NASA

MUST HEAR — NASA admits chemtrails – 10 July 2013

http://potentnews.com/2013/07/18/nasa-admits-chemtrails-10-july-2013/

or http://youtu.be/3Z2iRormxkw

related excerpt from NASA website featuringdemonization of carbon:

"Geoengineering is not a cure. At best, it’s a Band-Aid or tourniquet; at worst, it could be a self-inflicted wound.

By itself, hacking the climate system won’t fix the way society manages the planet, and in fact it can de-incentivize [effective management]. If geoengineering is perceived as a “silver bullet” that offers the illusion of consequence-free carbon pollution, then there’s no incentive to control emissions that are the root cause of the problem. Even if geoengineering could be made to work safely, we would have to continuously ramp it up to keep pace with accelerating emissions – and that’s not sustainable. 

The climate has a lot of inertia; once it starts moving in a certain direction it may be difficult to stop. The carbon we are pumping into the atmosphere today is essentially permanent; natural processes take thousands of years to remove it. There may also be irreversible “tipping points” – cliffs, or points of no return – that could cause dramatic, abrupt climate changes like shifts in ocean circulation or irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

Generally, we don’t understand the risks of geoengineering well. Engineering the planet could make things worse, and it could cause serious social and political issues. All of these things suggest to me that geoengineering should be seen as a highly uncertain insurance policy or emergency response, not a solution."

"...We’re focused on improving our understanding of how the Earth system works, not on doing actual geoengineering. Other groups are addressing questions like: What’s the most efficient way to do cloud seeding? How could you inject aerosols into the stratosphere?

At JPL, we’re interested in working out how key climate processes are connected and how we can use satellite observations to provide policymakers with better information they can use to make objective decisions about geoengineering.

Equally important, we want to identify where limits in observations and scientific understanding preclude reliable assessments of the impact of geoengineering. Understanding the uncertainty is essential."

source: http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1066/

Geoengineering: Why or Why Not?

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_robockfeature.html