Briefly:
In Depth:
The claim that the UN says "the world won't cool without chemtrails" comes from this Daily Sheeple article by Melissa Melton, repeated in Before It's News
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/un-the-world-wont-cool-without-chemtrails_092013
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/09/un-the-world-wont-cool-without-chemtrails-2776026.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article...geoengineering-warns-report.html#.UkRoS2RwrMQ
The mistake that Melton makes here is that the geoengineering referred to in the article is carbon removal, not Solar Radiation Management (SRM - blocking the sun in some way). When they say "except if net anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period", they simply mean that we need to remove more CO2 than we add.
Nothing at all is mentioned about spraying things from planes, and it actually does matter if you buy that Hummer, because the entire argument here is about reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which we have to do be reducing carbon emissions, and possibly by actually removing CO2 as well.
And this quote:
It's so obviously wrong, one can only concluded that Melissa Melton has deliberately created an inflammatory headline to drive traffic to her site - which is filled with the usual array of fear-based ads.
Lastly, even if this was about SRM (which it is not), why would an article about doing SRM in the future indicate in any way that we are doing SRM now?
- The UN IPCC Report did not say "the world won't cool without chemtrails"
- It said: the world won't cool "except if net anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period."
- That means we would have to remove CO2 from the air.
- Some people consider that a form of geoengineering but it's nothing like Solar Radiation Management (SRM), which is what people are referring to when they talk about "chemtrails" for geoenginering.
- All the mentions of SRM in the IPCC report are about possible future use.
In Depth:
The claim that the UN says "the world won't cool without chemtrails" comes from this Daily Sheeple article by Melissa Melton, repeated in Before It's News
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/un-the-world-wont-cool-without-chemtrails_092013
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/09/un-the-world-wont-cool-without-chemtrails-2776026.html
The actual New Scientist Article is at:UN: ‘The World Won’t Cool Without Chemtrails’
Melissa Melton
The Daily Sheeple
September 26th, 2013
According to the latest United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate assessment, “Global warming is irreversible without massive geoengineering of the atmosphere’s chemistry.”
The New Scientist reports:
According to one of its lead authors, and the latest draft seen by New Scientist, the report will say: “CO2-induced warming is projected to remain approximately constant for many centuries following a complete cessation of emission. A large fraction of climate change is thus irreversible on a human timescale, except if net anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period.”
In other words, even if all the world ran on carbon-free energy and deforestation ceased, the only way of lowering temperatures would be to devise a scheme for sucking hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
So all this time we have been told we have to change human behavior to fix climate change, but now we are being told they have to geoengineer the planet no matter what. (Might as well go buy that Hummer you’ve had your eye on and eat a few more steaks while you’re at it, because apparently it won’t matter either way.)
http://www.newscientist.com/article...geoengineering-warns-report.html#.UkRoS2RwrMQ
The mistake that Melton makes here is that the geoengineering referred to in the article is carbon removal, not Solar Radiation Management (SRM - blocking the sun in some way). When they say "except if net anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period", they simply mean that we need to remove more CO2 than we add.
Nothing at all is mentioned about spraying things from planes, and it actually does matter if you buy that Hummer, because the entire argument here is about reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which we have to do be reducing carbon emissions, and possibly by actually removing CO2 as well.
And this quote:
Is a quote from Fred Pearce of New Scientist, not from the IPCC.According to the latest United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate assessment, “Global warming is irreversible without massive geoengineering of the atmosphere’s chemistry.”
It's so obviously wrong, one can only concluded that Melissa Melton has deliberately created an inflammatory headline to drive traffic to her site - which is filled with the usual array of fear-based ads.
Lastly, even if this was about SRM (which it is not), why would an article about doing SRM in the future indicate in any way that we are doing SRM now?
Last edited: