Truth Frequency Radio

Apr 05, 2013

High School students from around the world (213 teams in 34 states and 29 countries) participated in a national contest which ultimately pushes geoengineering of our planetary environment as a good thing.

Geoengineeringby Shepard Ambellas

April 5, 2013

The Bickel & Brewer/NYU International Public Policy Forum has been known to direct a policy debate to schools each year allowing them to hash out the benefits and downfalls of current issues. In fact, each student team participating in the state sponsored contest is required to write a 2800 word essay on the topic given choosing either one side of the fence or the other.

The about us section on Bickel & Brewers website reads, “In order to accomplish its goals, the Foundation supports a broad range of initiatives while maintaining a special emphasis on developing, overseeing and fundraising for a growing array of educational programs.”

Weighing out the pros and cons of geoengineering is this years contest challenge, as the student teams will be conducting their essays on climate change issues. However, one must question the source or sources that the information is being fed to the students from and how this affects the reports.

Some of the essays seem rather one sided as they lean fully toward the position that essentially, emergency geoengineering is needed to combat man made climate change and that humans are to blame. With this you can start to see a clear pattern of complete and total indoctrination of pupils in our public school system and the push for student spouted propaganda as they carry it home to the older and younger generations like parrots.

One of the student team submissions that made it to round 2 reads:

SHERMAN OAKS, Calif. – The debate comes down to which response is the most urgent and necessary reaction to climate change.

Climate change is reversible and can be solved through mitigation efforts. Adaptation strategies leave families and friends in lesser developed regions to slowly wither away. Mitigation is global and long term while adaptation is local and short term. Mitigation is permanent. Adaptation must be constantly adjusted to address current damage.

Examining the scientific consensus about the origins of warming and the rate of change concludes that it can be mitigated in the short term.

Richard Muller, founder and scientific director of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study, released a peer reviewed study concluding that climate change trends are due entirely to human carbon dioxide emissions. George Monbiot, former professor of environmental politics at Oxford University, proves that we can reduce carbon dioxide emissions to safe levels.

Any natural forces balance natural sources of climate change. Anthony Watts, president of weather data company Intelliweather Inc. and winner of the American Meteorological Society’s Seal of Approval (see note, below), shows that clouds have an extremely large cooling effect on the world. These forces create a zero-sum advance as natural forces cancel each other out.

Thus, only human-made emissions, such as factory and car secretions, could cause runaway global climate change because they lack natural negative feed-backs to balance them.

Full Article

CO2 myth busted: Why we need more carbon dioxide to grow food and forests

Mike Adams
Natural News

If you talk to the global warming crowd, carbon dioxide — CO2 — is the enemy of mankind. Any and all creation of CO2 is bad for the planet, we’re told, and its production must be strictly limited in order to save the world.

But what if that wasn’t true? What if CO2 were actually a planet-saving nutrient that could multiply food production rates and feed the world more nutritious, healthy plants?

CO2 is a vital nutrient for food crops

As it turns out, CO2 is desperately needed by food crops, and right now there is a severe shortage of CO2 on the planet compared to what would be optimum for plants. Greenhouse operators are actually buying carbon dioxide and injecting it into their greenhouses in order to maximize plant growth.

The science on this is irrefutable. As just one example, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food says:

CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

If you want to understand why CO2 is an essential nutrient for food crop growth, check out this informative slide show. It explains that “CO2 may be repidly depleted during crop production” daylight hours, because the plants pull all the CO2 out of the air and use it in photosynthesis.

The CO2 found in modern-day atmosphere is 340ppm. But food crops would grow far faster if the concentration of CO2 were closer to 1000ppm, or roughly 300% higher than current levels. In fact, most greenhouse plant production causes a “CO2 depletion” to happen, shutting down photosynthesis and limiting food production. As the “Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses” fact sheet explains:

Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm.

Thus, greenhouse plants are “running out” of CO2. They are starving for it. And when you add it to food crops, you get higher yields, improved taste, shorter flowering times, enhanced pest resistance and other benefits.

Why we should pump carbon dioxide into greenhouses

This brings up an obvious answer for what to do with all the CO2 produced by power plants, office buildings and even fitness centers where people exhale vast quantities of CO2. The answer is to build adjacent greenhouses and pump the CO2 into the greenhouses.

Every coal-fired power plant, in other words, should have a vast array of greenhouses surrounding it. Most of what you see emitted from power plant smokestacks is water vapor and CO2, both essential nutrients for rapid growth of food crops. By diverting carbon dioxide and water into greenhouses, the problem of emissions is instantly solved because the plants update the CO2 and use it for photosynthesis, thus “sequestering” the CO2 while rapidly growing food crops. It also happens to produce oxygen as a “waste product” which can be released into the atmosphere, (slightly) upping the oxygen level of the air we breathe.

This is a brilliant solution because humans want to live on a world with low CO2 that supports frozen ice caps in order to keep ocean water levels low, but they want to eat a volume of food that requires high CO2 for production. The answer is to concentrate CO2 into greenhouses where food production is multiplied by CO2 nutrition.

I’ll bet you’ve never heard Al Gore talk about CO2 as “nutrition.” He declares it a pollutant and wants to tax you for producing it. But CO2 is actually a key nutritive gas for food crops. Without carbon dioxide, we would all have starved to death by now.

Shutting down power plants to destroy America’s power infrastructure

The U.S. government’s solution to power plant emissions, however, is to just shut down coal-fired power plants, causing rolling blackouts across the USA, especially during hot summer days. The EPA has forced hundreds of power plants to shut down across the USA, achieving a loss of power infrastructure that vastly exceeds what would even be possible by an enemy invasion of high-altitude warplanes dropping bombs.

The EPA, under the excuse of “saving the planet,” is destroying America’s power infrastructure and leading our nation into a third-world scenario where power availability is dicey and unsustained. It seems to be just one part of the overall plan to gut America’s economy, offshore millions of jobs, put everybody on welfare and destroy small businesses.

But what if we harnessed coal-fired power plants instead of shutting them down? What if we used them as “CO2 generators” that fed CO2 into vast greenhouse operations that produced organic, high-growth foods that could feed the nation? Coal-fired power plants can produce both electricity and food nutrition at the same time.

Better yet, if you combine this concept with aquaponics, you get simultaneous production of plants and fish while using no soil, no GMOs and one-tenth the water of conventional agriculture.

See, the solutions to all our problems already exist. The only reason we are suffering as a nation is because political puppets try to brainwash us into believing complete falsehoods like, “carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant” or “the people don’t need healthy foods; they need medications and vaccines.” When societies believe falsehoods, they crumble and collapse.

That’s where America is headed, of course. And it’s all being accelerated by deceptive bureaucrats who want to convince you that growing real food is bad and we should all be punished for exhaling carbon dioxide, an essential nutrient for food crops. Carbon dioxide is not the enemy it’s been made out to be. It’s actually plant nutrition that helps regrow rainforests, food crops and wetlands. In fact, higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere would make the planet more lush and abundant in terms of plant life, forests, trees and food crops.