Lynn Woolsey's Blind Eye: The Congressional Geoengineering Hearings

Lynn Woolsey's Blind Eye: The Congressional Geoengineering Hearings

Dees Illustration

Peter A. Kirby
Activist Post

My federal representative in the House is a woman by the name of Lynn
Woolsey (D - CA 6th district). I sent her a written letter about
chemtrails a couple of years ago. She sent me a letter back telling me
that the lines in the sky are nothing more than ordinary jet contrails
and are comprised of 'ice-crystals.' I have since sent her other emails
and letters and she continues to send me back the same canned response.


Although she claims ignorance, she knows all about it. You see, Mrs.
Woolsey has been on the House of Representatives Science and Technology
Committee for many years. In late 2009 and early 2010, she, along with
all the other committee members, heard detailed congressional testimony
from top geoengineers. They called the hearings 'Geoengineering: Parts
I, II, and III.'

During the course of these hearings, stratospheric aerosols disbursed from aircraft are mentioned many, many times.

Most testifying geoengineers characterized the
practice as a cheap and effective way to mitigate global warming.
Geoengineer Lee Lane writes the best example:

<blockquote class="tr_bq">Several proposed delivery techniques may
be feasible (NAS, 1992). The choice of the delivery system may depend on
the intended purpose of the SRM [solar radiation management] program.
In one concept, SRM could be deployed primarily to cool the Arctic. With
an Arctic deployment, large cargo planes or aerial tankers would be an
adequate delivery system (Caldeira and Wood, pers. comm., 2009). A
global system would require particles to be injected at higher
altitudes. Fighter aircraft, or planes resembling them, seem like
plausible candidates. Another option entails combining fighter aircraft
and aerial tankers, and some thought has been given to balloons (Robock
et al., 2009).</blockquote>They even go so far as to give validity to my theory that our military
is using drones to do the spraying. In his response to a follow-up
question by Chairman Bart Gordon, geoengineer Alan Robock writes:
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Certainly
studies should be done of the feasibility of retrofitting existing U.S.
Air Force planes to inject sulfur gases into the stratosphere, as
described by Robock et al. [2009], as well as of developing new
vehicles, probably remotely-piloted, for routine delivery of sulfur
gases or production of aerosol particles.</blockquote>Mrs. Woolsey can
forget about denying knowledge of the word 'chemtrail.' During these
congressional hearings, the 'c' word is used twice. Former congressman
Brian Baird (D - WA 3rd district) said the word in context first, "And
so I applaud you all for suggesting that we are not going to have this—
to rescue us by, you know, chemtrails or whatever people want to
distribute into the air."

Chairman Baird used the word again when he jumped right into the conspiracies and said this: <blockquote class="tr_bq">I
will share with you, though, this idea of placing particles in the
upper atmosphere. Are any of you familiar with the conspiracy theory
known as chemtrails? Have you heard of this? It is a rather interesting
phenomenon. I was at a town hall and a person opined that the shape of
contrails was looking different than it used to, and why was that? I
gave my best understanding of atmospheric temperature and humidity and
whatnot, but the theory which is apparently pretty prevalent on the Net
is that the government is putting psychotropic drugs of some sort into
the jet fuel and that is causing a difference in appearance of jet fuel
and allowing them to secretly disseminate these foreign substances
through the atmosphere via our commercial jet airline fleet.</blockquote>You
thought it ended there, didn't you? Woolsey wishes it did. Have you
heard of the Manhattan Project? The Manhattan Project was a secret US
research and development project conducted largely from 1942-1946. It
produced the world's first atomic bombs and involved thousands of
people. Due to compartmentalization, the project remained secret. Is
geoengineering today's Manhattan Project? These geoengineering hearings
referenced the Manhattan Project three times. Geoengineer Philip
Rasch, in written testimony, provided the best example:

<blockquote class="tr_bq">In
my opinion before a nation (or the world) ever decided to deploy a full
scale geoengineering project to try to compensate for warming by
greenhouse gases it would require an enormous activity, equivalent to
that presently occurring within the modeling and assessment activities
associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
activity, or a Manhattan Project, or both. It would involve hundreds or
thousands of scientists and engineers and require the involvement of
politicians, ethicists, social scientists, and possibly the military.
These issues are outside of my area of expertise. Early 'back of the
envelope' calculations estimated costs of a few billion dollars per year
for full deployment of a stratospheric aerosol strategy (see for
example, Crutzen, (2006) or Robock et al (2009b)).</blockquote>Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas (D - FL 24th district) asked a good question: <blockquote class="tr_bq">Ms.
KOSMAS: ...So my remarks will be focused for the most part on the solar
radiation management, my remarks and questions. But I want to suggest
to my friend, Mr. Hall, that while you might think this is science
fiction, I was talking with my daughter yesterday who was telling me my
son, who is in China, was saying that they had a massive snowstorm
induced by the state of China or the nation of China. So do you not
believe that that happened? </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Dr. ROBOCK: I believe that the snowstorm happened, but I don’t think you can prove that they caused it. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Ms.
KOSMAS: Okay. All right. Well, maybe it is science fiction. I don’t
know. But it is interesting, and I suspect if they could, they would. </blockquote>Well, I guess we're just going to have to prove it, then.

This next excerpt is from the hearing's charter:
<blockquote class="tr_bq"> ...negative public perceptions of
geoengineering may also prove to be a powerful catalyst for emissions
reductions. A study by the British Market Research Bureau found that
while participants were cautious or hostile toward geoengineering,
'several agreed that they would actually be more motivated to undertake
mitigation actions themselves' after a large-scale geoengineering
application was suggested.</blockquote>They're suggesting that geoengineering could be used as a threat. Ask yourself . . . who are the terrorists?

Our congresspeople were repeatedly told about possible negative impacts
as well. Although geoengineers just about always come up short of
speaking to any human health effects, Dr. Alan Robock writes:
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Key challenges of geoengineering related to
the side effects on the climate system are that it could produce drought
in Asia and Africa, threatening the food and water supply for billions
of people, that it would not halt continued ocean acidification from
CO2, and that it would deplete ozone and increase dangerous ultraviolet
radiation. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Furthermore, the
reduction of direct solar radiation and the increase in diffuse
radiation would make the sky less blue and produce much less solar power
from systems using focused sunlight. Any system to inject particles or
their precursors into the stratosphere at the needed rate would have
large local environmental impacts.</blockquote>Nowhere in the course of these hearings did Mrs. Woolsey make any comments.

Although I do expect her to be tough enough to take it, I don't
particularly enjoy attacking Mrs. Woolsey. She works with many local
activists. She voted 'no' on both the Patriot Act and the National
Defense Authorization Act; and if I looked further into her voting
record, I am confident I would find other commendable actions. I
understand that she basically pulled herself up by her own bootstraps.
She seems like a nice enough woman. I bet she would defend my right to
criticize her. I'm just shaking her cage. I want service over here!

The problem is that, when it comes to chemtrails, she is not doing what
she should. If she's intelligent and dedicated enough to do all these
other good things, then why does she not put two and two together,
realize that we are being sprayed and do something about it? There is
no greater threat to the people of her jurisdiction. Because the
chemtrail spraying planes cross over state boundaries, this is a federal
issue. Mrs. Woolsey is my most direct federal representative. We need
her to stand up and say 'no.' But, being that she is a lame duck (she
announced her retirement in June of last year), she's probably going to
just dodge this issue and ride out impotently.

Mrs. Woolsey, if you are reading this, as soon as you stand up
resolutely and consistently against chemtrails and geoengineering, I
will stop attacking you and begin recognizing you properly as I have
done here with other politicians. Until then, as long as you occupy the
office, you are my number one target.

Source:-
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/08/lynn-woolseys-blind-eye-congressional.html#more