The Thin Green Line: How Geo-Engineering is the ‘Invisible Hand’ of Climate Change

  The Thin Green Line:

How Geo-Engineering is the ‘Invisible Hand’ of Climate Change

– stealthily steering environmentalists, scientists and politicians to support a hi-tech ‘Smart Green’ Global Economy – on a path to corporatized totalitarian super-states!

Climate-altering technology has been commercialized by a network of market-making companies, research stations, business-focused universities, industry associations and governmental institutions.

Incredibly, 95 states have conducted climatic geo-engineering programs, weather modification projects or experiments in the ‘modern era’, since 1946. For instance, Weather Modification Inc., established in 1961, has weather altering programs worldwide.

An Experiment with No Control: Earth System Geo-engineering map by ETC Group [Click to see big].

By Steve ‘Snoopman’ Edwards

 

The Thin Green Line of Climate Action

In 2011, the U.S. Weather Modification Association, published a “Historic Index” of peer-reviewed science papers in its Journal Of Weather Modification, that either proposed weather manipulation experiments, or analyzed their results of ‘real world’ tests conducted between 1969 and 2011.[1]

Incredibly, 95 out of the world’s 195 states have conducted either climatic geo-engineering projects, weather modification programs, or experiments: Azerbaijan, Algeria, Antigua, America, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Canary Islands, Chad, Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic and Slovak Republic), Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Dominician Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, France, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Holland, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Libya, Laos, New Zealand, Macedonia, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldovia, Mongolia, Morocco, Oman, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Russia , Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia & Montenegro, South Africa, South Korea, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso), Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe.[2]

Indeed, in situ weather modification experiments have been occurring since the first cloud-seeding experiment on 13 November 1946 when a General Electric scientist’s assistant, Vincent J. Schaefer, scattered three pounds of dry ice into a super-cooled cloud at 14,000 feet to the east of Schenectady, New York near G.E.’s headquarters. One of three General Electric scientists, Schaefer’s sky trial made snow.[3] The U.S. Government got involved in weather modification in February 1947 at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, with Project Cirrus, a five year experiment that was a joint effort of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and GE. On October 13 1947, Hurricane King was seeded with dry ice east of Jacksonville Florida, and it soon changed direction hitting the South Carolina and Georgia coasts causing significant damage. Despite precedents for hurricanes behaving erratically, General Electric was vulnerable to law suits and the industrial consortium’s legal counsel pressed GE scientist Dr. Irving Langmuir to never to link the hurricane’s direction to seeding. Project Cirrus was subsequently moved to New Mexico.

A U.S. proposal for a national program in weather modification from 1966 is extremely instructive about why the world’s public know so little about various governments, their agencies, academe and companies have been doing for half a century.

Long before climate change became a public issue, NASA scientist Dr. Homer E. Newell wrote his report recommending a national weather modification program on behalf the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences for the U.S. Federal Council for Science and Technology. Dr. Newell appeared to worked earnestly to justify the Federal Science and Technology Council’s request to know “who was doing what with the weather,” what were various agencies’ visions, and how the work over weather modification research should be shared.

 

The need for controlling weather, according to Dr. Newell and his Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences panel was because the weather had been ruining the Earth’s resources and costing economic activity.

The incentives for developing weather modification technologies was tremendous, the study claimed, because the “destructive effects of the weather” would drive motivating forces to “enhance the beneficial effects.” For example, the report mentioned a 10 year-old lightening suppression program, Project Skyfire, which involved cloud-seeding with silver iodide, that apparently resulted in a reduction of lightening strikes by one third, in a country that experiences 10,000 forest fires a year.

Among Newell’s proposals – which included modifying rainfall, hail and lightening suppression, and tornado and hurricane mitigation – he also envisaged large scale experiments across international territories, recommended bilateral and multilateral agreements between nations that would “pave rather than block the way for the necessary experimentation.”

Past lessons in consensus shaping, such as over nuclear energy and space voyages had resulted in political obstacles, the report said.

 

Eleven years later, a U.S. Senate report “Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy and Potential” lamented the poor return on Federal investment, “the manifest needs, and benefits, social and economic” forgone, and the lack of Federal coordination that would be required to develop weather modification into a “truly operational tool”.

This comprehensive 746-page 1978 report found that the United States was the world leader in weather modification for enhancing rainfall, snow, fog dispersal, hail suppression and researching storm mitigation techniques. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had the largest weather modification programs outside the U.S., working on projects for hail suppression, and rain-enhancement to assist crop growth and extinguish forest fires.

In the United States, one major project was Project Skywater, a cloud-seeding project to develop technologies to increase water supplies, which ran from 1962 to 1988 across the western states and was primarily sponsored by the Bureau of Reclamation, of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

The professional organizations overseeing projects in the U.S. were the Weather Modification Association, the American Meteorological Society and the American Society of Civil Engineers. The report noted that numerous projects sought to “calibrate” watersheds and cloud types.

For its part, Weather Modification Inc. has weather altering programs in 19 countries and 12 states in the Continental United States.[4] Patents held by companies for climate geo-engineering technology include methods to extract carbon dioxide from the air, brighten marine clouds, spray sulphate aerosols, and fertilize the oceans.[5]

For years, the climate change debates on whether or not it is a human-made phenomenon,[6] how to reduce toxic emissions, rampant consumption, and the plunder of resources and environments have ignored deliberate climatic geo-engineering projects. These projects are large-scale, such as: (1) solar radiation management, including spraying aerosol chemicals from aircraft; (2) shooting high frequency electromagnetic beams into the Earth’s atmosphere; (3) ocean fertilization with nutrients such as iron, (4) bio-energy capture and storage; (5) Carbon Capture and Storage; and (6) numerous smaller weather modification projects.[7]

These ideas have been published in popular science magazines under the broad banner of a green revolution in planet-saving technologies.

The dumping of 100 tonnes of iron into the north-west Pacific Ocean in July 2012 by a Californian businessman, Russ George, brought fleeting attention to geo-engineering as a global issue. George claimed his ‘experiment’ was an attempt to reinvigorate a salmon fishery by promoting plankton growth and intended to demonstrate how sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere could earn carbon credits (since iron stimulates carbon dioxide consuming plankton blooms that salmon feed upon).[8] Ocean fertilization projects involving the dumping of materials, such as iron, have been conducted worldwide.[9]

Meanwhile, burning wood, grasses, crop residues and manure, into buried charcoal or Biochar, under conditions of low oxygen to sequester carbon have occurred in numerous ‘developing’ countries, including: Belize, Cameroon, Chile, Costa Rica, Egypt, India, Kenya, Mongolia, and Vietnam.[10] Biochar as a carbon sequestrian technique is considered risky because the planet is losing oxygen at faster rates than carbon dioxide is climbing, according to Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Permaculture New Zealand. In their primer, “A civil society briefing on Geoengineering Climate change, smoke and mirrors” ETC Group stated that industrial-scale biochar production would mean large land areas of plantations after harvests, thereby risking exacerbating greenhouse gas emissions.[11]

Environment activist organizations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, 350.org, and Generation Zero have had little to say in their climate campaigns about the efficacy, wisdom and ethics of geo-engineering and weather modification research projects, proposals, and programs – legal or otherwise.[12] This task has been left to those sectors of society that ought to have been monitoring developments much earlier: the science clubs, universities and big government.

In 2009, the Royal Society science club published its review of weather modification technologies and recommended environmental impact studies and research, development and investment.[13] However, the key ‘assumption’ underpinning the report, “Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty”, by the British scientists’ club was that climate engineering technologies had only undergone very limited experimentation ‘beyond the lab’. Similarly, Climate Change and Geo-engineering reports by the United States Congress’s Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2010),[14] and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Expert Meeting on Geo-Engineering (2011),[16] all created the impression that very little geo-engineering experimentation had occurred in the real world or in situ. The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (HOCSTC) (2010) noted numerous cloud-seeding geo-engineering programs, but gave the impression they were government ones.[15]

 

In its “WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2016”, the Weather Meteorological Organization did not mention any weather modification projects or geo-engineering programs as a climate-altering factor,[17] despite the body having an Expert Team on Weather Modification Research who found that 42 countries had weather modification programs or experiments in 2013 and 52 nations in 2014.[18] The Weather Meteorological Organization’s “WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2016” report failed to even mention geo-engineering and weather modification.

Unrelated Phenomena: Evidently for the Weather Meteorological Organization, worldwide weather modification programs have nothing to with climate change.

Disturbingly, numerous official investigations have relied heavily on two expert witnesses, North American scientists David Keith and Ken Caldeira, who were dubbed a ‘geoclique’ by the author of Hack the Planet, Eli Kintisch. Largely, they, and others who share their views, justify the need to develop geo- engineering technologies because of “collective action issues” or the lack of cooperation among countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Keith and others have links to “planet-hacking start-ups, or hold patents on various methods” – as Naomi Klein observed in her book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.

To this end, the multitude of ideas to mitigate the effects of climate change received tentative support from the taskforces that purported to have revealed the true and current state of geo-engineering. The proposals for geo-engineering fall into two broad categories: (1) solar radiation management (reflecting sunlight to space); (2) greenhouse gas removal and sequestration; and (3) weather modification. Some weather modification standards for such processes as precipitation enhancement, fog dispersal and hail suppression have been developed.[19]

 

Skin in the Game: Physicist David Keith holds a patent on a carbon-sucking machine, among other geo-engineering interests.

 

The Brave New Worlders

At the forefront of the promotion of geo-engineering technologies are geo-engineers, think-tanks, ‘green economy’ companies and wealthy funders. Their influence on key institutions such as the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Royal Society, the British parliament’s House of Commons, the United States’ House of Congress and its Government Accountability Office is evident by their ubiquitous participation in their special committees’ assessing geo-engineering technologies. As Clive Hamilton points out in his book Earth Masters: Playing God with the Climate, the ethos that pervades the ‘geo-engineering community’ is a belief that Earth is a system that can be managed by scientists, engineers, and technicians. With epic hubris, Arizona State University engineering professor, Brad Allenby, claims that ‘[E]arth system engineering and management’ could be regulated by the ‘free-market’.

Using the Dynamic Integrated Model for Climate and Economy (or DICE model), Eric Bickel and Lee Lane calculated that dispersing sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere would generate $25 in returns for every dollar invested. The authors attempt to pass a PR industry trick – the political hygiene test – when they express concern over government failure to tackle emissions growth. Bickel and Lane thanked ExxonMobil for financial support to produce their paper modelling for geo-engineering with a market worldview, while the Star Treky-named American Enterprise Institute (AEI), who had long downplayed human-centric causes to climate change, published their paper. Bickel is an engineer at the University of Texas and consults to the oil and gas industry. Lane is a resident scholar at AEI, and is a consultant with CRA International, which works with the coal industry.[20]

Even more disturbing, many in ‘geo-engineering community’ acknowledge that their techno-fixes would need to be regulated an intergovernmental panel that could weather political storms, such as an international weather control agency.[21] Underpinning this technocracy ethos is a related ‘sales effort’ that downplays the inevitable dystopian image of centralized control by a world super-government.

Clive Hamilton also argues that a line between disinterested scientific enquiry and commercial vested interests has been crossed in geo-engineering. Two geo-engineering proponents walking this ‘thin green line’ most actively are David Keith, a physicist, professor of public policy and an geo-engineering entrepreneur at Harvard University scientists, and Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientists at Stanford University’s Carnegie Institution, who spent a decade the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Both have participated in nearly every inquiry or report to date.[22] Caldeira and Keith allocate monies from the Bill Gates-sponsored Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research. These funds have been used to help meet costs for several meetings, workshops and reports, including the Royal Society’s 2009 inquiry and a three-day retreat focused on gauging sentiment on using ge0-engineering to address climate change at the Royal Society’s Georgian country mansion, Chicheley Hall, in Buckinghamshire in March 2011.[23] Approximately half of the funds have been used to sponsor their own research. Gates – whose Microsoft transnational consortium is a global partner with the Five Eyes NSA – has invested in Carbon Engineering Ltd, a company started by David Keith that seeks to develop industrial-scale carbon dioxide capturing technology. Another company, that billionaire Gates has invested in, Silver Lining, works to develop marine cloud brightening technologies. In one research paper exploring marine cloud brightening, ten of the twenty-five authors have links to Silver Lining.

Geo-Clique Reports: David Keith was an expert for four inquires and Ken Calideira advised for three of the reports cited here (from top to bottom: Royal Society, IPCC, GAO and UK Parliament].

 

Meanwhile, Ken Caldeira is an inventor with a company called Intellectual Ventures, has developed a sulphate aerosol delivery technology called the StratoShield, which is a blimp with a suspended hose. One of Intellectual Ventures’ patents proposes to pump cold seawater to the surface. Caldeira, Keith and Gates are listed as the patent holders, along with Lowell Wood and Roderick Hyde, both formerly of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Gates and former Microsoft employees invested in Intellectual Ventures.[24] John Latham, an atmospheric physics professor at University of Manchester and Stephen Salter, an engineering professor at the University of Edinburgh, who both champion the marine cloud brightening approach, also have a stake in Intellectual Ventures’ ocean pump patent.

Additionally, banking and agri-business consortiums have developed the capacity to collude for profit from climatic geo-engineering. The financial industry makes speculative bets on weather derivatives, while the biotech industry has developed genetically engineered crops with tolerances for drought and aluminum.[25]

Before you can say regulate, there are moves to do just that. But, not in a way to stop geo-engineering in its tracks. More in a regulating the sunlight ways.

Sanitized Solar Radiation Management: These propagandist depictions in the British Royal Society’s [left] and the U.S. Government Accountability Office [right] geo-engineering reports are fraudulent because they omit the reality of aerosol spraying by tank-laden aircraft.

The formation of an international geo-engineering governance regime underpins the geo-clique’s drive to gain acceptance of geo-engineering, as Naomi Klein deduced in her book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.

Discrediting Itself: The Royal Society claims aerosol risks to biological life will likely be low.

Indeed, in March 2011, the New Zealand chapter of the Royal Society also hosted a conference to discuss various geo-engineering schemes practiced overseas. 61% of the attendees showed a preference for stratospheric aerosol spraying as their first choice of geo-engineering schemes, if it were deemed ‘necessary’ to alleviate the impacts of climate change.[26]

 

Aerosols

Numerous concerned scientists, farmers and other citizens have observed an increasing number of aircraft in recent years in the skies over North America and Europe, spraying air-borne aerosols, often referred to as ‘chemtrails,’ that linger for extended periods.[27] Aerosol spraying can turn skies into a milky haze blocking out sunlight, and the ‘fall-out’ contaminates air, soils and waterways. Elements found to poison the environment include aluminum, barium, strontium and sulphur.[28] The concoctions vary with purpose. Some are designed to brighten clouds to reflect more sunlight, prevent the formation of clouds that trap heat, or acting a coolant agent in clouds.

The documentaries  What in the World Are They Spraying? and Why in the World are they Spraying, showed climate physicist David Keith enthusing about large-scale aerosol-spraying projects to alter the planet’s temperature. Keith told an audience of scientists that aluminum nano-particles has four times the reflective surface and 16 times less coagulation of sulphur particles, making aluminum the better choice on this basis, and that there was a significant research literature on those findings, implying widespread in situ sky trials.

 

Keith also said that the more that aerosol geo-engineering delivery research were conducted:

“the less easy this will look, the more complicated the environmental effects will look, and that’s a good thing because right now it looks too easy. So, I think if we do more research we’re likely to find out that it’s harder and more complicated than we thought and the side effects are harder to manage and that’s a healthy outcome that will make it easier to do the management. Of course, the opposite reaction is possible. It’s an empirical question about how will people actually react to knowledge about this. Another reaction is to say, that if these crazy scientists are so concerned about putting CO2 in the atmosphere, they want to think about these things, and that might mean we should be more serious about the risks of CO2 in the atmosphere. And, by the way, it’s not really a moral hazard. It’s more like free-riding on our grand-kids.”

In others words, Dr. David Keith is brazenly anticipating that the impacts of widespread aerosol pollutants will be complicated, but that their management will be made easier because he expects the world’s public can be coerced into submission. By using the spectacle of aerosol geo-engineering turmoil as evidence for its need, based on a toxic brew of ignorance, propaganda and fear to stir an emotional contagion, rather than substantive evidence of the tonnage dumped into atmosphere to arrest the program perpetrators in their tracks, Dr. Keith thinks the geo-clique can win acceptance of the geo-engineering governance regime, as Eli Kintisch whiffed in his book, Hack the Planet, and Naomi Klein in This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. Therefore, Dr Keith and his geo-clique cohort are banking on a blackballing stratagem, whereby the vast cohort known as the ‘world’s public’ are excluded from the inside track of geo-engineering secrets, will succumb to the ultimate blackmail: feel the fear and let us do it anyway.

When confronted by Dane Wigington about his concerns that aerosol particles, especially aluminum, dumped into the atmosphere would result in the toxification of soils and waters, Keith said human health impacts were “not even an issue”. Wigington countered, “So let me clarify, so 10 megatons of aluminum dumped into the atmosphere would have no health impacts?”

David Keith replied:

“So, so, let me be more careful here. So the alumina [health effects] we’ve only begun to research and we’ve published nothing.” 

 

Aerosols, containing silver iodide (silver nitrate and potassium iodide) can also be used as a medium for cloud formation or ‘cloud-seeding.’ These silver and salt-based cloud-seeding chemicals are toxic to humans, land animals and fish. The cloud-seeding effects of what are commonly termed chemtrails, mix with the hot condensation trails or ‘contrails’ of commercial jets to help form prolific cloud-cover.[29]  Former TV weather man Scott Stevens said the logic of weather modification was to work on leveraging inputs to produce big results and to ‘Always work with what’s coming’.

Cloud-seeding Experts: An aircraft owned by Weather Modification Inc. fitted with aerosol dispersal nozzles on the wing behind the propeller.

In the United States, there are 10 states that have multiple weather modification programs: Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Nevaeda, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakato, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. [30] There are at least 39 cloud-seeding programs, with most occurring in the southern and western states. For instance, between 7 January and 17 March 2017 NASA ran a joint project, SNOWIE  took place in the Payette Basin in southwestern Idaho. SNOWIE was a joint project between the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the University of Wyoming, the University of Illinois, the University of Colorado, the Center for Severe Weather Research (CSWR), Idaho Power Company, Weather Modification Inc. and was funded by the National Science Foundation’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences. The incentive for Idaho Power, who funded the the use of the Weather Modification Inc’s aircraft that released the silver iodide, was to generate more snow for more river water that would lead to more power generation.

Weather to Order: Cloud seeding flares over North Dakota

Indeed, profiting from altering the weather is possible by using weather derivatives, which are financial contracts that companies use to hedge risk against adverse weather. In the documentary Why in the World are they Spraying, an independent trader at the Chicago Merchantile Exchange (CME), Michael Agne, said that it’s definitely feasible, and there is unlimited profit potential for those who can control the weather, by constructing weather derivatives bets to work like insurance. Because derivatives are privately negotiated instruments that fall outside the scrutiny of the financial authorities such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the devious exploitation of these unregulated contracts have huge potential to wreak havoc on livelihoods, economies and ecosystems – when combined with the potential to manipulate the weather. The Chicago Merchantile Exchange (CME) has been trading weather derivatives since 1999.

 

Lead researcher of the hugely popular Geo-Engineering Watch website, Dane Wigington, stated that the depictions of geo-engineering proposals in science magazines of smoke and mirrors are literally that. Wigington says the science magazine covers stories are designed to distract people from the actual jets spraying skies toxic metal particles such as aluminum, transforming clouds into sunlight-blocking shields, poisonous rainfall delivery mechanisms and climate coolants, that acidify oceans, kill forests, fish, land animals and create cancer, Alzheimer’s and autism pandemics.

Aerosol Cover-story: Dane Wigington says the hi-tech geo-engineering proposals are smoke literally mirrors to deflect attention from global-scale aerosol spraying programs in operation for decades, as he high-lights with a yellow circle.

In his presentation, Wigington shows video footage evidently of a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III and a Boeing E-3 Sentry all-weather surveillance, command, control, and communications (AWAC) aircraft that are conducting an aerosol spraying mission. The video, originally posted by a German chem-trails website, shows the plane that is trailing the lead aircraft suddenly emits it own gas trail. The aircraft are either emitting aerosols or that the phenomena observed are condensation trails perhaps caused by a mix in the fuel. Perhaps the second aircraft’s fuel mix was switched between bio-fuel and petro-chemical aviation fuel in flight?

Countering the Contrails cover-story: This German video clearly shows that the gas emissions of one of two aircraft are turned off and then on while following the lead aircraft.

In September and October 2015, NASA ran joint tests, Project ECLIF, Emission and Climate Impact of Alternative Fuels, from Manching Air Base, Germany, to study the combustion performance, emission-reduction benefits, and contrail characteristics of alternative jet fuels.

Project ECLIF: A DLR Airbus A320 Advanced Technology Research Aircraft (ATRA) Manching Air Base, Germany, September-October 2015.

NASA claims its has conducted test flights with its DC-8 flying weather laboratory using a 50-50 mix of a mix of standard JP-8 aviation fuel and a plant-derived biofuel, which produces pronounced contrails (as photographed at 300 feet, below left). In the second photo (below right), the DC-8 is trailed at 35,000ft over California’s high desert by a HU-25 Falcon, owned by  NASA’s Langley Research Center.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wigington, who built an off-grid home in Mt Shasta California, says he noticed his solar power uptake dropped between 60% and 80%, and claims he found toxic levels aluminium in his rain samples when tested at the state-certified lab test. It was this poisonous incursion into his family’s off-grid living that provoked Wigington to research geo-engineering further, and expose the “climate engineering cataclysm”.

Renewable Energy Cover Story: Dan Wigington built an off-grid home in Mt Shasta California, only to find in his solar electricity system undermined by aerial aerosol spray programs.

In the documentary, Why in the World are they Spraying, geo-engineer David Keith tells his audience that aluminum oxide caused stratospheric ozone depletion and that the knowledge of these destructive impacts have been known since the 1970s, which makes him think aluminum might be useful to eject from jets.

In an article from 1996, “Atmospheric Aerosols: What Are They, and Why Are They So Important?”, the Langley Aerosol Research Group stated that aerosols can be treated like tracers to study how the Earth’s atmosphere moves, the dynamics of the polar regions, and the exchange of air between the troposphere and stratosphere. Since then, stratospheric transport of volcanic, dessert dust and human-made aerosols from low to high latitudes, for instance, have been mapped.

Global Aerosols: Dust (red) lifts from the surface, sea salt (blue) swirls inside cyclones, smoke (green) rises from fires, and sulfate particles (white) stream from volcanoes and petro-fuel emissions.[NASA]

In August to September 2013, NASA’s Langley Aerosol Research Group (LARGE) conducted  Studies of Emissions and Atmospheric Composition, Clouds and Climate Coupling by Regional Surveys, or SEAC4RS. The objectives of the tests included studying the impact of aerosol particles on meteorology and climate.

 

The Deep State backs Geo-engineering

On June 24 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan promoted stratospheric aerosol injection at the global policy-shaping think, the Council on Foreign Relations. Brennan naturalized, legitimized and downplayed the impacts of aerosol programs, stating Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) is:

 “a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat in much the same way as volcanoes do. An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some risks associated with higher temperatures, and providing the world economy additional time to transition from fossil fuels. This process is also relatively inexpensive. The National Research Council estimates that a fully deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly. On the technical side, greenhouse gas emissions reductions would still have to accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean acidification because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.”

 

Deep State Spinfluence: Then-CIA Director John Brennan promotes stratospheric aerosol injection at the global policy-shaping think, the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington D.C.

 

The then-Central Intelligence Agency Director went on to state that geo-political issues would likely arise as a result of the technologies’ capacity to alter weather patterns, benefiting some regions while impacting others. Brennan said standards and norms were lacking for the deployment and implementation of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. In other words, Brennan’s spin was designed to focus the membership of the New York-based global-policy-shaping think-tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), to design the architecture for the roll-out of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, with strategies, tactics and propaganda to ensure buy-in around the world from governments, key institutions and influential individuals.

This spinfluence ritual at the New York-based global-policy-shaping think-tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is disturbing for anyone who know the dark history of the CIA and the CFR, which is also a hot-bed for deep state networking.

The CIA has a long history of destabilizing countries around the world, including the over-thow of democratic governments  covert support of military juntas, assassinations and mass ‘disappearances’, as well as by coup d’état, guerilla warfare and terrorism training, and black ops terrorism programs such as Operation Gladio. Numerous journalists, scholars and documentary-makers have proven the CIA’s deep state history as a terror factory, including Canadian journalist Naomi Klein in her book, The Shock Doctrine;  Academy Award-winning director Eugene Jarecki in his documentary, Why We Fight; Australian journalist John Pilger’s numerous documentaries including, The New Rulers of the World; scholar Noam Chomsky interviewed for the documentary, Requiem for an American Dream; Francis Richard Conolly’s documentary, Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick; and historian Daniele Ganser’s ground-breaking work, NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. In his studies of a New York-based global-policy-shaping think-tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, Laurence H. Shoup found that the capitalist class is highly networked, employing the professional class to protect their power by filling key government and corporate positions with Council members. Shoup shows in Wall Street’s Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relation Relations and the Empire of Neo-liberal Geopolitics, 1976-2014 and Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations & United States Foreign Policy, how the capitalist class and professional class work hand-in-glove to reinforce ruling class power, defend wealth through economic warfare and expand their power through military violence. Among the intrigues that were first revealed by Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter in their earlier book, Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations & United States Foreign Policy in 1977 – but largely ignored – since their members control the major US media outlets – was the secretive “1980s Project blueprint to transform the world. The “1980s Project”, formulated between 1971-1973 the Council on Foreign Relations, was designed to undermine threats from the mass peoples’ movements of the 1960s to the power of the North Atlantic Capitalist Class by deploying an economic warfare framework, later identified as the ‘Shock Doctrine’.

 

Weather Weaponry for ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’?

Groups such as Geo-Engineering Watch are concerned that big governments such as the United States are in a race to understand weather systems, the Earth’s atmosphere and climate, in order to learn how to better conduct environmental warfare in the future – if not already.

A key omission underpinning the reports by the UK Royal Society, the UN International Panel on Climate Change and the US Government Accountability Office, was that climatic geo-engineering had not already been weaponized.[31]

Yet, weather modification technologies were weaponized during the American War on Vietnam between 1967 and 1972 under Project Popeye, using cloud-seeding techniques to prolong the monsoon season to frustrate enemy supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail through landslides, bridge washouts, softened road surfaces and saturated soils. The program, which achieved extending monsoon seasons by 30 to 45 days, was approved by the Joints Chiefs of Staff on September 1, 1966, and was expanded to Cambodia, Laos and South Vietnam. The Naval Ordinance Test Station, China Lake, California, had developed cloud seeding techniques and silver iodide pyrotechnics. The U.S. Senate Weather Modification report from 1978 mentions that a private company, North American Weather Consultants, conducted seeding experiments from 1967 to 1970 in the Santa Barbara area under contract to the massive 1735 square mile Naval Weapons Station, China Lake, California. However, the North American Weather Consultants work for the Navy Weapons and Weather Research appears under Project Skywater, in Table 8: Principle Contractors and Research Cooperators Associated with Project Skywater (above).

Project Popeye was exposed on 18 March 1972 by Washington Post journalist Jack Anderson, based on a secret 1967 memo found among the Daniel Ellsberg-leaked Pentagon Papers. The memo from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to President Lyndon Baines Johnson read:

“Laos operations – Continue as at present plus Pop Eye to reduce the trafficability [sic] along infiltration routes & Authorization requested to implement operational phase of weather modification process previously successful tested and evaluated in some area”.

The U.S. Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird dismissed the reports, testifying to the U.S. Senate that “Anderson’s wild tales were completely false.”  In 1974, the Senate conducted hearings on the  international agreement prohibiting the use of environmental and geophysical modification as weapons of war. The Defense Department was forced to release information on military weather modification operations in Vietnam. These public exposures led to the “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques” or ENMOD, a United Nations Treaty that was ratified by President Carter in 1979.

Weather Wars Warning: The 1978 U.S. Senate Weather Modification report warned of the havoc to weather systems, civilian populations and warring nations if weather continued to be weaponized.

Tellingly, a 1965 report for the US President’s Scientific Advisory Council entitled “Weather and Climate Modification,” explained that the military implications of Vincent J. Schaefer’s snow and rain-making experiment conducted on November 13 1946 was immediately ceased upon by the United States’ armed forces. While the federally-funded National Science Foundation (NSF) framed the technological discovery as having the potential to advance international “peace and security”, the state-funded non-profit corporation also cautioned that it could be used by nations to impair the capabilities of their enemies’ armed forces, and harm civilian populations and economies.[32]

In 1968, a book titled Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons carried an ominous chapter, “Geophysical warfare : how to wreck the environment”, written by a member of President Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee.  The author, Professor Gordon J.F. MacDonald,  who was also an associate director of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the University of California, Los Angeles, stated:

“As economic competition among many advanced nations heightens, it may be to a country’s advantage to ensure a peaceful natural environment for itself and a disturbed environment for its competitors. Operations producing such conditions might be carried out covertly, since nature’s great irregularity permits storms, floods, droughts, earthquakes and tidal waves to be viewed as unusual but not unexpected. Such a ‘secret war’ need never be declared or even known by the affected populations. It could go on for years with only the security forces involved being aware of it. The years of drought and storm would be attributed to unkindly nature and only after a nation were thoroughly drained would an armed take-over be attempted.”

It is therefore spooky to find that in 1958, Lyndon Johnson said, “he who controls the weather, will control the world”  in a speech when he called for the steps to be taken for new frontiers and visions that would make America no longer second in space and science. Johnson stated:

Inspiring James Bond Villains: Lyndon Johnson dreams of world domination through controlling the weather back in 1958.

“It lays the predicate and the foundation for a space communication satellite that will permit the people of the world to see one television program at the same time throughout the world. Think about that kind of communication. And think about that opportunity will provide. It lays the predicate and the foundation for man to determine the world’s cloud layers, and ultimately the weather. And he who controls the weather, will control the world. It lays the predicate necessary for the steps to send a man to the moon.”

In the book Weather Warfare: The Military’s Plan to Draft Mother Nature, Jerry E. Smith quoted from Professor McDonald 1968 chapter, “Geophysical warfare: how to wreck the environment”. McDonald wrote:

“The key to geophysical warfare is the identification of the environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy”.

Professor MacDonald’s description of the key to geophysical warfare reinforces what former TV weather man Scott Stevens said about weather modification, specifically to ‘Always work with what’s coming’ and work on leveraging inputs to produce big results. Professor MacDonald went on to say:

“Environmental instability is a situation in which nature has stored energy in some part of the Earth or its surroundings far in excess of that which is usual. To trigger this instability, the required energy might be introduced violently by explosions or gently by small bits of material able to induce rapid changes by acting as catalysts or nucleating agents. The mechanism for energy storage might be the accumulation of strain over hundreds of millions of years in the solid Earth, or the super-cooling of water vapour in the atmosphere by updraughts taking place over a few tens of minutes. Effects of releasing this energy could be world-wide, as in the case of altering climate, or regional, as in the case of locally excited earthquakes or enhanced precipitation. 

As far as military applications are concerned, … [a] nation possessing superior technology in environmental manipulation could damage an adversary without revealing its intent. [N]evertheless, the long-term possibility of developing and applying such techniques under the cover of nature’s irregularities presents a disquieting prospect.”

In a 1994 study funded by the National Research Council of future technologies for the U.S. Army entitled Star 21, the authors envisaged that robotic technology might deploy weather modification techniques such as “multispectral screening smokes”. Such studies raise the spectre that sci-fi geophysical warfare may not be far off.

 

Indeed, a 1996 US Air Force study envisaged making clouds with smart nano particles to deny surveillance capabilities to enemies, storm modification to provide advantage to war-fighters, and developing the capacity to modify precipitation in volatile parts of the world where water is scarce. The study’s authors wrote that during the ‘Bosnian peace operation’ of the early 1990s, the “application of weather-modification technology to clear a hole over the targets long enough for F-117s to attack and place bombs on target or clear the fog from the runway at Tuzla would have been a very effective force multiplier”.

Six years earlier, in his 1990 monograph, “Understanding Force Multipliers: The Key to Optimizing Force Capabilities in Peacetime Contingency Operations”, United States Army Major Powell stated, “a force multiplier is a tangible or  intangible variable that increases the combat value and overall capability of a military force.”

In effect, the weather itself had been fore-casted as a ‘force multiplier’ in the US Air Force proposal from 1996, entitled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025.” Indeed, modifying the weather was explicitly described by the authors as such:

“weather modification is a force multiplier with tremendous power that could be exploited across the full spectrum of war-fighting environments.”[33]

 

On 19 March 1997, the 1940s Commander of the US Strategic Air Command, General George C. Kenney, was quoted by Dr. Arnold A. Barnes in his presentation at the ‘Weather Modification: Test Technology
Symposium’ hosted by John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Phillips Laboratory scientist Dr Barnes quoted General George C. Kenney:

“The nation which first learns to plot the paths of air masses accurately and learns to control the time and place of precipitation will dominate the globe.”

Dr Barnes argued that the “since 1978 the official Air Force position has been that weather modification had little utility or military payoff as a weapon of war”. This stance needed to change, he said, because of science advances and need to prepare against technological surprise. Dr Barnes’ presentation included a picture of the HAARP facility (see below), and stated that current capabilities included ionospheric modification, indicating that the High-frequency Active Aururol Research Program (HAARP), located in Gokona Alaska – and other facilities like it – had the potential to be weaponized.

In a 1997 report on the U.S. Army’s Weather programs and organization, the authors from the Science and Technology Corporation explained that the ‘Owning the Weather’ (OTW) program was initiated and developed at Battleground Environments Directorate of the Army Research Laboratory at White Sands Missile Range (ARL-W), principally by meteorologist Richard J. Szymber. The program’s purpose was evidently to make the Army aware of potential advantages of exploiting the weather and weather impacts information so that it would become “a cornerstone of a viable weather culture in the Army”. The STC report stated that the “U.S. Army can and does use weather effects as a force multiplier”, that the Air Force Weather community had also absorbed the ‘Owning the Weather’ concept, while the Army Research Laboratory at White Sands considered the program had outlived its utility following negative publicity after a documentary drew attention and dropped the term.

Owning the Weather: Science Technology Corporation was contracted to the U.S. Army to evaluate the organization of the Army’s weather programs, weather issues and weather infrastructure in 1997.

Indeed, the Army Research Lab’s 1993 annual review describes its Owning the Weather Program as a means to exploit an integrated meteorological system as a “combat multiplier … to win in all types of weather.”

Prouder Days: The Army Research Lab’s 1993 Annual Review describes the Owning the Weather concept as an exploitation of weather information and weather effects to amplify battle forces.

Disturbingly, the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff’s “Joint Vision 2020” adopted similar language of ‘full spectrum’ in the research paper –  “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025”  – when the heads of armed forces re-commit to a 1998 ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ plan in June 2000. The Joint Vision 2020 plan to achieve permanent global military domination – that they described as ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ – over land, seas, air, outer space and cyberspace by the year 2020, must surely have been provocative to regional powers such as Russia and China.[34]

It is, therefore, foreboding to find that in a U.S. Department of Defense Weather Programs report from 2000, states that the  U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, “represents the warfighter by developing solutions to meet the Army’s weather requirements. Also, it “serves as a proponent of the Army’s ‘Owning the Weather’ initiative will enable combat units to use the weather as a force multiplier.” The report shows the developing weather infrastructure within the U.S. armed forces, with such institutions as the Army Research Office, at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; CECOM Intelligence and Electronic Warfare  Directorate at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey;  the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command; the Air Force Combat Climatology Center at Asheville, North Carolina; and numerous Air Force Operational Weather Squadrons.

Just nine years later, the U.S. Department of ‘Defense’ Weather Programs, demonstrated in a 2009 report that the capacity had been built to integrate weather impacts into mission planning. Air Force Weather boasted it had 130+ weather organizations supporting the Air Force and Army. Furthermore, the thinking at the Department of ‘Defense’ was not only about integrating battle-forces across the entire military, across hardware and software technologies and concepts. The United States DOD had incorporated weather as a force multiplier to fuse political directives with its military doctrines. For instance, the Navy would be advised by Task Force Climate Change on policy, strategy, roadmaps, and investments for climate change and the Arctic that would be consistent with such directives as the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s “Joint Vision 2020”, “Seapower 21”, “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower” global domination strategy doctrines and the U.S. Arctic Region Policy outlined in the “National Security Presidential Directive/Homeland Security  Presidential Directive (NSPD-66/HSPD-25)”, which envisages a unified battlespace of sea, land, air, space and cyberspace to project power around the world – with 21st Century technologies. The 2009 report states that two Air Force Staff Weather Officers (SWOs)  are assigned to the US Army Intelligence Center  at Fort Huachuca, Arizona – thereby confirming a continuity of the ‘Owning the Weather as a Force Multiplier’ at the Arizona base.

Therefore, while the Owning the Weather terminology has been dropped from the U.S military’s doctrine, the concept of weather as a force multiplier has become so integrated into the U.S. Department of War’s infrastructure, that if it were the Death Star – it may be only one act away from being fully operational in a ‘theater of war’.

World Military Domination: Integral to the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff vision to achieve Full Spectrum Dominance is the outsourcing of functions to civil and commercial ‘partners’.

 

HAARP

One of five known atmospheric ‘testing’ facilities, the High-frequency Active Aururol Research Program (HAARP), is located in Gokona Alaska. It is constructed of 180 radio antennas knitted together to fire powerful beams of electromagnetic energy into the ionosphere. The HAARP facility was developed as a joint project between the US Navy, Air Force and Phillips Laboratories, under the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).[35] HAARP heats particles in the upper atmosphere, rips holes in the ozone layer, lifts and stretches the ionosphere, and bounces radiated energy downward to the Earth’s surface. Construction at HAARP began in 1992 and it became fully operational in 1994, the antennas were installed by a subsidiary of British Aerospace Systems (BAES) using a patent owned by Advanced Power Technologies Inc. (APTI), a subsidiary of Atlantic Ritchfield Corporation (ARCO).[36] In 1994, ARCO sold its APTI subsidiary, including the patents in the strategic weather warfare technology and the second phase construction contract to E-Systems, which specializes in electronic warfare equipment, spying devices, and navigation and reconnaissance machinery. In 1995, Raytheon paid $2.3 billion in cash for E-Systems Inc., with finance from two Rockefeller-controlled banks, Chase Manhattan Bank and Chemical Bank,[37] as well as Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association.[38]

 

In 2003, British Aerospace Systems Advanced Technologies Inc. outsourced its contract to build and install 132 antennas for HAARP to Phazar Corp., a specialist in wireless antennas for military applications. British Aerospace Systems also sub-contracted its work, awarded by the Office of Naval Research, to ’defense’ contractor DRS Technologies to manufacture 60 transmitters that would compliment the antennas at the HAARP facility.[39] The DRS Technologies’ unit that produced the transmitters is called C4I, short for Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence, which is a common systems configuration within the military-industrial complex. Between 1999 and 2012, Raytheon was contracted by the National Science Foundation to provide logistics, supplies and development of technologies for scientific research, which included weather prediction capabilities. In 2012, a larger weapons industry consortium – Lockheed Martin – succeeded Raytheon Polar Services, which now conducts weather research in Antarctica.[40] Raytheon, which has an office in the International Antarctica Centre in New Zealand, describes “[t]he U.S. Antarctic Program” as a “national program for scientific research and geopolitical presence.” The term ‘geopolitical’ refers to global power politics. In 2015, the Operation of the HAARP research facility was transferred from the United States Air Force to the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Because the uneven heating and cooling of the Earth is what naturally makes the weather – aerosols and atmospheric testing facilities, like HAARP, have the capacity to be used as tools to engineer and weaponize the weather.

 

The contention is that HAARP has been heating the metal-oxides that comprise chemtrails to manipulate the weather, while aerosol coolants can be used to intensify temperature differences.

Critics also argue that climate geo-engineering technologies could be used as weather weapons to make droughts, intensify hurricanes and cause whole regions to freeze. With the potential to use environmental warfare and ‘disaster capitalism’ as a modus operandi, governments could be forced into accepting exploitative ‘free-trade’ agreements, force farmers to buy patented chemical-resistant genetically modified seeds, and make military wars more winnable.[41]

Indeed, if climate geo-engineering technology is not being used for political-economic-military goals to undermine whole societies, it would be the only weaponry developed in history that humans decided was too lethal, dangerous and immoral.

If the whiff of racketeering – which is the fraudulent practice of covertly creating problems and then offering ready-made solutions for extortionate fees – can be smelt here, then we need to get smart quick about the real nature of the planetary-scale fix we are in.

 

Smart Green Economy, or Technocratic Nightmare?

“We can not solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them” ― Albert Einstein

Climate researcher and solar expert Dane Wigington argues that most scientists and technicians working in the field of geo-engineering believe they are making a valuable contribution to stabilizing climate change. He also states that some of the leading scientists, such as David Keith, are psychologically unable to comprehend the destructive consequences of their actions. This sounds like the description of a psychopath.

Earnest people in the world’s green movement have been unwittingly manipulated to help construct a dystopian world – a nightmare of filtered daylight brought to us by the likes of Weather Modification Inc.

Some environmental organizations seem to promote a Smart Green Economy is the only way to address the impacts of human plunder and to deliver a sustainable world.[42]

A carbon credits market, widely promoted to deal with carbon emissions as a crucial component to build-out a Smart Green Global Economy, is actually a means to establish carbon-based technocracy, as former financial analyst Patrick Wood argued in “Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?”[43] A technocracy is an economic system that exploits technology as a means of social control through the allocation of energy and resources rather than the market price system of capitalism.

This means that a carbon credit trading market is a mechanism for big corporate producers to pollute, extract, plunder and privatize not only the atmosphere, but also the entire planet.[44]

Under the rubric of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, every stage of the extraction-production-distribution-consumption-pollution chain is being quantified with complex algorithms to measure the resources consumed. These calculations are quantified into a single measure, known as carbon equivalence units that relate all compounds to an equivalent amount based on the carbon atom. By gaining the means to measure every material, process and exchange with a single metric, the financial industry will be able to combine these carbon equivalent values with financial derivatives. Because derivatives can price risk into a single unit (of whatever currency is stipulated to settle transactions), banking consortiums will gain the capacity to fuse the quanta of resources underpinning every transaction with financial derivatives, so that wealthy investors can earn income off the biosphere.

The objective of resetting the world on trajectory of a carbon-based technocratic political-economic system is the reason why carbon dioxide emissions have been so emphasized in the climate change debate. Instead of emphasizing soil erosion, de-forestation and resource plunder. And, the outsourcing of taxes as practiced by huge transnational consortiums.

The plan is to make a sickly slick hi-tech, futures’ market out of weather derivatives linked to the carbon tax securities and Smart Grid tolls on consumable RFID-chipped products bought with privacy-extinguishing digital carbon credit-backed money. The stealthy deployment of ‘smart technology’ is one incremental strand wiring us all into corporatized totalitarian systems of government administered by a technorati that include technicians, engineers and scientists.[45] Key insiders manage the technocratic system in service of super-rich people, or oligarchs, who use their vast economic resources to steer the trajectory of whole societies[46] Oligarchs can only exist is societies of great material inequality and thrive best in crisis-ridden societies. As American journalist Chris Hedges has observed, this corporate totalitarian core thrives inside a fictitious democratic shell.[47] Because empires are hierarchical expansionist power structures created or usurped by coalitions of super-wealthy oligarchs, they are fixated with a mindset of oligarchism, which in its most virulent form manifests as the diabolical ambition of world [48]domination.

Every empire needs an instrument of expansion, as Professor Carroll Quigley demonstrated in The Evolution of Civilization – An Introduction to Historical Analysis. In the classical age, the primary instrument of expansion was slaves. During the last 500 years of Colonial Empire building, the credit revolution rose as the primary instrument of expansion to usurp slavery and fund wage-labour and the rise of the machines as an instruments of expansion. Following the epic horrors of World War II, empires were forced to join their skeletons in the imperial closets. This strategic retreat meant the super-wealthy dynasties and aspirants had to construct an even more stealthy system of vast monopolistic transnational consortiums that controlled indigenous economic resources, compelled working class Tax Herds to work to re-fence the private credit-funded Tax Farms commonly called countries with ever-more hi-tech inventions, and – all the while – run national financial systems to keep their super wealthy Tax Farmers’ accumulation rising skyward. This system, known as Neo-Colonialism, is with us today. “Neo-Colonialism increases the rivalry between the great powers”, because it compels neighbouring states to join the new competitive construct,” as former President of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, wrote in his 1965 study of its impact on the African continent, Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism.

Now, the chip revolution is poised to ‘collect’ all other instruments of expansion. Whoever controls the chip controls the future course of Earth.

The race is on between competing coalitions to control as much resources, infrastructure, territories, technologies and jurisdictions, so that those alliances that have the strongest combinations that control the structural drivers of the chip revolution, will gain the most important seats at institutions that form an intended world super-government.

In such a dystopian scenario, where a fully corporatized technocratic totalitarianism would govern the planet, the life systems would be vulnerable to the perfect techno-fascist fusion of financial, economic, environmental and military warfare.

Or, as the Earth First Journal cast the fix we are in:

“The main problem with the climate as a point of departure is that it is, in a sense, the point of accumulation. Rather than acknowledging the underlying bases for the climate crisis embedded within the processes of resource extraction, land seizures, monocultures, and industrial production operating through Schumpeterian “creative destruction” and planned obsolescence, returning to the land and air the waste and detritus of useless and artificial life, the [COP21 UN Climate Change Conference, Paris 2015] agreement  acts as though a technocratic approach of all world leaders can coordinate on a massive scale a top-down solution to what is really a problem grounded in everyday life. The problem of mass-scale animal agriculture is overlooked, dams and hydroelectric, mining and rare earths, endangered species, plastics in the ocean are overlooked, nuclear pollution is overlooked—all in the teeth of a militarized police state that supports global warfare on a scale that menaces the entire planet.”[49]

The news media have done hatchet jobs ridiculing peoples’ concerns as conspiracy theories, including dismissing the abundant evidence that aerosol spraying programs are widespread attempts to control climate change. Therefore, it is fascinating to note that the 1978 U.S. Senate Weather Modification report stated that in response to widespread weather modification projects, oppositional groups had emerged who got laws passed banning weather modification in some states and counties, and that there were some subsequent repeals of these acts. Its tone was also dismissive of citizens groups. Likewise, in its 2015 “Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth” report, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine also took a pejorative tone, casting anyone who questions possible weather modification programs and aerosol geo-engineering experiments as believing in the silly ‘chemtrail conspiracy’. The National Academies’ stance is curiously defensive – and illogical – given that the section, “Planned Weather Modification” discusses the patchy history of weather modification, such as the two decade long U.S. federal cloud-seeding program Project STORMFURY from 1962 to 1983, that there are numerous weather modification projects carried out by private companies in the United States, and seeding of clouds with chemical agents enhance rainfall, reduce hail size, or suppress lightening. Despite these admissions, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine helpfully explains that when people report chemtrails, “what is being seen are just artificial clouds produced by normal condensation processes.”  This explaining away is an example of Orwellian Doublethink, which is the phenomena of simultaneously holding two contradictory beliefs as correct, as George Orwell conceptualized it for his dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

It appears the world’s meteorologists need the support of those with high public profiles – such as weather report presenters – to galvanize the many with no public profile. Dane Wigington of Geo-Engineering Watch, reported in October 2015 that the U.S. National Weather Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the US Department of Commerce had subjected their employees to gagging orders, thereby seeking to restrict their workers whistle blowing protections and free speech rights.[50] Geo-Engineering Watch say the satellite pictures for weather reports are being filtered to hide massive aerosol spraying programs. Fascinatingly, Wigington’s presentation was introduced by former CIA officer and author of From the Company of Shadows: CIA Operations and the War on Terrorism, Kevin Shipp who said Kevin Shipp, who stated that aerosol spraying was a secret, dangerous government program. Shipp said the ‘intelligence community’ is a secret government that controls the U.S. Congress, uses coercion to trick employees to sign non-disclosure agreements that waives their constitutional rights and bars them from exercising the Whistleblowers Protection Act, and maintains its secret programs through a culture of fear using intimidation, blackmail and military courts that exercise a monarchical state secrets privilege.

Shipp asks, “Why is the weather so secret?”

To be really effective, potential whistleblowers need to gather documents, photographs and other records to back up their claims to be really effective. Given the foregoing, whistleblowers would need to be prepared for a fight. Grass-roots geo-engineering, chemtrail watch groups and others not affiliated with groups need to be better disciplined at logging photographs, videos and samples with information such as the location, date, time and proximity to airbases and airports, so that pertinent details are available for researchers, journalists, scientists and lawyers to test the veracity of the concerns.

 

Clearly, the world’s TV weather presenters need to be asking, whether the weather each day is engineered for profit, or political coercion or military advantage?

And whether using more industrialism to solve the problems of industrialism is the right fix, or whether climate geo-engineering would accelerate human extinction?

And whether the planet’s journey in the solar system’s journey in the galaxy’s journey is a larger player in climate change than CO2 emissions will ever be? And, therefore, whether we need to re-focus human effort on emancipating ourselves from the rule of the super-rich oligarchies so that we can get on with replenishing the planet with forests, founding marine sanctuaries and forging flourishing self-determining communities?

Such collective action from above is asking for sustained coordinated mutiny from below.

======

Source References:

 

[1] Weather Modification Association. (n.d.). http://www.weathermodification.org/ascepub.php; http://www.weathermodification.org/corporateroster.php.

[2] Weather Modification Association. (2011). “Historic Index of Published Papers Vols. 1 – 43.” The Journal Of Weather Modification, Vol. 1 No.1, March 1969 to April 2011. Retrieved from http://www.weathermodification.org/journal.php; Weather Modification Inc. (n.d.). “Clients & Projects.” Retrieved from http://www.weathermodification.com/projects.php#projects; Roelof T Bruintjes. (18-19 July 2013). Report From Expert Team On Weather Modification Research For 2012/2013. 6th Joint Science Committee of the World Weather Research Programme. World Meteorological Organization. Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from: https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/…/Doc_3_6_weather_mod_2013_Final_tn.pdf; Biochar Work in Developing Countries: the 9 Country Projects. http://www.biochar-international.org/9country

[3] Keith, D. W. (2000). Geoengineering the Climate, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, Vol. 25, p. 250; National Science Foundation. (1965, December 20). “Weather and Climate Modification. Report of the Special Commission on Weather Modification,” p. 47-49. Retrieved from: http://nsf.gov/nsb/publications/1965/nsb1265.pdf; Also Retrieved from: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UQgl-niz7wQJ:https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/outreach/ocsciencefocus/SOIREEaphytoplanktonpartyinthesouthernocean2.pdf; A Half-Century of Earth System Experimentation – ETC Group www.etcgroup.org/files/PDFs/GeoMap-References.pdf; Dr. Homer Newell. (1966). A Recommended National Program for Weather Modification. Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences for the U.S. Federal Council for Science and Technology. Retrieved from: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents-library/

[4] Weather Modification Inc. (n.d.). “Clients & Projects.” Retrieved from http://www.weathermodification.com/projects.php#projects; and Weather Modification Inc. (n.d.). Corporate Roster. http://www.weathermodification.org/corporateroster.php.

[5] Clive Hamilton. (2013). Earth Masters: Playing God with the Climate, p. 74-75,79. Australia: Allen & Unwin.

[6] Gore, A. & Guggenheim, D. (2006). An Inconvenient Truth. Paramount Classics. Durkin, M. (2007). The Great Global Warming Swindle. WagTV; Coffman, M. S. (2007). Global Warming or Global Governance? [Motion picture]. Sovereignty International and Environmental Perspectives Inc.; Renouf, J (2012). Meltdown: A Global Warming. CBC.

[7] Keith, D. W. (2000). “Geoengineering the Climate: History and Prospect,” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, Vol. 25, p. 247-248; The Royal Society. (2009, September). “Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty,” p. 1. Retrieved from http://royalsociety.org; Carbon CaptuAcivil society briefing on Geoengineering: Climate change, smoke and mirrors re and Storage. Retrieved from: http://www.etcgroup.org/content/civil-society-briefing-geoengineering

[8] Henry Fountain. (Oct. 18 2012). A Rogue Climate Experiment Outrages Scientists http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/science/earth/iron-dumping-experiment-in-pacific-alarms-marine-experts.html

[9] Phillip Williamson et al. (November 2012). Ocean fertilization for geoengineering: A review of effectiveness, environmental impacts and emerging governance. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. Special Issue: Negative emissions technology. Volume 90, Issue 6, p. 475–488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2012.10.007

[10] Biochar Work in Developing Countries: the 9 Country Projects. http://www.biochar-international.org/9country

[11] Dr. Mae-Wan Ho (November 18, 2010). Beware the Biochar Initiative, https://permaculturenews.org/2010/11/18/beware-the-biochar-initiative/; ETC Group. (May 2017). A civil society briefing on Geoengineering Climate change, smoke and mirrors. http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

[12] Greenpeace NZ. (n.d.). “Understanding Climate Change.” Retrieved on 9/11/2012 from http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/campaigns/climate-change/science/; 350.org, Retrieved on 9/11/2012 from http://www.350.org/en/about/science; Generation Zero Current Campaigns. http://www.generationzero.org/campaigns; Friends of the Earth International. Climate justice and energy. http://www.foei.org/what-we-do/climate-justice-and-energy

[13] The Royal Society. (2009, September). “Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty.” Retrieved from http://royalsociety.org

[14] United States Congress’s Government Accountability Office (Sep 23, 2010). Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance. GAO-10-903: Efforts. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-903

[15] UK Commons Select Committee. (18 March 2010). ‘The Regulation of Geoengineering’. HC 221, Fifth Report of Session 2009-10. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/parliament-2005/geoengineering-/

[16] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) IPCC Expert Meeting on Geoengineering Lima, Peru, 20-22 June 2011 [PDF] Report of the meeting. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_supporting_material.shtml

[17] Weather Metrological Organization. (2016). WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2017. https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/library/wmo-statement-state-of-global-climate-2016

[18] Roelof T Bruintjes. (18-19 July 2013).Report From Expert Team On Weather Modification Research For 2012/2013. 6th Joint Science Committee of the World Weather Research Programme. World Meteorological Organization. Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from: https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/…/Doc_3_6_weather_mod_2013_Final_tn.pdf

[19] Weather Modification Association. (n.d.). The Weather Modification Association’s Response to the National Research Council’s Report titled: Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research,” http://www.weathermodification.org/ascepub.php

[20] Hamilton. (2013). Earth Masters, p. 117-119.

[21] Hamilton. (2013). Earth Masters, p. 107-114.

[22] Hamilton. (2013). Earth Masters, p. 72-73.

[23] Hamilton. (2013). Earth Masters, p. 74); Klein. This Changes Everything, p. 256-261, 264.

[24] Hamilton. (2013). Earth Masters, p. 75).

[25] Jones, T. (2010, July). “The great hunger lottery: How banking speculation causes food crises. World Development Movement.” Retrieved from: http://www.wdm.org.uk/sites/default/files/hunger%20lottery%20report_6.10.pdf; Gurian-Sherman, D., (2012, June). “High and Dry: Why Genetic Engineering is Not Solving Agriculture’s Problem in a Thirsty World.” Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved from: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/high-and-dry.html#.WSKcToXek_o

[26]  The Royal Society of New Zealand. (2011, March 8). “The implications of geoengineering schemes for New Zealand.” Retrieved from: http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/2010/09/15/geo-engineering-implications-an-interactive-workshop/; Jeremy Morrison. (2011, March 28). “Report: “The Implications of Geo-Engineering schemes for New Zealand Conference 2011.” Retrieved from http://www.openureyes.org.nz/blog/?q=node/3498

[27] See: www.coalitionagainstgeoengineering.org; www.geoengineeringwatch.org; www.chemtrailcentral.com; http://aircrap.org; http://chemtrailsplanet.net

[28] G. Edward Griffin, Michael J. Murphy & Paul Wittenberger. (2010). What in the World Are They Spraying? [Motion picture]. Truth Media Productions; David Dahl. (2012). Skywatcher: Contrails, Chemtrails and Artificial Clouds. [Motion picture]. A PlaceMark One Production.

[29] Belfort Group. (2010, May 10). “Case Orange: Contrail science, its impact on climate and weather manipulation programs conducted by the United States and itallies.” Retrieved fromhttp://www.saive.com/BELFORT.html; G. Edward Griffin, Michael J. Murphy & Paul Wittenberger. (2010). What in the World Are They Spraying? [Motion picture]. Truth Media Productions; David Dahl. (2012). Skywatcher: Contrails, Chemtrails and Artificial Clouds [Motion picture]. A PlaceMark One Production; Michael J.Murphy. (2012). Why in the World Are They Spraying? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis; Rady Ananda. (December 01, 2015). Global Research.  Retrieved from: http://www.globalresearch.ca/military-weather-modification-chemtrails-atmospheric-geoengineering-and-environmental-warfare/5356630

[30] Roelof T Bruintjes. (18-19 July 2013). Report From Expert Team On Weather Modification Research For 2012/2013. 6th Joint Science Committee of the World Weather Research Programme, p. 5. World Meteorological Organization. Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from: https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/…/Doc_3_6_weather_mod_2013_Final_tn.pdf

[31] The Royal Society. (2009, September). “Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty.” Retrieved from http://royalsociety.org

[32] NSF 4. (1965). Weather and Climate Modification, p. 26-27). US President’s Scientific Advisory Council.

[33] House, Col. T. J. et al (1996). “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,” p. 35, http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf; Ealer, J & Walton, J. (2009). That’s Impossible: Weather Warfare. History Channel.

[34] Shelton, Gen. H. W. (2000, June). “Joint 2020 Vision – America’s Military: Preparing for Tomorrow.” US Government Printing Office; Washington: DC; United States Space Command. (1998). “Vision for 2020,” http://www.gsinstitute.org/gsi/docs/vision_2020.pdf

[35] Prof Michel Chossudovsky Global Research, May 22, 2016. The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ultimate-weapon-of-mass-destruction-owning-the-weather-for-military-use-2/5306386

[36] Randol-Smith, P. & Robbins, W. (1998). Holes in Heaven? H.A.A.R.P. and Advances in Tesla Technology. UFOTV; Chossudovsky, M. (2012, September 28). “The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use,” http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ultimate-weapon-of-mass-destruction-owning-the-weather-for-military-use-2/5306386;

[37] Eustace Mullins. (1991). The Secrets of the Federal Reserve: The London Connection. Carson City, Nevada, USA: Bridger House Publishers.

[38] Kathryn Jones. (April 4, 1995). Raytheon Offers $2.3 Billion for E-Systems. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/04/business/raytheon-offers-2.3-billion-for-e-systems.html

[39] Chossudovsky, M. (2012, September 28). “The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use,” http://www.globalresearch.ca/theultimate-weapon-of-mass-destruction-owning-the-weather-for-military-use-2/5306386; Mervis, J. (2011, December 29). Updated: NSF picks Lockheed for huge Antarctic support contract. Science Insider. Retrieved from http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/12/nsf-picks-lockheed-for-huge-antarctic.html

[40] Mervis, J. (2011, December 29). Updated: NSF picks Lockheed for huge Antarctic support contract. Science Insider. Retrieved from http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/12/nsf-picks-lockheed-for-huge-antarctic.html

[41] Environmental warfare. (n.d). SourceWatch. Retrieved from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Environmental_warfare; Michael J. Murphy. (2012). Why in the World Are They Spraying? www.whyintheworldaretheyspraying.com; Klein, N. (2007). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Camberwell, Australia: Penguin Books; Whitecross, M & Winterbottom, A. (Directors) & Eaton, A. (Producer). The Shock Doctrine 2009 [Motion picture].  A Renegade Pictures/Revolution Films Production. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW1SHPgUAQ; Jarecki, Eugene (2006). Why We Fight. [Motion Picture]. Sony Pictures Classics.

[42] Building our Smart Green Economy by 2020. EcoSummit 2020. Retrieved from: http://ecosummit.net/articles/building-our-smart-green-economy-by-2020; Heshmati, Almas (2014) : An Empirical Survey of the Ramifications of a Green Economy, IZA Discussion Paper, No. 8078. Retrieved from:  https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/96713/1/dp8078.pdf

[43] Patrick Wood. (26 January 2010). Global currency replacing all paper currencies, limiting manufacturing, food production and people movement. http://canadafreepress.com/article/carbon-currency-a-new-beginning-for-technocracy

[44] Friends of the Earth International. Fighting back against dirty energy, false solutions and climate change http://www.foei.org/news/fighting-back-dirty-energy-false-solutions-climate-change; Alexander Reid Ross. (December 13, 2015). Grey not Green: Technocratic Climate Agreement and Police State Terror  Earth First! Journal – Earth First! Newswire. Retrieved from: http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2015/12/13/grey-not-green-technocratic-climate-agreement-and-police-state-terror/

[45] Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre. (2006). Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Purchase and Watch Your Every Move; Josh del Sol (2014). Take Back Your Power. Retrieved from: https://takebackyourpower.net/

[46] Patrick Wood. (2015). Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation. USA: Coherent Publishing. Patrick Wood. (23 June 2011).  “Technocracy Endgame: Global Smart Grid.; Patrick Wood. (2 March 2010).  “Smart Grid  The Implementation of Technocracy? “;  Retrieved from: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_energy52.htm#Smart%20Grid:%20The%20Implementation; Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre (2006). Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Purchase and Watch Your Every Move. USA: Penguin. Retrieved from: http://www.spychips.com; Josh del Sol (2014). Take Back Your Power. Retrieved from: https://takebackyourpower.net/

[47] Hedges, Chris. (2014, January 6). The Last Gasp of American Democracy. Truthout. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21052-chris-hedges-the-last-gasp-of-american-democracy

[48] Kwame Nkrumah (1965). Neo-colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. London: Nelson; Winters, J. A. (2011). Oligarchy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Webster Griffin Tarpley. (n.d.). Against Oligarchy. Retrieved from: tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/

[49] Alexander Reid Ross. (December 13, 2015). Grey not Green: Technocratic Climate Agreement and Police State Terror  Earth First! Journal – Earth First! Newswire. Retrieved from: http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2015/12/13/grey-not-green-technocratic-climate-agreement-and-police-state-terror/

[50] Dane Wigington. (October 21, 2015). Government Implements Illegal “Gag Order” On National Weather Service And NOAA Employees. Retrieved from: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/government-implements-illegal-gag-order-on-national-weather-service-and-noaa/; Kevin M. Shipp (October 20, 2015). Former Prominent CIA Officer Shares Details Of The Government’s All Out War Against Whistleblowers With GeoengineeringWatch.org Retrieved from: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/former-prominent-cia-officer-shares-details-of-the-governments-all-out-war-against-whistleblowers-with-geoengineeringwatch-org/

Comments are closed.