DID DR.STRANGELOVE, ED TELLER, TRY TO TELL US THE TRUTH [about chemtrails] 10 YEARS AGO?

March 8, 2007

DID "DR.STRANGELOVE", ED TELLER, TRY TO TELL US THE TRUTH 10 YEARS AGO? *PIC* http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=98769

Posted By: FarSight3 <Send E-Mail>Tuesday, 30 January 2007, 4:22 a.m. In Response US URGES SCIENTISTS TO BLOCK OUT SUN..... (WindSong)

"THE US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming"? Why? They have it going for a long time, already! My question would be further - why now? Could this be a "hint" for trying to camouflage what's in action for more than 10 years already? Or a kind of "preparation" for the public? We discussed that topic some days ago! See...

US ANSWER TO GLOBAL WARMING: SMOKE (CHEMTRAILS) AND GIANT SPACE MIRRORS *PIC* IZAKOVIC -- Saturday, 27 January 2007, 2:13 a.m.

....I got manyfold responses on that. Thanks to all those readers! One good page for looking after the topics of Chemtrails is www.carnicom.com - lot's of fine research! But there's another, much more "telling" thread, that might tell us much more on the topic! As it was provided by one of the most brilliant "insiders" whom many ptbs may have listened to. See, what the "father of the Bomb", the Hungarian scientist Edward Teller, proposed in public in 1997:

ENVIRONMENT: Sunscreen for Planet Earth By Edward Teller Global warming is too serious to be left to the politicians. Hoover fellow Edward Teller suggests a scientific solution to the problem. (If there is a problem, that is.) Society's emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming--the jury is still out. As a scientist, I must stand silent on this issue until it's resolved scientifically. As a citizen, however, I can tell you that I'm entertained by the high political theater that the nation's politicians have engaged in over the last few months. It's wonderful to think that the world is so very wealthy that a single nation--America--can consider spending $100 billion or so each year to address a problem that may not exist--and that, if it does exist, certainly has unknown dimensions. This is especially dramatic given that contemporary technology offers considerably more-realistic options for addressing It's wonderful to think that the world is so very wealthy that a single nation -- America -- can consider spending $100 billion a year on a problem that may not exist. any global warming effect than politicians and environmental activists are considering. Some of these may be far less burdensome than even a system of market-allocated emissions permits. One particularly attractive approach involves diminishing slightly--by about 1 percent--the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface in order to counteract any warming effect of greenhouse gases. This is not a new concept and certainly not a complex one. Nature does this routinely: In 1991, the large Philippine volcano Mount Pinatubo threw myriad fine particles into the upper atmosphere, where they scattered small fractions of the sun's light and heat back into space. We already know that the eruption of Mexico's El Chichon a decade earlier induced cooling in the Northern Hemisphere by about one-quarter as much as the average prediction of the global warming expected by 2100 (assuming no politically imposed limits on emissions). In 1979, physicist Freeman Dyson, in his characteristically prescient manner, proposed the deliberate, large-scale introduction of such fine particles into the upper atmosphere to offset global warming, which he thought even then would eventually become a human concern. Some of my colleagues and I have recently surveyed the current technological prospects for such an introduction. We estimated the costs involved and presented our results last August at the Twenty-second International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies. The most expensive such "geoengineering" option appears to be the one long ago proposed by Mr. Dyson, which may cost as much as $1 billion a year. More technologically advanced options along the same lines might cost $100 million. That's between 0.1 and 1.0 percent of the $100 billion a year it is estimated would be required to price-ration fossil fuel usage back down to 1990 levels in the United States alone...

Full article at Hoover Institution, reprinted from the Wall Street Journal, October 17, 1997, from an article titled "The Planet Needs a Sunscreen." Now, in 1997 Edward Teller and Lowell Wood, both from the think tank of the Hoover Institution/Stanford University, seemed to have opened a "can of worms" when they held that presentation at the International Seminar On Planetary Emergencies, in Erice/Italy, which took place from August 20 to 23: "Global Warming and Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Change". Teller died with 95 in 2003 and it's quite possible that he wanted to blow a whistle - perhaps for compensating some of his work - which was usurpated and used in ways he never wanted to. So perhaps it's high time we should rename Dr.Teller from Kubrick's "Dr.Strangelove" to TRUTH-TELLER... Far Sight 3

Bio of Dr.Teller (1908-2003)

Got some ideas you'd like to add to this line of thinking? If so... Register to post at Bring 'em On! - then

March 13, 2007

Well, I just got an idea while reading the article, an idea to block out sunlight. Why not stimulate earthquakes and volcanoes, like with the kind of electromagnetic energies that HAARP can produce, to occur. That will put lots of dust in the air, without poisoning us with chemicals. Or, the US could go to Pinatubo and either drill a hole, and put a nuclear weapon in it, or just drop one into the crater and set it off. Obviously the underground explosion has less radiation leakage. The US could probably thus stimulate dust clouds all over the world (course the US is stimulating dust clouds in Iraq now) and cause a blocking of the sun.

And, hey, they ain't doing anything with all those bombs anyways, so they could use the ones already made, without spending any more tax money.

Course, Americans wouldn't want these things going off in our back yard, but again, old Russia, elements in Japan, possibly Israel as well, have access to weapons like HAARP. Not too many other countries do. So, we would want to be careful about "whose" jurisdiction would be chosen to "stimulate." And perhaps someone else would end up stimulating some spots in America, so that we could have some cloud cover as well. But don't do Israel, as that is their land forever and they wouldn't have anywhere else to go.

I'm sure that this is the solution. And if it didn't work, we might be rid of the nuclear weapons. And if everyone went nuts over it, we'd lower the population problem too, thus reducing consumption.

Nuts, I must be.

Ed