by Jonathan Benson

December 30, 2014

from NaturalNews Website
Spanish version

A prominent climate scientist who's actively involved in developing technologies

to thwart the natural weather patterns of the globe says he's disturbed by the
prospect of having to make such drastic changes to the common order of things in
order to fight so-called "global warming."
Dr. Matthew Watson from Bristol University in the UK told the media recently tha
t he's "terrified" by many of the geoengineering projects currently in the works
to thwart man-made climate change, which is still being hawked by many in mains
tream science as a threat to humanity.
Speaking to the Daily Mail Online, Dr. Watson explained how futuristic technolog
ies like spraying chemical particles into the sky to reflect sunlight back into
space have the potential to disrupt how rain falls, how plants grow and how life
lives.
Right now, Dr. Watson is working on a $2.8 million project of this exact nature.
The plan is to inject sulfur particles into the earth's atmosphere with the stat
ed goal of blocking the sun's rays from reaching Earth, ostensibly to keep the e
arth from getting too warm.
"Personally, this stuff terrifies me," Dr. Watson told reporters. "Whilst it is
clear that temperatures could be reduced during deployment, the potential for mi
sstep is considerable."
"By identifying risks, we hope to contribute to the evidence base around geoengi
neering that will determine whether deployment, in the face of the threat of cli
mate change, has the capacity to do more good than harm."

Geoengineering will likely cause irreversible damage to planetary ecosystems

The simplistic nature of such projects ignores the immense level of irreversible
damage that could result from interfering with the normal functions of the plan
et.
By blocking sunlight, plants won't be able to engage in photosynthesis, for inst
ance, which means no more oxygen and no more food.
Similarly, humans won't be able to obtain natural vitamin D if the sun's rays ar
en't allowed to penetrate the atmosphere, triggering an epidemic of vitamin D de
ficiency and resultant disease.
One proposed method of mitigating excess carbon dioxide, which many would argue
isn't even a real problem, involves planting and irrigating millions of trees in
the world's deserts.

But this would directly counteract the natural reflection of sunlight from deser
t sands back into space, contributing to more warming.
Another proposal involves dumping iron particles into the world's oceans to supp
osedly improve the growth of photosynthetic organisms capable of absorbing carbo
n dioxide.
But this concept would only further toxify the world's oceans, harming sea anima
ls in the process.

Sulfur particles will destroy ozone layer, leaving animals and humans exposed to
deadly radiation
Building upon an earlier idea pioneered by Dr. Watson, climate scientists are al
so working on ways to pump sulfur particles into the sky in order to disperse an
d reflect sunlight back into space.
But this process threatens to destroy atmospheric ozone, leaving plants, animals
and humans exposed to harmful solar radiation.
"Geoengineering will be much more expensive and challenging than previous estima
tes suggest and any benefits would be limited," maintains Professor Piers Forste
r from the University of Leeds, who has long tracked climate engineering project
s of this type and determined them to be more threatening than beneficial.
Professor Steve Rayner from Oxford University, who specializes in the legal and
ethical ramifications of geoengineering, seems to agree.
He told the Daily Mail Online that too little is known about the long-term effec
ts of geoengineering, including their impact on planetary ecosystems.
"Mostly it is too soon to know what any of these technology ideas would look lik
e in practice or what would be their true cost and benefit," he stated.

Sources
Are We Playing God with Earth?
cooperazioneallosviluppo.esteri.it - UN Weather Weapons Treaty
geoengineeringwatch.org - Geoengineering Watch

Are We Playing God with Earth?

- Scientist Admits he is 'Terrified' of the Technology Being Developed to Stop
'Global Warming' by Ben Spencer
26 November 2014

from TheDailyMail Website

Dr Watson from Bristol University

says we should be wary of interfering with nature
on a planetary scale - known as geoengineering.
It involves changing our planet to counteract effects of climate change.
Proposals include injecting water into the atmosphere to block sunlight
But Dr Watson, a leading scientist investigating such methods,
says he is 'terrified' of what the technology could do to Earth.
And it would also mean we have 'failed as planetary stewards'

A climate scientist has said he is 'terrified' of the futuristic technologies he

is helping to develop in a bid to slow global warming.
British academics have spent 5.4 million ($8.5 million) in the last five years on
taxpayer-funded 'geoengineering' projects to stop the effects of climate change
.
Dr. Matthew Watson, lead investigator of a 1.8million ($2.8 million) project to p
ump chemicals into the atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays, said using such tec
hnologies will become inevitable if humanity fails to stop global warming.

Dr Watson from Bristol University

said we should be wary of interfering with nature
on a planetary scale - known as geoengineering.
It involves changing our planet to counteract effects of climate change.
Earth is shown here pictured from space
The Bristol University academic has already suffered a major setback, when muchtrumpeted plans to send a huge balloon into the air to test his scheme was scrap
ped over a patenting dispute.
Yesterday he admitted that despite the millions already spent on research, scien
tists are still decades from seeing their dreams turn into reality.
POTENTIAL SIDE EFFECTS OF FIVE GEOENGINEERING STRATEGIES
Afforestation: This technique would irrigate deserts, such as those in Australia
and North Africa, to plant millions of trees that could absorb carbon dioxide.
Drawback: This vegetation would also draw in sunlight that the deserts currently
reflect back into space, and so contribute to global warming.
Artificial ocean upwelling: Engineers would use long pipes to pump cold, nutrien
t-rich water upward to cool ocean-surface waters.
Drawback: If this process ever stopped it could cause oceans to rebalance their
heat levels and rapidly change the climate.
Ocean alkalinization: This involves heaping lime into the ocean to chemically in
crease the absorption of carbon dioxide.
Drawback: Study suggests it will have of little use in reducing global temperatu

res.
Ocean iron fertilization: The method involves dumping iron into the oceans to im
prove the growth of photosynthetic organisms that can absorb carbon dioxide.
Drawback: Study suggests it will have of little use in reducing global temperatu
res.
Solar radiation management: This would reduce the amount of sunlight Earth recei
ves, by shooting reflective sulphate-based aerosols into the atmosphere.
Drawback: Carbon dioxide would still build up in the atmosphere.
And he said they could indeed be dangerous.
The schemes could see rainfall patterns change, droughts spread across the world
and the ozone layer damaged beyond repair.
'Personally, this stuff terrifies me,' he said. 'Whilst it is clear that tempera
tures could be reduced during deployment, the potential for misstep is considera
ble.
'By identifying risks, we hope to contribute to the evidence base around geoengi
neering that will determine whether deployment, in the face of the threat of cli
mate change, has the capacity to do more good than harm.'
But he added that it would be 'unethical' not to try the technology.
'If we ever deploy these technologies it will be the closest indication yet that
we've failed as planetary stewards. But there is a point at which not deploying
some technologies would be unethical.
'It's a watershed for our relationship with the Earth and with nature. It fundam
entally changes the way seven billion people are going to interact with the worl
d, and I'm not sure the system is going to be controllable in the way we want.'
Three taxpayer-funded schemes will today publish the results of five years of re
search into geoengineering.
Each report will confirm that we are many years away from seeing any project wor
k outside the laboratory.
One of the touted projects includes spraying low-level clouds with sea salt to m
ake them reflective to the sun; another would pump aerosols or sulphur particles
into the atmosphere to disperse sunlight; and others would see greenhouse gases
such as carbon dioxide sucked out of the air to reduce global warming.

One of the proposals to geoengineer our planet

involves Solar Radiation Management (SRM), pictured,
which would involve releasing small particles into the stratosphere
that reflect some of the incoming solar radition.
This would then allow Earth to cool instead of continuing to warm like it is now
One of the biggest risks is disrupting the delicate balance of land and sea weat
her influences.
The scientists admit that each technology they investigated could lead to damagi

ng changes in rainfall patterns, leading to floods where there had previously be

en little risk, and droughts elsewhere.
Another danger specifically linked to sulphur particles is the destruction of at
mospheric ozone, a vital barrier to harmful solar radiation that can trigger ski
n cancer and have damaging effects on plants and animals.
Dr. Watson said the day may come when the use of such technologies cannot be avo
ided.
'We are swimming, drowning, in a sea of ignorance. This terrifies me. But doing
nothing is not an option.'
'Unless we're very wrong about climate change or quickly change our ways, at som
e point we're going to have to 'go outside' [with these technologies],' he said.
Several proposals for geoengineering
have been proposed, illustrated here,
But Dr Watson said resorting to these measures amounted to us
admitting we could no longer save the planet by managing our global emissions
- and meant we had failed to look after Earth
He stressed that without drastic cuts in greenhouse emissions, global warming wa
s on course to make the world 4C (7.2C) hotter by 2100.
'That's going to have a profound effect on the planet,' he added.
Professor Piers Forster from the University of Leeds, who has also investigated
climate engineering projects, said:
'Our research shows that the devil is in the detail. Geoengineering will be much
more expensive and challenging than previous estimates suggest and any benefits
would be limited.'
Professor Steve Rayner of Oxford University, who has researched the legal and et
hical ramifications of geoengineering, said:
'Mostly it is too soon to know what any of these technology ideas would look lik
e in practice or what would be their true cost and benefit. But it's almost cert
ain that geoengineering will be neither a magic bullet nor Pandora's Box.'
He said that each technology would have to be shown to be safe, effective and af
fordable before it was trialed - but added:
'They will probably be part of the tool box.'
'Unless we're very wrong about climate change or quickly change our ways,
at some point we're going to have to "go outside,"' added Dr Watson.
He stressed that without drastic cuts in greenhouse emissions
(stock image shown), global warming was on course
to make the world 4C (7.2F) hotter by 2100

Return to Global Warming - An Official Pseudoscience...