Top Climate Researcher Urges Nuclear Power to Thwart Geoengineering

Geoengineering vs. nuclear power is like watching two grim reapers playing chess.

Dees Illustration

Kevin Samson
Activist Post

It is becoming increasingly difficult to write off geoengineering as conspiracy. We already have numerous White Papers from think tanks, official documents admitting to climate control plans, and many public admissions from scientists and politicians alike.

This week geoengineering has been launched further into the mainstream. First we saw Riley Duren, a Chief Systems Engineer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Labs, caution against rogue geoengineers and mad scientists using climate control as a potential weapon. Curiously this is the exact same concern that was expressed by geoengineering’s leading proponent, Harvard climate scientist, David Keith. Keith likened geoengineering to nuclear weapons … and the subsequent race to acquire that technology. These concerns are centered around structuring the proper international governance to ensure that geoengineering is carried out correctly.

Ironically enough, after the parallel drawn between the power of weather modification to the power of nuclear weapons, one of the “foremost climate researchers” is also confirming the reality of geoengineering, while reinforcing the “rogue geoengineer” meme; but he is suggesting that nuclear power is the solution to the inevitable need for geoengineering.

We are seeing an emerging spin being put to geoengineering that is preparing it for mass media rollout. This new meme is that we have a developing race among nations and individuals to solve the urgent global climate problem. In so doing, it is a de facto way for the establishment to claim victory in the debate over whether or not there is even a problem to be solved. Instead, we are directed toward the “inevitability” of a threatening climate, with an additional spin to the story that weather modification is only in its conceptual phase and no one has any idea who will be in charge of such initiatives when they are fully introduced, so we need global governance to handle these issues.

A government study recently emerged to set the tone. The report, “Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy” phrases this global race towards geoengineering as a potential “free for all.” It opens the door for a global framework to address not only the possible dangers of geoengineering itself, but also the danger of leaving the power in the hands of local governments to test and impose their own solutions. As Derrick Broze reported:

According to a recent congressional report: “The term “geoengineering” describes this array of technologies that aim, through large-scale and deliberate modifications of the Earth’s energy balance, to reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change. Most of these technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Moreover, very few studies have been published that document the cost, environmental effects, socio-political impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. If geoengineering technologies were to be deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects. (Source)

The politicizing of the climate is an interesting one to observe, as it is instructive to see which powers are attempting to get to the forefront. We of course had Al Gore and his banking buddies’ carbon tax schemes; we have international bodies indicating that they are prepared to usurp states and nations for the greater good and global security; and as you’ll see below we also have the nuclear industry using climate change to push their own agenda.

The following excerpt from a Bulletin of Atomic Scientists press release takes the approach that geonengineering is an extreme measure, and is one that does have major consequences, but that through nuclear energy we may be able to avert the programs being discussed. The language is interesting, as it shows both that geongineering is already widely discussed among scientists (though clearly still thought of as tin-foil hat material by the corporate media), as well as an assertion that there could be “enormous unforeseen consequences” if such climate-saving measures are employed.

“I think one can argue that if we were to follow a strong nuclear energy pathway—as well as doing everything else that we can—then we can solve the climate problem without doing geoengineering.” So says Tom Wigley, one of the world’s foremost climate researchers, in the current issue of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, published by SAGE. Refusing to take significant action on climate change now makes it more likely that geoengineering will eventually be needed to address the problem, Wigley explains in an exclusive Bulletin interview. 

In the interview, Wigley, a scientist at the University of Adelaide, Australia and at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, explains the two basic geoengineering strategies to reduce climate change: injecting aerosols such as sulfates into the stratosphere to block a portion of the sun’s radiation and thereby cool the Earth, much as volcanic emissions do; and the large-scale removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The aerosol-injection approach is much more likely to be pursued at current stages of technological development. 

To avoid the need for geoengineering, which could have enormous unforeseen consequences, the international community should pursue increased deployment of nuclear power plants, which do not emit carbon dioxide, to address the climate crisis, Wigley says. He contends that many of his colleagues in climate science are generally supportive of nuclear engineering and less fearful of it than they are of geoengineering. But his pro-nuclear stance has already sparked a public backlash from climate scientists who oppose nuclear power, geoengineering, or both those methods of dealing with climate change. 

“When I talk to people from any walk of life, I do talk about geoengineering,” Wigley says. “But I mostly push nuclear. Because I think one can argue that if we were to follow a strong nuclear energy pathway—as well as doing everything else that we can—then we can solve the climate problem without doing geoengineering.” (emphasis added)

To illustrate the intellectual conflict within such “science” the official bio of The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists spells it out quite clearly:

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs the public about threats to the survival and development of humanity from nuclear weapons, climate change, and emerging technologies in the life sciences. Scientists, engineers, and other experts who had created the atomic bomb as part of the Manhattan Project established the Bulletin in 1945.

Yes, this eminent group was spawned from its own threat to civilization – very comforting to know where the solutions are coming from. In the wake of Fukushima and the other apparently “unforeseen consequences” of that event, and the impact of many others, geoengineering vs. nuclear power is like watching two grim reapers playing chess.

The fact that geoengineering is emerging into the open indicates that the threat level has increased. When we look at the possibilities, we must see only two: geoengineering either has been hidden for nefarious purposes, or these “experts” are completely delusional – both possibilities are grave threats to humanity.

Let’s take this new openness by the establishment as an opportunity to engage the newly aware and offer the history behind both of these “solutions” as nothing more than an ongoing potential extinction-level event. Let’s begin seeking true open-source energy solutions, as well as free up research into currently fringe ideas such as free energy and the wonders of new materials such as graphene or the Navy’s method to turn seawater into clean fuel. These solutions will go beyond the divide-and-conquer strategies of “climate science” and get to the heart of the matter: low-cost, safe, clean energy solutions that equally benefit humans, nature, and the planet.

 Geoengineering (chemtrails): for background please consider the following sources…


Nuclear Power

There are few better sources discussing the threat of nuclear power than Dr. Richard Wilcox who resides in Tokyo and has been documenting what he sees on the ground – politically and physically – as a result of the Fukushima meltdown.  His body of work can be found at and earlier articles are archived on his own site here.

Please feel free to add your own sources to the comment section below.


Weather Control by Lasers

Recently by Kevin Samson:

Thank you for sharing.
Follow us to receive the latest updates.

Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter

Send this to a friend