Lynn Woolseys Blind Eye: The Congressional Geoengineering HearingsPeter A. Kirby Although she claims ignorance, she knows all about it. You see, Mrs. Woolsey has been on the House of Representatives Science and Technology Committee for many years. In late 2009 and early 2010, she, along with all the other committee members, heard detailed congressional testimony from top geoengineers. They called the hearings Geoengineering: Parts I, II, and III. During the course of these hearings, stratospheric aerosols disbursed from aircraft are mentioned many, many times. Several proposed delivery techniques may be feasible (NAS, 1992). The choice of the delivery system may depend on the intended purpose of the SRM [solar radiation management] program. In one concept, SRM could be deployed primarily to cool the Arctic. With an Arctic deployment, large cargo planes or aerial tankers would be an adequate delivery system (Caldeira and Wood, pers. comm., 2009). A global system would require particles to be injected at higher altitudes. Fighter aircraft, or planes resembling them, seem like plausible candidates. Another option entails combining fighter aircraft and aerial tankers, and some thought has been given to balloons (Robock et al., 2009). Certainly studies should be done of the feasibility of retrofitting existing U.S. Air Force planes to inject sulfur gases into the stratosphere, as described by Robock et al. [2009], as well as of developing new vehicles, probably remotely-piloted, for routine delivery of sulfur gases or production of aerosol particles. Mrs. Woolsey can forget about denying knowledge of the word chemtrail. During these congressional hearings, the c word is used twice. Former congressman Brian Baird (D WA 3rd district) said the word in context first, And so I applaud you all for suggesting that we are not going to have this to rescue us by, you know, chemtrails or whatever people want to distribute into the air. Chairman Baird used the word again when he jumped right into the conspiracies and said this: I will share with you, though, this idea of placing particles in the upper atmosphere. Are any of you familiar with the conspiracy theory known as chemtrails? Have you heard of this? It is a rather interesting phenomenon. I was at a town hall and a person opined that the shape of contrails was looking different than it used to, and why was that? I gave my best understanding of atmospheric temperature and humidity and whatnot, but the theory which is apparently pretty prevalent on the Net is that the government is putting psychotropic drugs of some sort into the jet fuel and that is causing a difference in appearance of jet fuel and allowing them to secretly disseminate these foreign substances through the atmosphere via our commercial jet airline fleet. You thought it ended there, didnt you? Woolsey wishes it did. Have you heard of the Manhattan Project? The Manhattan Project was a secret US research and development project conducted largely from 1942-1946. It produced the worlds first atomic bombs and involved thousands of people. Due to compartmentalization, the project remained secret. Is geoengineering todays Manhattan Project? These geoengineering hearings referenced the Manhattan Project three times. Geoengineer Philip Rasch, in written testimony, provided the best example: In my opinion before a nation (or the world) ever decided to deploy a full scale geoengineering project to try to compensate for warming by greenhouse gases it would require an enormous activity, equivalent to that presently occurring within the modeling and assessment activities associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) activity, or a Manhattan Project, or both. It would involve hundreds or thousands of scientists and engineers and require the involvement of politicians, ethicists, social scientists, and possibly the military. These issues are outside of my area of expertise. Early back of the envelope calculations estimated costs of a few billion dollars per year for full deployment of a stratospheric aerosol strategy (see for example, Crutzen, (2006) or Robock et al (2009b)). Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas (D FL 24th district) asked a good question: Ms. KOSMAS: So my remarks will be focused for the most part on the solar radiation management, my remarks and questions. But I want to suggest to my friend, Mr. Hall, that while you might think this is science fiction, I was talking with my daughter yesterday who was telling me my son, who is in China, was saying that they had a massive snowstorm induced by the state of China or the nation of China. So do you not believe that that happened? Dr. ROBOCK: I believe that the snowstorm happened, but I dont think you can prove that they caused it. Ms. KOSMAS: Okay. All right. Well, maybe it is science fiction. I dont know. But it is interesting, and I suspect if they could, they would. Well, I guess were just going to have to prove it, then. This next excerpt is from the hearings charter: negative public perceptions of geoengineering may also prove to be a powerful catalyst for emissions reductions. A study by the British Market Research Bureau found that while participants were cautious or hostile toward geoengineering, several agreed that they would actually be more motivated to undertake mitigation actions themselves after a large-scale geoengineering application was suggested. Theyre suggesting that geoengineering could be used as a threat. Ask yourself . . . who are the terrorists? Our congresspeople were repeatedly told about possible negative impacts as well. Although geoengineers just about always come up short of speaking to any human health effects, Dr. Alan Robock writes: Key challenges of geoengineering related to the side effects on the climate system are that it could produce drought in Asia and Africa, threatening the food and water supply for billions of people, that it would not halt continued ocean acidification from CO2, and that it would deplete ozone and increase dangerous ultraviolet radiation. Furthermore, the reduction of direct solar radiation and the increase in diffuse radiation would make the sky less blue and produce much less solar power from systems using focused sunlight. Any system to inject particles or their precursors into the stratosphere at the needed rate would have large local environmental impacts. Nowhere in the course of these hearings did Mrs. Woolsey make any comments. The problem is that, when it comes to chemtrails, she is not doing what she should. If shes intelligent and dedicated enough to do all these other good things, then why does she not put two and two together, realize that we are being sprayed and do something about it? There is no greater threat to the people of her jurisdiction. Because the chemtrail spraying planes cross over state boundaries, this is a federal issue. Mrs. Woolsey is my most direct federal representative. We need her to stand up and say no. But, being that she is a lame duck (she announced her retirement in June of last year), shes probably going to just dodge this issue and ride out impotently. Mrs. Woolsey, if you are reading this, as soon as you stand up resolutely and consistently against chemtrails and geoengineering, I will stop attacking you and begin recognizing you properly as I have done here with other politicians. Until then, as long as you occupy the office, you are my number one target. Note: Website: Peter A. Kirby is a San Rafael, CA author and activist. Check out his ebook Chemtrails Exposed. http://www.amazon.com/Chemtrails-Exposed-ebook/dp/B007JDN7EM/ref=sr_1_4?s=digital-textie=UTF8qid=1331588967sr=1-4 You can support this information on Reddit HERE linkwithin_text=Related Articles: 