Project Censored #19: “Most Comprehensive” Assessment of Geoengineering Risks


By Elora West, Rob Williams, &Ian Baldwin | *


Editor’s Note: While there will come a day when we will reach a critical mass of people believing that geoengineering/chemtrails have been falling upon us for years as a grand, but deadly, experiment in biological and biochemical warfare upon citizens by their elected (but not truly “representative”) leaders. In the meantime, the media played make-believe in 2014 and 2015 and put “geoengineering” out as a potential tool to fight global warming. This article talks about the short-shrift given to the stories that shot this down as a bad idea.

A comprehensive pair of reports by dozens of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) offered “a damning critique of geoengineering,” according to Tim McDonnell of Mother Jones. Highly controversial, geoengineering refers to technological efforts to counteract global warming by altering the atmosphere’s chemical composition.

The first of the two NAS reports found that most proposals to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere—through processes such as fertilizing the ocean with iron to dissolve carbon dioxide—are too expensive to be widely implemented.76 However, as Robinson Meyer reported in Atlantic, a February 2015 University of Oxford study found that reforestation—planting trees—is among the “most promising” short-term responses to climate change.

The Academy’s second report evaluated proposals to seed the atmosphere with particles to reflect sunlight back into space, a process known as albedo modification. According to the NAS study, albedo modification is inexpensive, compared with carbon dixode removal proposals, but involves unknown risks. Implementing technologies to block solar radiation would entail “significant potential for unanticipated, unmanageable, and regrettable consequences in multiple human dimensions . . . including political, social, legal, economic, and ethical dimensions,” according to the authors of the NAS study.

[Read more here]

Originally entitled: “#19 ‘Most Comprehensive' Assessment Yet Warns against Geoengineering Risks”


Tim McDonnell, “Scientists Are Pretty Terrified about These Last-Minute Fixes to Global Warming,” Mother Jones, February 10, 2015,

Robinson Meyer, “The Best Technology for Fighting Climate Change? Trees,” Atlantic, February 9, 2015,

Jeremy Schulman, “We Could Stop Global Warming With This Fix—But It’s Probably a Terrible Idea,” Mother Jones, March 27, 2015,


Robert O'Leary 150x150Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products and modalities since the early 1970’s, and he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist and father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive and safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield (MA), New England and “virtually” the world, through his new website, He can also be reached at

Tags: , , , , , ,


If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on YouTube

1 Reader Comment

Trackback URL Comments RSS Feed

  1.' Terry Carlsen says:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the articles on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use' must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.
Send this to a friend