REPORT: The Implications Of Geo-Engineering Schemes for New Zealand Conference 2011

Mon, 03/28/2011 – 13:18  By Jeremy Morrison:

On the 8th of March 2011 the Royal Society of New Zealand hosted a conference and workshop to discuss the scientific, technological and geopolitical aspects of Geo-Engineering schemes and their implications for New Zealand.…
The featured speakers were:
Professor Philip Boyd of NIWA
Dr Mike Harvey also from NIWA
Professor Jim Jones from Massey University
Dr Cliff Law
Professor Lionel Carter of Victoria University Wellington

The conference was focused on using “complex decision making tools” to evaluate different geological schemes. The tool they were using is called 1000Minds:

The conference was based around the idea that the planet is rapidly warming due to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere and “man-made Global Warming, which will result in catastrophe for the whole world, and what the possible and preferable solutions may be to remedy this problem.
There is a fierce debate about the validity of claims surrounding anthropogenic global warming and the role of CO2 in climate change

The Geo-engineering programmes that were discussed were

Space sun shades
Cloud whitening
Stratospheric aerosol spraying
Tree planting
Ocean fertilisation
Carbon Capture
Bio char
Painting roofs white

A couple of companies specialising in geo-engineering technologies were mentioned such as Climos (USA) and ONC Australia and several speakers gave basic overviews of how these technologies would be deployed and the theories of how they MAY work.

Unfortunately I missed the first presentation which was focused on Aerosol Spraying in the atmosphere, but this subject came up many more times throughout the conference.

Following the presentations on the various geo-engineering schemes the conference attendees were asked to use the 1000Minds programme to rank the various schemes in order to find which geo-engineering scheme would be the best to use should it become necessary.

The ranking programme was loaded with options to vote up or down in order of priority to each of the individual attendees in order to specify an overall preferred geo-engineering scheme.

The ranking programme covered things such as costs, benefits, risks, the probable speed and rate of change in the climate after deployment of the chosen scheme, the rapidity of an emergency stop to any scheme, safety and system complexity and safety verification. The attendees were asked to rank each of these things from 1-7 with 1 being most important and 7 being of least concern when implementing any geo-engineering scheme.

The results of the ranking software exercise showed that 61.1% of the attendees viewed Stratospheric Aerosol Spraying as the first choice of geo-engineering schemes. The overall belief amongst them was that this would be the safest, cheapest and easiest scheme to implement. One glaring omission was made in the ranking criteria and that was the possible impacts on human health as a result of massive scale aerosol spraying.

This is obviously not a concern to the geo-engineers. In fact this was not mentioned or discussed once throughout the conference. I noted also a couple of snide remarks about environmentalists and the problems they will pose to the implementation of any large scale geo-engineering scheme. There was some discussion that these schemes may very well have disastrous consequences that are not yet known for various ecosystems.

Other topics of discussion during the day:

how geo-engineering has moved from the “lunatic fringe” into a mainstream science

The lack of international law with regard to geo-engineering, how do we manage geo-engineering technologies in the face of scientific uncertainty surrounding them

Who makes the decision to geo-engineer (individual states, collective decision, or expert decision?)

Are there appropriate institutions at national and international level to enable us to achieve regulation and should there be global moratoriums on geo-engineering.

Should corporations be permitted to profit from geo-engineering schemes?

Can abuse of the technologies be prevented such as climate modification for HOSTILE/MILITARY PURPOSES?

Should geo-engineering be included in treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol? (There was a consensus that geo-engineering must be included in all future climate change meetings and treaties and that it makes no sense to keep the two separate)

Should we form an International Geo-engineering Authority?

It was mentioned that there are currently no specific laws preventing use of weather modification technologies and that there are only limited treaties focusing on weather modification as a weapon. There was also a presentation on how difficult it will be to deploy geo-engineering schemes in and around New Zealand due to terrain, wind patterns and ocean currents.

Of great interest were the Stratospheric Aerosol Spraying discussions. I was amused to learn that our New Zealand geo-engineers are focussed only on spraying silver iodide to whiten the clouds or sulphur particles to block sunlight and cool the planet. They are clearly out of touch with their American counterparts when it comes to what type of particle to spray.

In February of 2010 the American Association for the Advancement of Science held a conference in San Diego California in which geo-engineering (Also being pushed there by THE ROYAL SOCIETY) was heavily discussed. The American scientists also heavily favoured stratospheric aerosol spraying as the first choice geo-engineering scheme, however the particulate they want to spray into the atmosphere in megaton amounts is ALUMINIUM.

I did not hear aluminium mentioned once throughout the entire conference here in New Zealand. The American scientists favour aluminium because it has 4 times the volumetric rate and 16 times less the coagulation rate of other particles such as sulphur and it is very cheap.

The discussion of Aluminium as a geo-engineering tool by the American scientists caused a global reaction through the “alternative media” because people worldwide have been observing a sharp increase in heavy persistent contrails in the last decade dubbed “chemtrails” in their skies which have coincided with huge leaps in metal contamination of snow and rainfall with aluminium and barium. In parts of the USA soil, water and snow samples have been tested and found to contain tens of thousands of times the safe levels of aluminium and barium. The PH level of the soils in these areas has escalated 10-12 times from its normal levels as a result of this heavy contamination.

Here in New Zealand elevated levels of aluminium and barium have been found in rainwater from Whangarei and Kaikoura and polymer fibres that have fallen in large volumes to the ground below some of these thick persistent contrails over the Marlborough region have been laboratory tested and found to be coated in high levels of aluminium oxide and barium.…

This has raised the question as to whether stratospheric aerosol programmes have already been deployed or are being tested in some parts of the world. There was no mention at the New Zealand conference of any such testing or deployment of this technology.

It was clear to me by the end of the conference that scientists, policy and law makers here in New Zealand are very serious about testing and implementing geo-engineering technologies and creating laws and policies to govern them but there appeared to be absolutely no knowledge of, or discussion of current deployment or testing of stratospheric aerosol spraying.

Readers who wish to learn more about the conspiracy theories surround aerosol spraying with aluminium should watch the film “What In The World Are They Spraying”

Here is an incomplete list of names of persons who attended the New Zealand Geo-engineering conference.

Sarah Gibbs
Franz Ombler
Tara Ross Watt
Cliff Law
Jim Jones
Luke Strongman
Simon Terry
David Wratt
Mike Harvey
Marc Rands
Philip Boyd
Jo Hendy
Stephanie Pride
Jez Weston
Lionel Carter
Tyler Eddy


This entry was posted in Activism, Government, Health Effects, Poisoning Environment and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to REPORT: The Implications Of Geo-Engineering Schemes for New Zealand Conference 2011

  1. Clare Swinney says:

    Thanks for Fiona for sending this:

    I’m just looking into the toxicity of silver iodide – it’s not looking good….

    I just did a search for “cloud seeding”:


    The above one from 2007 is particularly interesting as it’s talking about Hydro Tasmania – a company that openly admits to cloud seeding – since 1964:



    In NZ:

    In Oz:

    I think I’ve emailed the below link already:
    (the clouds in that pic are very similar to what I’ve been seeing already around Hume City)
    (and we get the old “I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest…”…if they actually did some independent, responsible research, they might just see some evidence!)

    Do a search for “cloud seeding” here:

    What I’d like to know is, if this is all “just cloud-seeding”, and if cloud-seeding is so harmless – why don’t they say so instead of “it’s just vapour trails” or “it’s just contrails”…??? So far, I haven’t seen any reports of research done on the human health effects of cloud-seeding and the chemicals in them.

    1956 Cloud Seeding research

    From 2003 – a picture of a pilot and plane
    (see page 9 for History of Cloud Seeding in Australia)

  2. Ben Vidgen says:

    Before I get going its worth reading the report Clare mentions…

    Skeptics don’t get every single government forecast on global warming has erred towards conservative estimates due to the lobbying power of big business and at every point those estimate were far too low and that why we now forced to come up with desperate scheme which sound crazy because that what they are and thats the time were living in.

    Now government’s are reaching for a Plan B and that Plan B it suits the profits of big business if just dam fine (e.g. Polar Stern Lohafex Ocean Fertilization proved to be the failure but this was because those financing it don’t give a fig about the environment but the financial returns it offered in the world of carbon credits.

    Am I really the the person out there who remembers that it was ENRON who first came up with the idea of weather future’s market — or that Price Waterhouse having sucked NZ government into signing Kyoto then announced their intention to start a climate change bank (and this is why Banker Key is wanting to lead the way in beginning the ETS so were first out the gates).

    Dont get me wrong my family spent twenty five years in the ski industry – climate change for my family was something we experienced first hand experience as early as the 8O’ s as my clan spent a decade chasing th snow on two hemisphere and got to compare ski fields and conditions. At this time my interest in global warming (then deemed the realm of the lunatic fringe) began with noting the increase in the ski industry insurance premiums visa avalanche risk (high premiums the lower your ski field was). At the time I remember asking my brother about global warming. His reply “I’ll worry about global warming when Whistler needs snow machine” – today Whistler is snow machine top to bottom as are most ski fields. Back then no one was paying any attention and that why were now in the boat we are and even the most conservative forecast on weather temperature increases makes for grim reading.

    Okay so you don’t believe in Chemtrails why?

    Because open source material shows (as listed by Clare above) that ocean fertilisastion research has been going in on for the last decade coinciding with the appearance of toxic algae bloom around which is pretty much what those who doubted the technology said would happen if their warning were ignored.

    Now here the thing chemtrails (whether for use in military communications or offensive purposes or for use in combating climate) Ocean fertilizes, Corexit (the dispersal used in the BP Horizon spill similar to whats pumped into oil well through out the US) the all the same thing example of industrial emulsifiers using nano engineering produced by the kind of dodgey companies that put profit before people (er make that the entire planets) well being.

    When nano technology comes in contact with virus or bacteria they tend to cause the virus/bacteria to mutate (which lot of people studying chem-trail associated illness like morgellon (sic) have done some pretty good work on photographing and cataloging the mutations observed). Now cross reference back to late eighties and see how many species around NZ have been dying of mysterious diseases. In the majority of the cases the scientist can identify the family of the virus but not what caused it to mutate.

  3. Clare Swinney says:

    Thank-you very much Ben. I recommend that people watch Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room – a documentary about Enron, which exposes the psychopathic mentality of the crooks behind the Enron-Weather Future’s market matter. The matter of Enron-Weather Future’s market was addressed on this website on April the 21st at the link here:

    In regard to your comments about “climate change,” I think it is important to point out to the readers that in the matter of “man-made climate change,” which is the elites’ excuse for claiming to need to tax everyone, even the most fundamental assumption of the theory of man-made global warming – that carbon dioxide causes the temperature to get higher – is not supported by the evidence. Contradicting Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ claim that “when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer,” ice core data shows that as the temperature rises, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follows, with a lag of about 800 years.

    Furthermore, according to Dr Vincent Gray, a New Zealander who has worked as a reviewer for the IPCC since its inception, there’s actually no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are harming the climate. “A series of scientific arguments which appear to support the theory have been assembled. If examined closely, these are found to be based on unsound scientific and mathematical foundations,” he asserts.

    Referring to the mention New Zealand gets in the film, An Inconvenient Truth when Al Gore falsely claims many residents of low-lying Pacific Island nations have already had to evacuate to New Zealand because of “rising seas,” Dr Gray asserts: “Everybody knows that the Pacific Island of Tuvalu is sinking…Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree – there was no evidence of “sinking”. So scientists at Flinders University in Adelaide were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern tide-gauges on 12 Pacific Islands including Tuvalu, confident that they’d show that all of them are sinking. Recently, the whole project was abandoned, as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the twelve islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose,” [5].
    Alarmingly, in spite of a deluge of this type of good, solid evidence to disprove the central claims made in An Inconvenient Truth, there are intelligent people who are unable to contemplate that anything is wrong.

    So why is Al Gore running what radio-show host, Alex Jones refers to as a “Snake God op” on us? To state the obvious, he is a politician, he is the son of a politician and he graduated with a BA in Government, not with a Bachelor of Science. He is duplicitous. He doesn’t practice what he preaches. When he was Vice President, he did nothing for genuine environmental problems, such as the dissemination of DU, nanotechnology and GMOs. And throughout the years he has flogged the “carbon polluters,” he and his family have been aiding and profiting from an oil company on a grand scale. Gore’s political influence has enabled the Occidental Petroleum Company, which former CEO, Armand Hammer said had Gore’s father in his back pocket, to acquire the oil-drilling rights over 47,000 acres of the Elk Hills reserve in California. Not only did the 1997 sale represent the largest quantity of public land to be turned over to a private corporation in US history, but it also spelt doom for the Kitanemuk people’s traditional lands and encroached upon an area environmentalists said was home to three rare animal species, [6]. On the very same day as the sale, in an audacious display of hypocrisy, one which should serve as a warning to us all, Gore gave a speech on the “terrifying prospect” of global warming, a problem that he ascribed to the unchecked use of fossil fuels, such as oil! [6].

    In the first chapter of his book, The Assault on Reason, (2007), Gore accuses the Bush Administration of exploiting peoples’ fears “to short-circuit debate and drive the public agenda without regard to the evidence, the facts, or the public interest.” Obviously, this is precisely what he is doing with his panorama of looming apocalypse. It is his environmental 9/11 – although not his idea originally it seems.
    The idea appears to have emerged from the Iron Mountain Report. This was authored by a group of intellectual elitists in 1966 who were asked to devise methods by which a government could become more powerful, [7]. War, they wrote, would be impossible under a single, world government, so other methods for controlling populations would be required. A new enemy that posed a threat to life on earth was needed.
    After considering a number of possibilities, including a staged space-alien invasion, which they decided was too far-fetched, they concluded that the environmental pollution model was the one most likely to succeed. This model, they wrote, could be related to observable conditions like pollution and predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios. Accuracy was not important – what mattered was that it was believable, as the intent was to frighten, not to inform.
    The group concluded that the benefits of this model were huge for the elite, as it could be used to justify expansive and authoritarian government, as well as impoverish citizens, thereby greatly widening the gap between the leaders and followers.
    Ominously, Gore also reflects the report’s ideas in his book, Earth in the Balance:
    “We must make the rescue of the global environment the central organizing principle for civilization…[this] means using every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action…to halt the destruction of the environment and to preserve and nurture our ecological system,” he wrote.
    Dr Coffman, CEO of Sovereignty International, who headed a multi-million dollar research effort in the early-1990’s that studied the effects of global warming on ecosystems in the US, says there’s a cadre of scientists on “soft money” who are out of a job if they “don’t show a global-warming connection.” He says the US government is pouring an astronomical US$4 billion per annum into this research because on an elite political level, where the real power lies, there’s an agenda to establish a fascist one-world government, [2].
    The UN, which is controlled by the elite, has been preparing to take over as the government for all the world’s nations under the pretext of saving the planet from “climate change” and “man-made global warming.” It aims to implement Agenda 21, which is supposedly about “sustainable development.” On cursory inspection, 21 looks reasonable, however, as Dr Michael Coffman who has taken the time to read UN documents, pointed out that the intention of the 40-chapter document is to reorganize the world around socialist, command and control regulation, as the elite view humans as earth’s primary contaminants. It will be a living nightmare for us if the elite have their way.

    1. The Great Global Warming Swindle, (2007), BBC Ch 4 documentary by M. Durkin, is available to download from the Internet.
    2. Global Warming or Global Governance?, (2007), documentary by Dr M. Coffman, is available at
    3. Schools Must Warn of Gore Climate Film Bias, (3/10/07), at:
    4. Refer:
    5. IPCC Wins the Nobel Prize of Peace, (20/10/07), by Dr V. Gray, at:
    6. Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate, (29/8/2000), by B. Mesler at
    7. The Police State Road Map, (2005), an e-book by M. Nield, Ch.7.5/ Ch.14 at
    8. Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, (2007), a documentary by A. Jones, is available at & online shop.

  4. Clare Swinney says:

    Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s