Home / TECHNOLOGY / ENVIRONMENT / BOOK REVIEW: “How to Cool the Planet” by Jeff Goodell

BOOK REVIEW: “How to Cool the Planet” by Jeff Goodell

By Peter A. Kirby

I customarily negligence the other side’s propaganda. All their articulate points, discussions, hearings, reports, videos, movies, presentations, articles, papers, and books all volume to a bubbling raise of Central Intelligence Agency equine manure. All they ever do is repackage the same old crap and sell it like it’s some insubordinate breakthrough. They wish people like me to rubbish my time debunking it. That’s given we customarily don’t. They wish us on defense; so we customarily go on offense and go about entertainment court-admissible evidence.

In this case we will make a slight exception. This is a slight difference rather than a full one given this essay does not include wholly of refuting the other side’s assertions. This is given the element in doubt has also suggested critical new pieces to the chemtrails and geoengineering nonplus of a poignant basis, so that information is presented here as well. As to the correctness of those facts, we’re just going to have to trust Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (the book’s publisher) and the American sequence of law.

In 2010, Rolling Stone contributing editor Jeff Goodell wrote a book patrician How to Cool the Planet: Geoengineering and the Audacious Quest to Fix Earth’s Climate. Akin to the 1942 film Flying Tigers, it is a complicated masterpiece of promotion designed to serve an investiture agenda. While Flying Tigers was designed to legitimize the appearance of the United States in unfamiliar wars, How to Cool the Planet is designed to sell Solar Radiation Management (SRM) geoengineering; differently famous as the fight against Mother Nature and the health. The book is high in prolongation quality, but it is low in journalistic firmness and social value; like what they tell in Rolling Stone.

Now we know a good reason given Rolling Stone repository sucks so much; aside from the passionate bungle allegations against the publisher Wenner. we mean, how many times are they going to have the brain-damaged zombie Johnny Depp or Madonna or some other washed-up luminary on the cover? They seem to be stuck in the universe of 20 or 30 years ago. No, this examination is not going to be kind.

1

In this essay we will inspect Goodell’s unusual citation not only to destroy his youthful arguments and assertions. We will also inspect the essential pieces of justification his work leaves behind. In the march of his whitewashing, Goodell provides us with engaging sum of the personal backgrounds of 3 of the many famous geoengineers: David Keith, Ken Caldeira, and Lowell Wood. Goodell also provides us with new leads as he drops name after name.

If you wish to know the credentials of my investigate in these matters, then greatfully check out my book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project.

A dumbed-down, whitewashed, misguided, and wrongheaded chronicle of a geoengineering exposé

An swap pretension to this book competence be “How to Cool the Planet: A dumbed-down, whitewashed, misguided, and wrongheaded chronicle of a geoengineering exposé.” Goodell has swallowed the establishment’s attract here hook, line, and sinker and he proudly regurgitates it all over his readers. He’s no swindling theorist!

First of all, Goodell is a righteous member of the cult of synthetic global warming. He wrote another book called The Water Will Come which, of course, blathers on and on about some future inauspicious sea-level arise due to man’s CO emissions; disaster porn, basically. Never mind that alarmists have been presaging this for many decades to no avail. And you can also forget the fact that meridian alarmists back in the 1970s and 1980s pronounced we’d be solidified plain by now, but, back to the book review. Throughout How to Cool the Planet Goodell professes his belief. Hardcore cultists like him trust that zero is worse than a slight boost in the Earth’s normal global heat and avoiding that is an comprehensive indispensable which must be achieved at all costs. This is given he believes that spraying the Earth annually with tens of thousands of tons of sulphuric poison competence be a good idea.

The geoengineering bulletin is a lot like the master theme of the Catholic Church. Isn’t that interesting? While geoengineers contend that for us to get better we must compensate them to mist us (a pay-to-spray scheme if you will), the Catholic Church says that for people to spin better, they must make sacrifices to the church. This is equivalent to Monsanto revelation us that we will be better off using their products. This is the same Catholic Church that pronounced that they KNEW that the Earth was prosaic and they KILLED PEOPLE who asserted otherwise. This is given now we have the global warming fear monger Pope Francis waddling around, muttering things about meridian change and ‘fake news.’ But bad Jeff just falls for it every time.

Maybe someone should tell Mr. Goodell that reporting that man’s CO emissions are bad is the same as observant that man himself is bad given man INHERENTLY emits carbon. It’s called breathing. When one pairs that with all the establishment’s calls for depopulation, one can see where all this is going. But Jeff, even nonetheless he creates the big bucks as a contributing editor at Rolling Stone, can’t seem to put two and two together and find the story. He’d rather just go with what his crony David Keith and the other gods of this universe tell him. He knows how to make the big bucks.

I’ve got news for you Jeff; CO dioxide is good for the Earth. Plants breathe it and spin it into what we breathe; oxygen. we know your crony David Keith wants to spend billions of taxpayer dollars production and planting feign trees that do the same thing as healthy trees down here in the troposphere, but we find that somewhat unnecessary. Unnecessary, that is, unless the sourroundings has spin so infested with chemtrail mist that it can no longer means healthy trees. But again, Jeff, you destroy to acknowledge reality and you destroy to ask the question. You just keep repeating CIA articulate points. Basically, Jeff, you fail.

Another article, or for that matter an whole book, could be created about debunking the CIA’s speculation of synthetic global warming and many books have been. I’ve covered it mixed times. Maybe I’ll write a book about it someday, too. But for now, we will stop there and continue going about ripping the rest of Goodell’s book to shreds.

It’s engaging how Goodell’s prior book Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America’s Energy Future is about the spark industry. He wrote about coal-fired electrical appetite plants. This is poignant for many reasons, the many critical being that today’s common chemtrail mist has been identified as spark fly ash; a byproduct of coal-fired electrical appetite plants. we wrote about that last year in my essay “Chemtrails Exposed: Coal Fly Ash and the New Manhattan Project.”

There are a few passages in the book that play like a horror movie. The reader is left almost yelling at Jeff to spin around, or to not go into the basement. Here David Keith reveals the process when he says, hypothetically speaking of course:

Maybe we can figure out a way to operative the food supplies, the celebration water supplies, even the climate. But we still developed – the smarts developed – in the healthy world. And preserving a couple to that universe is critical – not just for me personally, but also as a incomparable anchor for the society, even as we gradually operative a social sequence that mostly is cut off from nature.

So many times Goodell hints at the genuine story here but doesn’t deliver:

He writes of a ‘Cold War-style military-industrial-climate complex.’ we couldn’t have put it better myself, but his difference are not substantiated.

He writes about the 1996 Air Force report “Owning the Weather in 2025” but only prolonged adequate to contend that it was of little consequence… when it was of outrageous consequence.

He writes about Project Popeye and the U.S. military’s cloud seeding activities during the Vietnam War but says they weren’t effective… when they were.

He writes about Svante Arrhenius and the story of the speculation of synthetic global warming, but fails to note how Arrhenius’ work has been weaponized and popularized in sequence to impel by investiture agendas.

He writes about John von Neumann’s geoengineering work, but not about how von Neumann wrote the beginning published discuss of the Solar Radiation Management (SRM) geoengineering thesis.

He writes about weather alteration story and mythology but doesn’t show how these ancient motivations are the same motivations for what is called SRM geoengineering today; not some synthetic enterprise to ‘cool the planet.’

He links complicated windy displaying to the growth of nuclear fallout settlement charting and Lawrence Livermore National Labs, but fails to note that Lawrence Livermore National Labs is the many illusive plcae of the New Manhattan Project’s Command Base 1.

He mentions the 1965 report “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment,” but fails to note the loyal stress of this document.

He mentions the name Bernard Vonnegut once, then soon forgets about him nonetheless Vonnegut’s work here has been key.

He writes that the best distance of an SRM geoengineering molecule has been found to be about one tenth of a micron, but fails to note how one tenth of a micron (100 nanometers) is the same molecule distance indispensable for best nucleation. If the SRM geoengineering particles are ostensible to simulate sunlight, how is it that their best molecule distance just happens to be the same as that of particles meant to nucleate and change precipitation? Maybe it’s given the particles aren’t really meant to simulate object at all. Also it is critical to note the intensely tiny distance of these particles given the smaller the particle, the some-more dangerous it is to Human health. But many readers of Jeff’s book will substantially never consider these things given Jeff doesn’t have the credentials of believe to write about them and he doesn’t ask the question.

Repeatedly, when he goes over the reasons given someone competence be against to SRM geoengineering, Goodell leaves out the many apparent reason. He says that it competence be too complex. He says that it competence change global flood patterns. He says that it competence make the sky demeanour funny. He says it competence confuse us from reaching the CO emissions rebate goals. Just like every other investiture penetrate that has covered the issue, he totally neglects to discuss any intensity BIOLOGICAL ISSUES.

In a couple of instances, he is just flat-out wrong. Goodell writes, “the eruption of the atomic explosve represented a kind of victory. For the first time, humans had acquired a appetite that was larger than any thunderstorm, hurricane, tornado, or earthquake.” His favourite Teller could have told him that an average-sized charge packs much some-more appetite than any singular atomic weapon. Teller finished the comparison many times. Later on he writes that General Electric and Irving Langmuir worked on cloud seeding during World War II, when in fact this work was finished after World War II.

He mentions the chemtrail swindling a couple of times. He writes that what the ‘chemmies’ claim as now holding place is not happening and that anyone who says differently doesn’t know what they are articulate about. He after paints the anti-geoengineering transformation as a ‘whole goofy fringe.’

He drools over Bill Gates and Google. Bill Gates, given of his geoengineering ‘philanthropy,’ is embellished here as some form of messianic hero. Goodell also looks really cold when he drops the names and writes about the work of famous meridian personalities like: Paul Crutzen, James Lovelock, Alan Robock, Stephen Salter, John Latham, Michael Wickett, John Holdren, and Phil Rasch.

The Christian Science Monitor called Goodell’s book an ‘enjoyable read.’ we theory they find spraying the Earth and all of its biota with tens of thousands of tons of poisonous materials annually an fortifying topic. It only interests me given I’m attempting to urge myself. The people at the Christian Science Monitor apparently enjoy reading about this stuff; like spraying all and everybody (including themselves) with megatons of poisonous crap is fun or something. we find that very odd. This is the same Christian Science Monitor that in 2015 published an essay comparing me to some cop-killing ‘domestic terrorists.’ we have no rapist record and zero but honour for law enforcement, but never mind that. The Christian Science Monitor just goes forward and publishes some semi-defamatory garbage, making me demeanour bad before weak-minded people. It creates me demeanour good with my core assembly of strong-minded individuals, but many importantly it demonstrates that Jeff’s friends are what many people would call enemies.

The Christian Science Monitor rearing its conduct here regularly speaks to a specific organisation of people attempting to control the chemtrails and geoengineering account as it appears in the media; in other words, the shills. Jeff wouldn’t be sitting at or nearby the top of a hierarchy of disinformation agents, now would he? If he is, we gamble that I’ve battled him online many times possibly directly or indirectly. In fact, it is my opinion that famous geoengineers Ken Caldeira and David Keith are substantially two of the many distinguished online comments sections shills; under opposite names, of course. It’s their pursuit to sell the project. CIA all the way, baby! But, just don’t tell anybody, OK?

Diamonds in the rough

Despite all his faults and travails, Jeff has actually finished us all a preference here. In the ongoing bid to display chemtrails, How to Cool the Planet affords us some very engaging new evidence.

Goodell left me copiousness of names to be investigated further: Steven Koonin, Ted Parson, David Victor, Nathan Myhrvold, Richard Tol, Tom Wigley, Larry Summers, Daniel Schrag, David Victor, Scott Barrett, Gregory Benford, Michael MacCracken, The Climate Institute, the Energy Modeling Forum, and the Economic and Social Research Institute.

Even nonetheless we hadn’t formerly deliberate him very much at all, Virgin Airlines owners Richard Branson is mentioned in the book FIVE apart times. Now Branson is unexpected on my radar screen. According to the Wall Street Journal, Branson is quoted as saying, “If we could come up with a geoengineering answer to [global warming], then Copenhagen wouldn’t be necessary. We could lift on drifting the planes and pulling the cars.”

Most considerable here are the personal backgrounds of the world’s two many famous geoengineers: David Keith and Ken Caldeira. They are the excellent the author has nonetheless seen. Also, Goodell’s information about the secretive Lowell Wood is of interest. Hey, I’ll give credit where it’s due. Goodell got extensive interviews with all three.

First, Goodell writes about his BFF David Keith. Goodell writes of Keith operative early on with famous physicists like Paul Corkum and David Pritchard. The book describes Keith’s other early work at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), which, of course, has so many connectors to the New Manhattan Project. The book also speaks to Keith’s early work in CO confiscation at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). The name Carnegie is very critical to the New Manhattan Project as well. Not prolonged after Keith’s attainment at CMU, his first geoengineering paper was published patrician “A Serious Look at Geoengineering.” Keith’s paper was published at about the same time as a big National Academy of Sciences geoengineering report, which helped him benefit bearing and recognition.

Complimenting his comments remarkable earlier, Keith considers geoengineering a permanent, forgone conclusion. He says:

It’s not the finish of inlet – but it is the finish of wildness – or at slightest the suspicion of wildness. It means consciously revelation we’re vital on a managed planet. It may be that geoengineering can help save the Arctic. But it won’t be the same Arctic we have today. It will be a museum piece, a place for the elites to go someday and remember what the genuine Arctic used to be like. The fact is, either we wish to acknowledge it or not, we’re vital in a zoo. And we’re both the animals and the zookeepers now.

Coming from David Keith, this things is really not all that surprising. This is the man who is famous for describing SRM geoengineering as, “not really a dignified hazard. It’s some-more like free-riding on the grandkids.”

Next, Goodell gives us a good credentials of the omnipresent, but somehow puzzling Ken Caldeira. Goodell gives us discernment into the man as he writes, “Caldeira had taken a nomadic lane into science, majoring in truth as an undergrad at Rutgers University, then operative for a few years as a mechanism programmer at a big Wall Street organisation before leaving to write module to lane insider trade on the New York Stock Exchange.” Before he finished his PhD at New York University, Caldeira had an windy sciences paper published in Nature; substantially the many prestigious systematic biography in the world.

Goodell writes that Caldeira, “was a distinguished anti-nuke romantic back in the 1980s, plays drum in a stone band, is married to a tall, glamorous Russian woman, and commutes to his bureau on a Vespa scooter.” Goodell writes that in 1990 Caldeira was a ‘quasi-socialist’ going on a 5 month outing to the Soviet Union as partial of a systematic sell program. In St. Petersburg, Russia, Caldeira worked under the famous pioneering geoengineer and windy modeler Mikhail Budyko.

Caldeira did postdoc work at Pennsylvania State University. Pennsylvania State University constructed the first ionospheric heater way back in 1966. Today, ionospheric heaters yield the New Manhattan Project’s weather modifying electromagnetic energy.

Caldeira started operative on computerized windy models at Lawrence Livermore Labs right about when the large-scale domestic spraying began in 1995.

Like Keith, Caldeira also talks about geoengineering as a forgone conclusion. He thinks that the people are too diseased to stop it. Goodell translates Caldeira’s thoughts as he writes, “Putting particles in the atmosphere is likely to means object to spin some-more diffuse, blurring the pointy lines of shadows and branch the sky whiter during the day, while making sunsets redder in the evening. How do you calculate the psychological impact of that? It’s not just the finish of blue skies as a earthy reality but also the finish of blue skies as a embellishment – that idea of the good beauty and appetite of nature, of a earnest day ahead, of vast beneficence.” And the Christian Science Monitor finds the book an ‘enjoyable read.’

We must infer them wrong.

Goodell’s information concerning Lowell Wood is the best we have nonetheless seen. Since essay about SRM geoengineering with his coach Edward Teller at Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Wood retired from Livermore in 2007. Wood has given changed to Seattle and now works for a organisation called Intellectual Ventures. We learn that Bill Gates of Microsoft celebrity has not only been operative with Keith and Caldeira, but he has been operative with Wood as well. Gates is friends with the many famous geoengineers.

Goodell writes that Wood’s colleagues jokingly impute to him as ‘Dr. Evil.’ And it is apparently for good reason. Wood goes on and on in a Dr. Strangelove-like manner. He resolutely advocates for SRM geoengineering. He jokes about using a nuclear explosve to loft SRM geoengineering particles into the stratosphere. He unequivocally says that sulphuric poison fog injected into the stratosphere is, “nothing to be dumbfounded about.” He says that, “a swift of mutated 747s or high-flying military aircraft could do the job.” In fact, they ARE doing the job, but Jeff never asks the question. Wood thinks chemtrail brimful skies at nightfall are ‘pretty.’ This is how they think.

Like Keith and Caldeira, Wood says that the karma of geoengineering is ‘written in the stars.’ He says, “When we confirm to solve this problem [global warming], we are likely to do it by doping the stratosphere.” He is referring to SRM geoengineering. In fact, it was Wood pulling the geoengineering bulletin before Keith and Caldeira. Wood had something to do with branch them and others to the ‘dark side,’ as he says, during an critical 1998 debate in Aspen, Colorado which led to collaborations between Wood and Caldeira.

Conclusions

Jeff Goodell really ought to be ashamed of himself. He has been very bad. He just goes on and on and on but addressing the many apparent issue: BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS.

Jeff, come on, really, it’s like DUH! NOWHERE IN THE BOOK DO YOU ADDRESS THE BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF RELEASING ANNUALLY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TONS OF TOXIC MATERIALS INTO THE AIR WE ALL BREATHE!!! And do you call that journalism? Do you call that integrity? No. Your whole repudiation of the theme is inattentive and dishonorable.

How brave you let them get divided but addressing these issues, Goodell? It smacks of complicity. Your book is some-more of an announcement for geoengineering than it is good journalism. we suspicion your good Fourth Estate was going to keep the bad guys in check. It’s not your Old Media institutions that do this, Goodell. It’s the New Media that’s doing it. As prolonged as you don’t perform your pursuit properly, Goodell, we’re just going to keep on eating your lunch.

Notes
How to Cool the Planet: Geoengineering and the Audacious Quest to Fix Earth’s Climate a book by Jeff Goodell, published by Mariner Books and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010

Website
peterakirby.com

YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiYiGNUiEMcphl3-Z7OCTtA

Minds
https://www.minds.com/PeterAKirby

Websites
ClimateViewer.com
AirCrap.org
NuclearPlanet.com
GeoengineeringWatch.org
StopSprayingUs.com
GlobalSkyWatch.com
ChemtrailsProject.com
ChemtrailsProjectUK.com
ChemtrailsPlanet.net

Peter A. Kirby is a San Rafael, CA researcher, writer, and activist. Subscribe to his email list at his website peterakirby.com.



auto magazine

Check Also

Solar Storm Will Strike Earth Tonight, “Weak Power Grid Fluctuations” Possible

February 15, 2018 By Mac Slavo The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center forecasts an halo could light up …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>