EU e-Privacy Directive

This website uses cookies to manage authentication, navigation, and other functions. By using our website, you agree that we can place these types of cookies on your device.

You have declined cookies. This decision can be reversed.


This article is from January 2016.

If PubMed have assessed the likely impacts then it is going on, and indeed we can see it with our own eyes.

"Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale manipulation of environmental processes that affects the Earth’s climate, in an attempt to counteract the effects of climate change"

"Geoengineering approaches include solar radiation management, or SRM, and carbon dioxide removal ... "

"SRM techniques attempt to offset effects of increased greenhouse gas concentrations by reducing the proportion of incoming short wavelength solar radiation that is absorbed or reflected by the earth’s atmosphere  ... Proposed SRM techniques include stratospheric aerosols, reflective satellites, whitening of the clouds, whitening of built structures and increasing plant reflectivity"

"All SRM deployment techniques require a global approach since localized deployment will not produce sufficient effects. Importantly, SRM approaches to managing climate change require initial and ongoing addition of aerosols to the atmosphere, with increasingly greater additions as emissions of GHGs rise, given the risk of sudden and potentially catastrophic warming if aerosol levels are not maintained"

So we either bake under "global warming" or get gassed under "Solar Radiation Management"?

As a "late onset" asthmatic I personally am not impressed (see table 1).

PubMed has the details.

"Based on our analyses, we submit that the current knowledge gaps do not justify deployment of SRM in the short term. We therefore recommend further research, a more inclusive analysis of costs and benefits, as well as the globalization and harmonization of regulatory standards that will limit the negative human health impact of SRM. Only following a comprehensive risk assessment that addresses each of these issues can the potential benefits of this geoengineering approach be weighed against the potential public health burdens created by this technology"

Quite so.

Now let's see, they are poisoning the air we breath, the water we drink (fluoride), the food we eat (additives, "sweeteners" etc) ... 

No of course we are not under attack, that's a preposterous idea.