Climate Science & Geoengineering

SUBHEAD: United Nations climate concern morphs into chemtrail glee club. By Randy Ananda on 9 December 2010 for Activist Post - ( Image above: Multiple contrails in sky at sunset. From ( In Cancun, Mexico, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is under pressure to overturn the UN ban on chemtrails. This would dissolve an agreement reached in October at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity conference in Japan. In that landmark decision, the 193-member CBD agreed by consensus to a moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments. The US has not agreed to it. Citing profits, the US further refuses to cut greenhouse gas emissions attributed to global warming, the purported concern of the United Nations. Instead, it seeks to expand its geoengineering projects for which hundreds of patents have already been filed. (See sampling below.) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) opened the Cancun conference last week by discussing geoengineering options that will be further explored in Peru later this year. Such environmental modification (ENMOD) programs include putting mirrors in space, iron seeding the oceans, planting genetically modified forests, and chemtrailing the skies. Of course, all of these activities are already well underway. The next UN climate change assessment report, AR5, is due out in November of 2014. It will include geoengineering options, said Indian businessman and economist, Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the IPCC. In his introductory comments in Cancun, he stated, “The scope of the AR5 has also been expanded over and above previous reports, and would include, for instance, focused treatment of subjects like clouds and aerosols, geo-engineering options,” and the usual climate related issues. Shady Science & Corporate Profits The IPCC has been condemned for inflating temperature records and exaggerating estimates of glacial retreat. IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri has also been criticized for his “extensive interests in companies that stand to benefit from carbon trading,” and for using his position “to attract major funding to his own organization, The Energy and Resources Institute2 (TERI), known previously (and concurrently by some), as the Tata Energy Research Institute,” noted the Science and Public Policy Institute in an April 2010 investigative report entitled, “Dr Rajendra Pachauri and the IPCC – No Fossil Fool.” The Tata Group, “has a total market capitalization worldwide of some $77 billion, with major involvement in energy and energy-related industries, including carbon trading,” reports SPPI. Tata is also linked to India’s war on tribes. Ongoing corporate ecoterrorism and land grabs led world-renowned author Arundhati Roy to agitate on behalf of indigenous peoples, demanding freedom for the people of Kashmir’s disputed territory. Last week, Delhi filed charges against her for defense of tribes characterizing it as “waging war against the state.” Corporate dominance was slowed, however, when a ‘real Avatar tribe’ won a stunning victory over mining giant, Vedanta Resources, last August. (See the 11-minute, award-winning film, “Mine: Story of a Sacred Mountain.”) It bears repeating that the man connected to Tata, Mr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairs the IPCC which advises the UN on climate actions. Global governance on geoengineering has a history of profiteering. See, e.g., Chief sponsor of landmark climate manipulation conference maintains close financial ties to controversial geo-engineering company, by Joe Romm, Climate Progress, 18 Mar 2010. For a partial list of patents for stratospheric aerial spraying programs from 1917 thru mid-2003, see CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies,” in which researchers revealed that “the proposed scenario by the IPCC in 2001 is identical to the claims” in Hughes Aircraft’s 1991 patent. Hughes was acquired by Raytheon, a major defense contractor, in 1997. Delivery systems aren’t the only types of patents related to chemtrails. Aluminum is part of thevarious metal-chemical cocktails sprayed and is , therefore representing a serious threat to normal agriculture. For over thirteen years, biotech scientists have researchedaluminum resistant genes in plants, finally isolating one in 2007. Today, a “new generation of genetically engineered crop research” seeks to develop aluminum-resistance in commercial crops. Environmental watchdog ETC Group* notes in its 56-page report, “Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering,” that, “there is a complex web of connections between big capital and the global technofixers, comprised of researchers, multinational corporations and small start-ups, the military establishment and respected think tanks, policy makers and politicians. The non-profit institutions that promote geoengineering are well connected with the private sector.” On December 6th, energy and environmental ministers from around the world began meeting to discuss a “balanced package of decisions.” Louise Gray at The Telegraph advises, “It is generally agreed that a global deal to cut emissions is unlikely.” Instead, these UN meetings on climate change appear to be more about protecting pollutive industry practices and promoting another environmentally toxic industry: geoengineering. It would almost be laughable except for the homicidal and ecocidal affect of such plans. *Blogger Cassandra Anderson recently noted that the ETC Group is partly funded by the Ford Foundation, “known for supporting depopulation.” So far, ETC has adamantly opposed geoengineering, as well as genetic engineering, both suspected depopulation tools. However, ETC also denies current ENMOD activities, saying “there is no actual deployment to govern.” Confronting the ‘futuristic’ branding of geoengineering,” mass perception management and the ETC Group are explored in more detail.
By Randy Ananda on 9 December 2010 for Activist Post - (
Video above: The cumuli proof filmed by Niko. From (
Lately, we’ve seen a massive marketing make-over of environmental modification (ENMOD) programs. What has been a clandestine and hostile military application now is promoted as a “futuristic” solution to corporate pollution. Debunking mass media’s mischaracterization of geoengineering as “futuristic” is in order. Below we take a closer look at those organizations planting such disinformation and offer sources on the harmful effects of geoengineering. Here is a sampling of quotes from mainstream media on the use of geoengineering: NYTimes in 2006: “In the past few decades, a handful of scientists have come up with big, futuristic ways to fight global warming…. Their proposals were relegated to the fringes of climate science.”
AP: “Crutzen, who wrote a 2006 scientific article that sparked interest in geoengineering…” Slate Magazine, Sept. 23, 2010: “Global climate engineering is untested and untestable…. the discipline does not yet exist; it is at best geoscientific speculation.” James Cascio (author of Hacking the Earth: Understanding the Consequences of Geoengineering) on October 15, 2010: “It does not yet appear that anyone has started to develop actual geoengineering tools…” Reuters: “None of this … will go forward without ample opportunity for the public to comment.” Freakonomics: “… a ‘Future Tense Event’ called, Geoengineering: The Horrifying Idea Whose Time Has Come…” NYTimes Nov. 2010 “…novel approaches to limiting global warming.” In addition to mass media, environmental organizations also promote the idea that geoengineering is brand new. In a companion piece, “UN Climate Concern Morphs into Chemtrail Glee Club,” Cassandra Anderson was recognized for recently noting that environmental watchdog and geoengineering opponent, ETC Group, is partly funded by the Ford Foundation, which she characterizes as being “known for supporting depopulation.” Not only has ETC adamantly opposed geoengineering, but also genetic engineering, both suspected depopulation tools. ETC does subscribe to anthropogenic global warming, and believes that geoengineering is being used to halt legislation or treaties that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In its 56-page report, “Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering,” ETC warns (p.18):
For those who previously doubted (or still do) the science of anthropogenic global warming, the geoengineering approach shifts the discussion from reducing emissions to an end-of-pipe solution. Once geoengineering is an option, there is no longer a need to bicker about who put the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (or ask them to stop).
Whether or not AGW is real, under a geoengineering scheme, corporate polluters can continue polluting. And this is precisely where climate change skeptics are being led, ETC warns. One high profile climate skeptic, Julian Morris of the International Policy Network, told the BBC in 2008:
Diverting money into controlling carbon emissions and away from geoengineering is probably morally irresponsible.
Of course, more than two options exist. A third might be imposing a ban on all ecocidal activities. But, those who oppose both geoengineering and genetic engineering do need to remain wary of any group that supports environmentally destructive practices – including the business-as-usual corporate exploitation of the planet. To its discredit, ETC denies the existence of current ENMOD programs (p.42):
One of the reasons the geoengineering debate has focused on research governance is that the technology itself is largely theoretical (there is no actual deployment to govern). [emphasis added]
Yet, we have the UN World Meteorological Organization saying in a 2007 position Statement on Weather Modification (p.4):
In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.
And, of course, we have numerous books, films, websites and articles from citizens and experts documenting the existence of such programs. ETC also absurdly states (p. 41) that:
Geoengineering is still too contested a field for most big corporate investors, and for many an open association with geoengineering would be a public relations liability.
Global repugnance over genetically modified foods hasn’t hampered investment in or expansion of the biotech industry. Increasing cancer rates, environmental degradation and public condemnation hasn’t slowed the chemical industry. That statement seems to be thrown in to support the idea that no one is currently engaged in geoengineering. It’s so bizarre, in fact, that ETC contradicts itself in that same report (a page earlier), with a statement that makes sense:
Those who would have the technical, scientific and financial resources to carry out geoengineering schemes [are] …. well-capitalized governments and corporations.
Also, researchers have uncovered patents held by the US military, as well as huge defense contractors like Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon (which later absorbed Hughes). Somehow, they do not perceive that a ‘public relations liability’ is at issue when enormous profits or military dominance are at stake. As stated in Chemtrail Glee Club:
Delivery systems aren’t the only types of patents related to chemtrails. Aluminum is part of the various metal-chemical cocktails sprayed and is highly toxic to plants, therefore representing a serious threat to normal agriculture. For over thirteen years, biotech scientists have researchedaluminum resistant genes in plants, finally isolating one in 2007. Today, a ‘new generation of genetically engineered crop research’ seeks to develop aluminum-resistance in commercial crops.
Whether ETC Group is one ‘voice of controlled opposition’ or merely has a blind spot when it comes to the extensive history of ENMOD is unknown. Much of what they publish is useful information. Some of it is contradictory, and the notion that we’re not currently being chemtrailed is outright absurd. I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water, though. It’s likely that a wealth of accurate information can be found in Cascio’s book, Hacking the Earth, even though he also denies that the “tools” exist. What is obvious is that a major perception management scheme is underway across the political spectrum from climate change skeptics to AGW devotees. Instead of framing ENMOD as a military attack, we’re now discussing it in terms of climate change — a sticking point among populists, some who buy into it and some who don’t. Over a Century of Cloud Seeding Though governments, mass media and dubiously-funded organizations still portray geoengineering as futuristic, a wealth of evidence exists that governments and private entities have engaged in the practice for over a century. See, e.g., the sources listed in my July 2010 piece, Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails. One historian cited, James Fleming, traced military funding of weather modification experiments back to the 1840s. That’s 170 years ago. Small scale rainmaking was successful enough that in 1915, the city of San Diego offered Charles Hatfield an outrageous sum of $10,000 to end their drought. He did, to disastrous effect. Fleming discounts the ENMOD programs developed during and after World War II, as if technology leapt backwards for several decades until 2003, which is the date he gives to the latest phase of weather modification. He wants us to ignore computers, and all the other advances in science that impact on weather. But, beginning with and immediately following WWII, that is where the bulk of evidence for geoengineering exists, continuing (as reported by mainstream media) for the next 35 years until the UN banned hostile ENMOD programs in 1976. Then, we have a relative media blackout on the issue until the new millennium. Chemtrail citing increases exponentially after 2000, which coincides with the timeline suggested in a US Dept. of Defense report entitled, “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” (reproduced at Federation of American Scientists):
2000 Introduce ionic mirrors, with a sharp increase from 2008; 2000-2025 Use chemicals for atmospheric seeding by civilian (as well as military) aviation; 2004 Create smart clouds thru nanotechnology, with exponential increase after 2010; 2005 Introduce ‘carbon black dust’.
‘Carbon black dust’ may be the topic of this 2007 observation in the Gulf Coast of Florida. A vacationer noticed “black beams” in the sky and snapped several photos, describing the behavior of the beam. According to “Owning the Weather,” carbon black dust is deployed via jet over large bodies of water “upwind from coastlines with onshore flow” to “enhance rainfall on the mesoscale, generate cirrus clouds, and enhance cumulonimbus (thunderstorm) clouds.” The supporting study cited is from 1976. Sources on Health Effects of Geoengineering The environmental and health effects induced by geoengineering remain of grave concern. Numerous researchers have sounded the alarm, including Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri, author of The Uterine Crisis. In Heavy Metals Poisoning, Brain Injury, and Clandestine Weather Modification Programs, she cites several qualified researchers. She also reports that:
For more than 10 years, researcher Clifford Carnicom has been valiantly and systematically reporting on the various detrimental aspects of these aerosols ­and what they are doing to our entire environment, as well as our blood.” [See]
Carnicom is probably best known for his 2005 film, Aerosol Crimes (101 mins.). More recent films on the topic include What in the World Are They Spraying, by G. Edward Griffin, et al. (2010, 98 mins); and Don’t Talk About the Weather, by Ill Eagle Films, et al. (2008, 243 mins). Various researchers recommend the following books: Angels Don’t Play This HAARP: Advances in Tesla Technology, by Dr. Nick Begich and Jeane Manning (Earthpulse Press: 1995, 224 p.) Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism & Toxic Warfare, by Leonard Horowitz (Healthy World Distribution: 2001, 526 p.) Weather Warfare: The Military’s Plan to Draft Mother Nature, by Jerry E. Smith (Adventures Unlimited Press: 2006, 402 p.)
• Randy Ananda’s work has appeared in several online and print publications. She holds a B.S. in Natural Resources from The Ohio State University’s School of Agriculture.

No comments :

Post a Comment