Pinprick Attacks on Global Warming Gain Popularity ("Global Warming Theory" Alert)

When Helen and Michael Allen got married in England last year, the wedding bill included an unusual item -- about $220 to clean up gases blamed for causing global warming.

When the Rolling Stones went on tour in Britain last year, they added about 27 cents to the price of each ticket to plant 3,000 trees to soak up the concerts' pollution and show, as they said, that "rock and roll is not a gas."

One Dutch car rental company adds about one percent to its prices to help plant forests to soak up the vehicles' emissions of carbon dioxide, a nontoxic gas widely blamed for raising global temperatures and wreaking havoc with the climate.

In pinprick attacks on global warming, some companies and individuals are finding that some consumers are willing to pay to try and curb global warming.

Some people are even paying to offset everything from commuting to family vacations by measuring how much carbon dioxide is released by the oil, coal and gas they burn.

"We made Helen's wedding 'carbon neutral' to make the point that climate change is a serious issue," said Helen's father, Phil Cottle.

Some scientists say global warming is the biggest long-term threat to life on Earth. Rising temperatures could drive thousands of species to extinction, trigger more frequent floods or droughts and sink low-lying islands by raising sea levels.

"Small actions among very many people can add up to significant changes," said Jonathan Shopley, the head of Future Forests, which offsets carbon dioxide by investing in renewable energy schemes or planting trees, mainly in the Third World.

Trees suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it as they grow, helping curb global warming widely blamed on carbon dioxide emissions from factories and cars that are blanketing the planet and have surged since the Industrial Revolution.

Future Forests has planted about 3,700 acres of trees since 1999, from Scotland to Mozambique, to absorb about 103,000 tons of carbon dioxide. In contrast, annual global carbon dioxide emissions are about 26 billion tons.

Groups like Future Forests, Dutch Business for Climate or Germany's 550ppm, let people calculate personal carbon dioxide emissions and determine how many trees would offset those emissions.

Increasing numbers of events, from rock concerts to conferences, have aimed at being "carbon neutral."

The 2002 Johannesburg Earth Summit was the first major U.N. meeting to try to be "carbon neutral," investing in renewable energy and planting trees. But few governments signed up, raising just $300,000 of a $5 million target.

Some environmental groups worry that schemes for planting trees could actually backfire and extend global pollution.

"The idea that people can burn fossil fuels and then plant trees to clean up is simply wrong," said Steve Sawyer, climate policy director at Greenpeace, noting car exhausts spew out pollutants other than carbon dioxide.

"This will keep people digging up oil and coal," he said. The world should instead shift to clean energy, like solar, wind or hydro power, he said.

U.S. citizens are the biggest carbon dioxide emitters with an annual average of 19.4 tons each. Japanese emit 9.1 tons, while the average Ethiopian accounts for just 100 kg.

Cottle, a forestry and insurance expert, said travel accounted for 7.7 tons at his daughter's wedding, followed by hotel stays at 4.8 tons under estimates by Future Forests.

The Kyoto protocol, a global government plan for limiting emissions of carbon dioxide, was stalled after the United States pulled out in 2001 after President Bush (news - web sites) said it was too costly and wrongly excluded developing nations.

Part of the problem for policy makers is that carbon dioxide does not sound like a threat. An adult's exhalations produces about one kg a day of carbon dioxide.

The United Nations (news - web sites) launched a scheme last year to plant one million trees to help slow deforestation that claims about 23.2 million acres a year.

Dutch Business for Climate manages 123,600 acres of forest, mainly in tropical countries, and gets businesses to help fund plantings to offset carbon dioxide.

"More and more organizations are using (carbon offset) as a selling point," said Denis Slieker, head of the group. "At this stage it's a very, small percentage that's being compensated."

I am posting this for those of you who might not have equated "lines in the sky" with the spraying of toxic chemicals in our atmosphere and the connection to Global Warming.

A Google search on Images using the keyword "Chemtrail"
brings up 2,210 photos of chemtrails.

Also, here is documentation that geoengineering is taking place.

http://gcep.stanford.edu/research_geoengineering.html

Stanford University
Global Climate & Energy Project

SNIP
Another example involves application of a layer of reflective chemicals or particles to the upper atmosphere to reduce incident radiation at the Earth's surface.
MORE AT LINK

Here is a very good overview with illustrations:

http://lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/smoking_gun.html

The Chemtrail Smoking Gun - Proof of Global Geoengineering Projects

For the past few years investigators and researchers have been searching for hard evidence on the elusive phenomena of chemtrail spraying. If one searches GoogleNews for articles on chemtrails in (with 4500 periodicals represented) not one article will be found. There is simply no coverage on this topic in the mainstream media.

Imagine our surprise when we discovered extensive proof of government involvement, funding, sponsorship, multidisciplinary research, policy making and implementation of global atmospheric modification under
the classification of 'Geoengineering.' This is the chemtrail smoking gun we have been looking for.

Authorized by Congress and sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, a monumental and in-depth study on global warming and possible corrective measures (mitigations) was undertaken in the early 1990s. Represented were senior researchers, faculty, theoreticians, atmospheric scientists, department heads and CEO's from a multitude of prestigious institutions. The Smithsonian, Harvard, General Motors, Cambridge, MIT, Yale, World Resources Institute, National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Oxford, Brookings Institution, Columbia University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Carnegie-Mellon University, Princeton University, Brown University, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and many more. This colossal study recalls the
scope, expense and secrecy of the Manhattan Project, yet the goals and eventual impacts of it are far greater.
MORE AT LINK

Also, here's a 900-plus page summary on geoengineering:

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309043867/html/index.html

Using the "find" feature (Ctrl+f) looking for the word "Manhattan", read all of the references to the Climate Change Manhattan Project. You'll learn about chemtails.

I don't believe that it is a coincidence that the term "Manhattan Project" was chosen. It denotes the secrecy and urgency of this project. This being a TOP SECRET government project, it hasn't been reported in the media. Nor will our government officials acknowledge it. We citizens disserve to know what is being sprayed in our atmosphere so we can make enlightened choices on how to protect ourselves from the literal fallout.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.