency planning, and meets the requirements of the GCRA. “

The Subcommittee in question has now supplied the President with a supplement to the fiscal budget for 2011, which was presented to members of congress in January of 2011 on behalf of the National Science and Technology Policy – Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, John P. Holdren.

The (USGCRP) brings together a total of 13 different agencies and merges them into one single agency program that has been in the works science 1988 or prior.

In 1990 the USGCRP received generous congressional support under (GCRA P.L. 101-606). It is no mystery that aerosol spraying operations have been ongoing since the early 1990’s. Prior to 1990 one could enjoy a true clear blue sky, a figment of the past in 2011 – where none are to be found.

So just how deep does the geoengineering/terraforming rabbit hole go? The Intel Hubwas able to obtain a copy of the final report prepared by the University of Calgary under contract by Aurora Flight Sciences titled “Geoengineering cost analysis.”

In the report there is smoking gun evidence of the entire geoengineering saga from the secret bases, to the payload, to what type of aircraft or “airship” will be the most cost effective to spread toxic particulates throughout the earths atmosphere.

The final report also included budgets for different applications for aerosol dispersal within the atmosphere.

“Existing aircraft are evaluated based on cost of acquisition and operations. An in-depth new aircraft design study and cost analysis was conducted to determine the cost of developing and operating a dedicated geoengineering airplane type. Similarly, an airship design study and cost analysis was conducted. Finally a survey of non-aircraft systems was conducted to determine how their costs compare to aircraft and airships. Yearly costs of 1M tonne geoengineering operations for all the systems examined are presented in Figure 2. Some systems are easily written off due to extremely high costs. Rocket based systems are not cost competitive due to the large number of launches required and the impact of occasional rocket failures on required fleet size. A system based on 16Σ” naval Mark 7 guns was analyzed and compared to previous work by the National Research Council.4 This system requires large numbers of shots increasing projectile costs and driving yearly costs over $100B. Gun costs become more competitive if the projectile payload fraction can be increased from about 10% for a standard shell to 50%. With this and a few improvements over the 1940-era Mark 7 gun yearly costs are still in the $20B range….The primary vehicles examined to lift particulate to stratospheric altitudes and disperse them at a predetermined release rate are airplanes and airships; rockets and other non- aircraft methods such as guns and suspended pipes are also surveyed.” –Aurora Flight Sciences: Geoengineering Final Report (p.5)

“Geoengineering may provide a means to create a time buffer against catastrophic cli- mate change while long-term emissions reduction actions take effect. One approach is to disperse sulfur compounds at high altitude to reduce the effective solar flux entering the atmosphere. This report will evaluate the means of delivering sufficient mass of this or similar material to affect climate change on a global scale. The goal of this study is to use engineering design and cost analysis to determine the feasibility and cost of a delivering material to the stratosphere for solar radiation management (SRM). This study does notexamine effectiveness or risks of injecting material into the stratosphere for SRM. Its goal is simply to compare a range of delivery systems on a single cost basis.” – Aurora Flight Sciences: Geoengineering Final Report (p.6)

The report mentions how payload costs are not included in the estimate nor are the base/facility costs and continues on (p.8) to say;

“This study focuses on airplane and airship operations to the stratosphere to release a geoengineering payload with the goal of reducing incoming solar flux. Airships are also considered for this mission. To provide a comparison to conventional aircraft operations, more exotic concepts such as rockets, guns, and suspended pipes are also examined….For maximum cooling impact, the particulate payloads are best placed near the equator. This study assumes that the payload is released within latitudes 30°N and 30°S, though North-South basing location had minimal effect on cost. Transit operations, flying East- West between equally spaced bases around the equator, were examined as a method to ensure adequate dispersal of the payload around the equator. Global winds aid in East-West dispersal so a smaller number of bases and shorter range systems (referred to as Regional operations) can be employed with minimal impact on dispersal. Region- al operations allow the dispersal leg length to be dictated by the desired release rate of 0.03kg/m flown. This means the airplanes fly no further than they have to, on the order of 300-800 km, and fuel costs are minimized.” – Aurora Flight Sciences: Geoengineering Final report Yearly cost estimates from different dispersal methods ranged from over 1 billion dollars a year all the way up to rocket dispersed aerosol in the upper atmosphere at the cost of over 100 billion dollars per year.

GeoEngineering Research 2011

California SkyWatch

Agriculture Defense Coalition

GeoEngineering Watch

Arizona SkyWatch

Henry Kissinger’s 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide

Food Sovereignty

Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.” – Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderbergers at Evian, France, May 21, 1992.

Note: Websites/News Agencies are welcome to post 50% of this article linking back to us. Or contact us to post in full.

UPDATE – MARCH 31ST, 2011

• Aluminum resistant gene patent # 7582809

• Patent granted on September 1, 2009

• Patent developed at the Robert W. Holley Center for Agricultural Health at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY.

• Leon Kochian and Jurandir Vieira de Magallhaes are the primary inventors/ researchers

• Patent assigned to US Department of Agriculture and Brazilian Enterprise for Agricultural Research

• According to Cornell University Chronicle Online, the research project was supported in part by the McKnight Foundation Collaborative Crop Research Program, the Generation Challenge Program, the National Science Foundation and the USDA.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a contributor to both the McKnight Foundation and the Generation Challenge Program.

http://www.mcknight.org/international/cropresearch.aspx

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/molecular-breeding-platform-aims-to-enhance-plant-breeding-090901.aspx

Hundreds of Rain and Snow Tests HAVE BEEN DONE!

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/htm/tests.html