In light of the recent announcement by the White House that the Biden administration will be moving forward to fund and coordinate Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), it’s important that the public fully understand the criminality of these activities and reject these environmental warfare programs. Legitimate government requires the consent of the governed. Without informed public consent, such radical interventions qualify as assault and warfare.
In a 2013 debate on the topic, Harvard professor David Keith stated, “This is a really important moral point. So if I made a decision or if there was a collective decision to do a geoengineering program, and you put say, the kind of program I think that makes more sense is what about a million tons a year [of sulfur dioxide], let’s say, you might end up killing many tens of thousands of people a year as a direct result of that decision…”
In spite of false claims that these programs are new, the fact is, that every U.S. administration since President Johnson has pursued cloud-seeding and other forms of weather and climate modification. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is the world’s leader in orchestrating these destructive atmospheric activities, with 193 nations participating. The programs operate outside legitimate Constitutional governance.
Over 70 years of deliberate intervention in the Earth’s weather is causing significant damage and weather extremes.
It’s time to ban Geoengineering and other harmful atmospheric polluting activities. To learn more about advocating for a ban on Geoengineering and other atmospheric hazards, please email: firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com.
August 7, 2013 Geoengineering Debate MIT
Speakers: Oliver Morton, Alan Robock, Daniel Schrag, David Keith, and Stephen Gardiner
“This is a really important moral point. So if I made a decision or if there was a collective decision to do a geoengineering program, and you put say, the kind of program I think that makes more sense is what about a million tons a year, let’s say, you might end up killing many tens of thousands of people a year as a direct result of that decision. I think that has moral consequences, I don’t sweep that under the rug. This is a case where I take this much differently from Alan and think it’s a much more serious issue. Now, it’s true that part of doing that, you would hope that the overall benefits of human mortality would be so that you would save many many more people than that. But the fact that you uh, would save more people than you kill, doesn’t mean there’s no moral impact (laughs) of making a decision that directly kills people. And I think that we who talk about this have a duty to be clear-eyed about the direct risks involved in doing it.” -David Keith @ 1:10:15
Image Source_Youtube Screenshot