|
�
�
by Rady Ananda
November 03, 2013
from
GlobalResearch Website
�
�
�
�
�
Developed in 1988 by
the United Nations Environment Program and
the UN's World Meteorological Organization, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just published its Fifth Assessment
Report [1] and maintains its silence on military weather
modification applications which continue to skew the data.
�
"Extreme weather and climate events" are linked to climate change
while no mention is made of government programs deliberately aimed
at modifying the weather and inducing earthquakes, drought, rain,
and tsunamis.
 The modern weather modification program, at least in the US, is over
70 years old. Public service announcements printed in newspapers
back in the 1960s (image right) warned of government intention to modify the
weather.
Life Magazine, back in the 50s and 60s, continually covered US
weather modification programs, including Project Stormfury which
redirected and reduced hurricane intensity from 1962 to 1983. The
IPCC's continuing and absolute silence on such programs is
deafening.
With insider knowledge, a chapter in the 1968 book, Unless Peace
Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons, predicts the
development of technologies that will use the planet itself as a
weapon.
�
The chapter, "How to Wreck the
Environment," [2] was penned
by geophysicist and member of President Johnson's Science Advisory
Committee, Dr. Gordon J.F. MacDonald, wherein he states:
"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."
The chapter envisions four planetary weapons which MacDonald
predicted would be fully developed by the 21st century, based on the
then-current state of research:
The idea is carried forward in several geoengineering schemes
detailed in Eli Kintisch's Hack the Planet, in a chapter entitled
"The Pursuit of Levers," explained as,
"small changes in Earth's system
that can have profound global effects." [3]
As LBJ's Science Advisor, MacDonald surely knew of the military's
weather modification program known as Operation Popeye, which ran
from 1967 thru 1972 in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
�
By seeding
clouds, the US military caused torrential downpours that inhibited
enemy truck and troop movements. Initially exposed by investigative
journalist Jack Anderson, the existence of the project was later
corroborated in The Pentagon Papers.
In 1996, world renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell, who served on
the Bhopal and the Chernobyl Medical Commissions, and was a
recipient of the Right Livelihood Award, published "Background on HAARP," [4] describing Dr.
Bernard Eastlund's brainchild, the US
High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP), as follows:
"It would be rash to assume that HAARP is an isolated experiment
which would not be expanded.
�
It is related to fifty years of
intensive and increasingly destructive programs to understand and
control the upper atmosphere. It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately
being planned by the United States.
�
HAARP is an integral part of a long
history of space research and development of a deliberate
military nature."
In 2000, reports Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Dr Bertell told The
Times of London,
"US military scientists� are
working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods
include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor
rivers in the Earth's atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or
floods." [5]
HAARP's use of the ionosphere through radio frequencies, explains
Dr. Nick Begich, co-author of
Angels Don't Play This HAARP, also
triggers earthquakes and volcanoes. [6]
�
Begich quotes Clinton's
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, who said in 1997 at a
conference on terrorism:
"Others are engaging even in an
eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set
off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of
electromagnetic waves." [7]
Pragmatically, the US wouldn't be worried about such weapons unless
they knew with certainty that they were feasible and had, in all
likelihood, already developed them itself.
In "Atmospheric Geoengineering
- Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails," which was named the 9th most censored story in 2012 by
Project Censored, a brief history of known geoengineering events was
published. [8]
�
From that report, the IPCC's co-founder, the World
Meteorological Organization, complained six years ago, in 2007,
that:
"In recent years there has been a
decline in the support for weather modification research, and a
tendency to move directly into operational projects." [9]
But the IPCC remains mum on these projects, except to deny they
exist, while at the same time urging in its Summary that they must
continue or global warming will spike.
�
The 2013 IPCC report states:
"Theory, model studies and observations suggest that some Solar
Radiation Management (SRM) methods, if practicable, could
substantially offset a global temperature rise and partially offset
some other impacts of global warming, but the compensation for the
climate change caused by greenhouse gases would be imprecise (high
confidence)."
To claim that solar radiation management methods (which include
chemtrails and HAARP-induced changes) are "unimplemented and
untested" is patently absurd, and contradicts a library of evidence.
�
�
�
Geoengineering Patents
On March 26, 2013, the US Patent and Trademark Office granted a
patent to Rolls-Royce PLC to prevent contrails from forming.
[10]
�
By
using an electromagnetic wave generator, contrails would not be
visible, nor would artificial clouds develop.
It's not the first such patent. Back in 1962 the US Air Force wanted
to add caustic chemicals to hide contrails and prevent unintentional
cirrus cloud formation.
�
Patent No. 3,517,505 was granted eight years
later, in 1970.
Patent, No. 5,005,355, granted in 1988 to Scipar,
Inc., used various species of alcohol, which effectively lowered the
freezing point of water to avoid contrail formation.
�
The 2013 patent
characterized both of these earlier patents as environmentally
inappropriate for commercial purposes.
For a partial list of patents for stratospheric aerial spraying
programs from 1917 thru mid-2003, see Lori Kramer's "Patently
Obvious - A Partial History of Aerosol and Weather Related
Technologies." [11]
�
"Weather
Warfare - The Military's Plan to Draft Mother Nature"
by Jerry Smith also includes an
appendix of HAARP-related patents. [12]
�
�
�
A Note on Persistent Contrails
What some see
as chemtrails, the IPCC and others recognize as
persistent contrails that are a normal effect of today's jet
exhaust.
In the 2006 book, Weather Warfare, Jerry Smith explains that
persistent contrails are not necessarily chemtrails.
�
From the 1990s
on, he explains, all jet engines were modified with a "high bypass
turbofan" which increased fuel efficiency and, as a side effect,
left persistent contrails that hazed into cirrus clouds after
several hours.
�
This is the timeframe when chemtrail sightings begin.
The reason today's jets now form persistent contrails, explains
Marshall Smith, a former NASA-Ames aeronautical engineer, is that
the sooty particulates in older jet exhaust provided a nucleus
around which ice crystals would form (giving us a contrail).
�
But
because of its dark color, the sooty particulate absorbed solar
energy which melted the ice crystals, dissipating the contrail.
�
Today's cleaner and thus clearer jet exhaust allows solar energy to
pass right through it, and so contrails persist and spread into high
cirrus clouds lasting 24-36 hours.
Smith admits that this development does not disprove chemical,
biological or metallic dispersants from jets, and he also states
that such dispersants can be sprayed without leaving a chemtrail,
depending on the particulate, and on the humidity and atmospheric
temperature.
�
But, later, in 2009, he published the following:
"'Chemtrails' theory then, is that 'normal' jet aircraft contrails disappear in a few minutes,
whereas 'chemtrails' persist for hours, and therefore are not 'normal' and must contain some covert element to make them
persist�
�
Persistent jet contrails can be
entirely explained by science without having to resort to a
'conspiracy theory' scenario. They appear to be no more than the
natural result of the introduction of the hi-bypass turbo fan,
improved jet fuel (JP-8) and 'global warming.'" [13]
The transition to more efficient jet fuel and cold-flow additives
supports this explanation, but none of that can explain the
following image, taken earlier this year in Raglan, New Zealand:
�
�
The dot-dash effects seen in the sky, Smith explains, are the result
of the jet exhaust passing thru sections in the atmosphere that are
warmer, creating a broken line or dotted contrail.
�
The following
image makes that explanation implausible. Instead, it illustrates
that as the plane passed, an on-off switch was thrown several times.
�
It's hardly likely the ambient temperature and humidity uniformly
varied where the plane traveled.
�
�
The IPCC specifically addressed the impact of global aviation on the
atmosphere in a 2000 report, noting that aircraft were then
responsible for up to a half a percent of all of Earth's cirrus
cloud coverage, and that cirrus clouds tend to warm the surface of
the planet. [14]
Global distribution of net instantaneous radiative forcing at the
top of atmosphere in daily and annual average for present (1992)
climatic conditions, analyzed contrail cover, and 0.55-�m optical
depth of 0.3 (Minnis et al., 1999).
�
�
�
However, the high-bypass turbo fan and better grade fuel do not
explain the grid pattern often seen which is clearly not normal air
traffic lanes.
�
Below are two images showing the grid pattern.
�
The
first, a generic one found on the web , is one of many such images
uploaded by concerned citizens who reasonably fail to recognize a
normal set of flight lanes.
�
�
This next image is a satellite view looking down at the Celebes Sea,
showing chemtrails and their shadows. (NASA)
�
�
Satellite view of Celebes Sea
showing chemtrails and their shadows.
(NASA)
�
Finally, the fine dusting of web-like filaments referred to as
chemwebs can be explained by a natural arachnid phenomenon known as
Gossamer Showers or Gossamer Filaments.
�
Spiders are known to
balloon, spreading their webs over the land for miles. Referred to
throughout history, naturalist Henry Christopher McCook wrote about
them in his 1890 book, American Spiders and Their Spinningwork. [15]
Unless lab results prove otherwise, these webs are natural and
should remain outside the chemtrails discussion.
�
�
�
Impossible to Regulate?
Weather Warfare also spends a good deal of time covering the
international agreements against environmental modification (ENMOD).
�
The first major one came in 1978, after the US was exposed for weaponizing weather during the Vietnam War. Smith points out that
none of these agreements cover "national defense" which is how
governments are able to avoid the ban.
That 1978 agreement specifically objected to hostile use of ENMOD.
In 2010, the UN banned friendly ENMOD. [16]
�
The 193-member
Convention on Biodiversity agreed by consensus to a moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments, which governments promptly
ignored. With no teeth to that moratorium, it's not too surprising
that such programs continue unabated.
Not two months later, in Cancun, Mexico, at the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, the IPCC opened the 2010
conference by promoting geoengineering options. [17]
On a practical level, notes the International Risk Governance
Council:
"Countries and firms routinely fly various aircraft in the
stratosphere, or send rockets through the stratosphere into space.
These activities release significant quantities of particles and
gases.
�
A requirement for formal prior approval of small field
studies, just because they are directed at learning about SRM and
its limitations, is probably unenforceable because judging
intent is often impossible." [18]
In Hack the Planet, Kintisch opposes an outright global ban on
geoengineering, fearing that governments will simply go underground
with it.
�
This is bad, he stresses, because it will,
"worsen
perceptions that [geoengineering is] a quasi-military strategy or a
technocratic means of control."
Going further, he states:
"A vibrant community of conspiracy theorists is under the belief
that geoengineering is already being deployed by governments by
releasing so-called chemtrails in the sky."
But de facto moratoria already exist for such projects, as mentioned
above, and Kintisch lists some others, including the London
Protocol, the London Convention and a German restriction limiting
iron-seeding to coastal waters only.
�
The only element missing in Kintisch's reasoning is his refusal to believe that governments have
already gone underground with it and that geoengineering is already
underway.
Kintisch, like all government propagandists, wields the "conspiracy
theorist" label like a club, without once offering any logical
counter-argument to explain what thousands of sky watchers have
observed and documented with photographs, videos, and soil and water
tests.
Conspiracies are argued and decided by the thousands in courts all
over the world, every day. Most crimes are not committed by lone
actors, yet condemning those who recognize a conspiracy pattern has
become a simple and lazy way to crush investigation into
inconsistencies in government position statements.
�
Bradley Manning,
Edward Snowden and Wikileaks, along with Daniel Ellsberg,
Karen Hudes and W. Mark Felt, certainly prove that governments are the
most dangerous conspirators facing humanity today.
Though he offers dozens of reasons why geoengineering the planet
would be a bad idea, Kintisch comes out in support of the notion,
likening it to a terrarium, "an enclosed controlled garden," leaving
the reader with a sense that planet hacking is a necessary evil that
should be regulated.
�
�
�
Modifying the Weather for Profit
In related news, the ecocidal giant,
Monsanto, just dropped nearly a
billion dollars to get into the weather insurance game,
buying
Climate Corporation.
�
Forbes reports,
"The idea is to sell more data and
services to the farmers who already buy Monsanto's seed and
chemicals." [19]
Already closely tied to the military, how easy would it be for
Monsanto to know in advance of a geoengineered drought or deluge?
�
Monsanto expects its climate insurance business to generate $20
billion in revenue beyond its seed and chemical business.
Likewise,
how easy would it be for a nation with decades of
experience in modifying the weather and in triggering geophysical
events to create the problem of climate change (or exaggerate its
significance) to induce the world into approving, even demanding, geoengineering?
With decades of patents providing a history of
capabilities, could this entire drama, including "extreme weather
events" be orchestrated for the simple pursuit of profit?
Isn't this precisely how the Hegelian Dialect works?
Problem→ Reaction→ Solution (Thesis→ Antithesis→ Synthesis).
In other
words, those in a position of power invent a problem, anticipating
the public's reaction to it, and use that reaction to generate
demand for the "solution" which was the intended program
power-holders wanted to implement in the first place.
At the very least, while the veil may be lifting on geoengineering
practices, there is still an apparent effort to conceal the extent
to which the planet is already being engineered.
�
�
�
Notes
[1] Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, "Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis," Sept. 2013 at
http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/. The following link
is to the Summary, downloaded Nov. 2, 2013 (in case the original
Summary is modified in the future):
http://abact.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ipcc-policy-summary-2013.pdf
[2] Nigel Calder, Ed.
Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons,
Allen Lane Publishers, London, 1968. Cited chapter by Gordon J.
F. MacDonald, 'How to Wreck the Environment,' available at
http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/1968-macdonald-how-to-wreck-the-planet.pdf
[3] Eli Kintisch, Hack the
Planet: Science's Best Hope or Worst Nightmare for Averting
Climate Catastrophe. John Wiley & Sons. 2010.
[4] Sister Dr. Rosalie Bertell,
"Background on HAARP," 1996. Available at
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/212/45492.html
[5] Michel Chossudovsky,
"Washington's New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to
Trigger Climate Change," 4 Jan. 2002. Available at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html
[6] Nick Begich. Interview by
Russell Scott, The West Coast Truth. "Angels Don't Play This HAARP & Tesla Technology w/ Dr. Nick Begich ," 22 Sept. 2012.
Available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33XGrXK6jnI
[7] William S. Cohen,
"Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy," Sam
Nunn Policy Forum, Conference on Terrorism. University of
Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 28 April 1997. Speech. Available at
http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/04/bmd970429d.htm
[8] Rady Ananda, "Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails,"
Global Research, 30 July 2010.
[9] World Meteorological
Organization, "Executive Summary of the WMO Statement on Weather
Modification," WMO Documents on Weather Modification Approved by
the Commission for Atmospheric Sciences Management Group, Second
Session, Oslo, Norway, 24-26 September 2007. CAS-MG2/Doc 4.4.1,
Appendix C. Available at
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WM_statement_guidelines_approved.pdf
[10] Frank G Noppel, et al.,
(assigned to Rolls-Royce PLC). "Method and apparatus for
suppressing aeroengine contrails." Patent No. 8,402,736. 26
March 2013. Available at
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8402736.PN.&OS=PN/8402736&RS=PN/8402736
[11] Lori Kramer, "Patently
Obvious: A Partial History of Aerosol and Weather Related
Technologies, n.d. Available at
http://www.seektress.com/patlist.htm
[12] Jerry Smith, "Weather
Warfare: The Military's Plan to Draft Mother Nature",
Adventures Unlimited Press: 2006.
[13] Jerry Smith, "The Painful
Truth About 'Chemtrails," Sovereign Mind Magazine: May/June
2009. Available at
http://www.jerryesmith.com/index.php/156
[14] Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, "Aviation and the Global Atmosphere,"
November 2000. Available at
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/
[15] Henry Christopher McCook,
American Spiders and Their Spinningwork, Vol. II.
Self-published, 1890. Available at Biodiversity Heritage
Library,
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/search?searchTerm=mccook+spiders#/titles
[16] ETC Group, "BREAKING: UN
Bans Chemtrails," 28 Oct. 2010. Available at
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/un-votes-to-ban-chemtrails/
[17] Rady Ananda, "UN Climate
Concern Morphs into Chemtrail Glee Club," 6 Dec. 2010. Available
at
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/un-climate-concern-morphs-into-chemtrail-glee-club/
[18] M. Granger Morgan and
Katharine Ricke, "Cooling the Earth Through Solar Radiation
Management: The need for research and an approach to its
governance," International Risk Governance Council, 2010.
Available at
http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/SRM_Opinion_Piece_web.pdf
[19] Bruce Upbin, "Monsanto
Buys Climate Corp for $930 Million," 2 Oct. 2013. Available at
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2013/10/02/monsanto-buys-climate-corp-for-930-million/
�
�
|
