Estudo do Governo: Engenharia Climática é muito Perigosa

As consequências negativas da geoengenharia são claras.

Geoengenharia tem sido usada desde há décadas em formas conhecidas como chemtrails, ondas eletromagnéticas e raios laser.

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
7 de setembro de 2011

Geoengenharia é essencialmente a manipulação artificial e deliberada do clima, aplicando as

Moscow "Halo" 2009. O "Case Orange" cita isto como evidência de semeação de nuvens, mas outros suspeitam que é um experimento eletromagnético.

tecnologias existentes para mudar os padrões climáticos e o tempo em uma área do planeta Terra. O uso dessas tecnologias tem sido sugerido por uma parte da comunidade científica e do influente grupo de alarmistas que acham que a humanidade é responsável pela mudanças climáticas. No entanto, as tecnologias utilizadas para modificar o clima vão além da mudança climática e ampliam suas funções para outras áreas, tais como a ativação das placas tectônicas e a criação de armamento militar. Mas cientistas influentes não discutem os usos listados acima, mas apenas sugerem práticas como a fertilização dos oceanos, a semeação de nuvens e o seqüestro de CO2, entre outros.

Técnicas como a fertilização dos oceanos, e o seqüestro de CO2 não são as mais populares entre aqueles que consideram que essas práticas devem ser usadas para salvar a humanidade. Os Estados Unidos, principalmente, e outros países desenvolvidos têm experimentado com outras tecnologias, menos discutidas que sao deixadas fora da discussão. O que todas essas práticas têm em comum é o fato de que nenhum deles é seguro e que a sua implementação poderia causar mais danos do que elas querem evitar. Esta é a conclusão de um estudo publicado em julho passado pela United States Accountability Office.

Estudo do governo chega meio século atrasada

Você pode pensar que este e outros estudos seriam realizados antes de qualquer uma destas técnicas de modificação do tempo fossem testadas ao ar livre, mas isso não é o caso. Ao dar uma olhada 50 anos atrás, é fácil encontrar exemplos de como técnicas e tecnologia para mudar o clima e o tempo tem sido usadas. Durante a Guerra do Vietnã, os EUA usou a semeação de nuvens para inundar as terras onde o exército vietnamita estava com a intenção de enfraquecer a sua operação contra a invasão. O projeto Stormfury envolveu a utilização de aeronaves que voaram dentro de tempestades tropicais depositando iodetos de prata para afetar seu desenvolvimento. O projeto foi conduzido pelo Governo dos Estados Unidos nos anos de 1962-1983. O projeto Cirrus foi mais uma tentativa de manipular o clima, desta vez afetando o comportamento de um furacão. O projeto foi liderado pela General Electric, o Exército Signal Corps, o Escritório de Pesquisa Naval e a Força Aérea dos Estados Unidos. Durante este ensaio no dia 13 de outubro de 1974, cientistas do governo tentaram modificar um furacão que se movimentava em direção oeste nos Estados Unidos. Hoje, até países como a China têm burocracias dedicadas à prática da modificação do tempo. Em Pequim, o Escritório de Modificação do Tempo coordena o uso de tecnologias para prevenir ou fazer chover quando necessário. Para as Olimpíadas de 2008, a China tinha 30 aeronaves, 4.000 lançadores de foguetes e 7.000 armas antiaéreas para parar a chuva. (1)

No seu relatório, o Government Accountability Office (GAO) começa por explicar que a razão do seu estudo é a análise das “tecnologias de engenharia climática, com foco na sua condição técnica, a direção futura da pesquisa e possíveis respostas.” Depois o documento diz que “o GAO revisou a literatura científica e relatórios governamentais, conselhos de especialistas com uma grande variedade de origens e pontos de vista, e entrevistou 1.006 adultos nos Estados Unidos.” (2)

Uso pesado de Chemtrails para o propósito de modificar o clima. Imagem da NASA.

Entre as conclusões do GAO o relatório diz que “as tecnologias de engenharia climática não oferecem uma resposta viável à mudança climática global.” De acordo com o documento, as tecnologias estudadas pelo GAO incluiu a remoção de dióxido de carbono (o gás que as plantas respiram para viver) e a gestão de radiação solar (SRM). Esta última técnica inclui o bloqueio da luz solar -que é a origem da vida- dizem alguns cientistas e alarmistas do clima, para evitar o super aquecimento do planeta. Tecnologias SRM têm sido amplamente utilizadas em muitos países que visitei, incluindo os Estados Unidos, Brasil, Costa Rica e outros como a Inglaterra e outros países da Europa Ocidental. O que esta tecnologia faz é pulverizar cristais e produtos químicos tóxicos, tais como aerossóis de sulfato e bário na estratosfera. “Por mais de uma década, os cidadãos dos EUA e Canadá têm sido vítimas de um assalto com aerossóis em suas cidades com uma mistura tóxica de metais pesados tóxicos, produtos químicos e outras substâncias perigosas. Nada disso foi relatado pela mídia. O Departamento de Defesa [DOD] e os militares tem sistematicamente usado trilhas químicas (Chemtrails), também conhecido como geoengenharia com aerossóis estratosféricos”, disse a médica Ilya Sandra Perlingieri. (3)

O estudo do GAO passa a relatar as suas conclusões dizendo que as técnicas de geoengenharia atuais são imaturas e muitas delas poderiam ter conseqüências negativas. Isto confirma os riscos à saúde já referidos pela médica Perlingieri. No entanto, o estudo também encoraja o pensamento coletivo (coletivismo), onde não importa os riscos envolvidos na utilização destas tecnologias, os pesquisadores ainda acreditam que vale a pena praticar versões controladas de modificação do tempo e do clima. O relatório diz que muitos cientistas se opõem a pesquisar e executar estas técnicas devido a que os “riscos tecnológicos sao significativos ou porque acreditam que a mudança climática sera muito limitada no futuro.” A maioria das pessoas entrevistadas disseram que não estavam familiarizados com a modificação do tempo, mas estavam abertas para fazer mais investigação, diz o GAO. Esses entrevistados não só não sabem da existência de técnicas de geo-engenharia -principalmente porque o governo e as empresas envolvidas têm tentado escondê-lo com algum sucesso- mas também não sabem que esses experimentos já foram realizados em todo o mundo sem o seu consentimento .

Como explicado acima, estudos como o realizado pelo GAO deveriam ter sido realizados e publicados antes que os experimentos patrocinado pelo governo e as empresas foram autorizados. No entanto, como muitas vezes acontece, os governos se sentem no direito de fazer o que quiserem, sem informar o público. Embora o estudo do GAO é relevante porque mostra a realidade do que muitos chamaram “teorias da conspiração” como fatos, ele falha miseravelmente porque ignorar a história da modificação do tempo e experimentação que tem sido feita em todo o mundo .

O estudo do GAO, a pedido do representante Eddie Bernice Johnson, avaliou as tecnologias de modificação do tempo em uma escala de 1-9 de acordo com a sua “disponibilidade”. Embora este critério é irrelevante do ponto de vista do perigo que a geoengenharia representa para a saúde humana, nenhuma das técnicas de modificação disponíveis obteve uma nota maior que 3 na escala do estudo. “Tanto os defensores destas tecnologias como os oponentes alertaram que a pesquisa e a implementação de experimentos de modificação do tempo tem riscos, tanto no desempenho de certos tipos de investigação como na utilização dos resultados (por exemplo, a implantação de tecnologias potencialmente perigosas que têm sido desenvolvidas com base em pesquisas). ”

O estudo do Government Accountability Office parece ter se originado em grande parte na desacreditada crença de que a atividade humana é a causa do que alguns cientistas chamam aquecimento global antropogênico (a Terra tem experimentado resfriamento global na última década), que segundo eles é causado pelas emissões de dióxido de carbono. Você poderia dizer que o estudo começou com o pé esquerdo, já que é baseado em uma premissa que é pelo menos duvidosa. Pelo menos mil cientistas de renome têm questionado a teoria do aquecimento global antropogênico e esta crença deve ser no mínimo investigada com mais profundidade antes de ser adotada como base para implementação de políticas relacionadas com a conservação ambiental. (4)

A premissa do estudo que os seres humanos causam o aquecimento global está cheia de meias verdades e falácias anteriormente expostas, como a crença de que algumas ilhas vão afundar como resultado da elevação dos mares, que o gelo nos pólos se derreteria e que ursos polares morreram porque não podem nadar. (5) O estudo também considera outras mudanças geofísicas do planeta, que ocorrem como resultado do aquecimento, tais como mudanças na vegetação e das chuvas, mas estes possíveis eventos são, sem qualquer fundamento, enquadradas em cenários negativos. De fato, o estudo observa que muitos cientistas “têm sugerido que o aumento da temperatura poderia ser beneficiosa em determinadas áreas geográficas ou setores econômicos. Por exemplo, a produtividade agrícola poderia aumentar em algumas áreas … … enquanto a temperatura da superfície aumenta, esse aumento não está acontencendo de maneira uniforme … “A primeira idéia que a agricultura em muitas partes do mundo poderia se beneficiar do aquecimento global, é consistente com registros científicos que indicam que a Terra era uma vez mais quente e continha 10 vezes mais CO2 do que hoje, resultando em mais vegetação e abundância de alimento.

Como The Real Agenda informou anteriormente, a única preocupação dos que defendem a teoria do aquecimento global antropogênico é suas amadas “torres de marfim” e “centros de controle primário” sejam mantidos a salvo de mudanças climáticas que ocorrem naturalmente. No relatório, o GAO citou a preocupação de alguns cientistas em relação ao “aumento do nível do mar” porque pode comprometer vários portos e grandes cidades nos Estados Unidos, como Miami, Nova York e Norfolk.” Mas essas mesmas pessoas não têm nenhum problema em impedir o desenvolvimento do terceiro mundo para que seu povo não possa desfrutar dos níveis de conforto que eles desfrutam hoje. Estes defensores do alarmismo climático não se importam se a civilização é levada a níveis de desenvolvimento típico da era anterior à Revolução Industrial, se é isso que é necessário para reduzir as emissões a níveis só vistos antes desse tempo.

Mais recentemente, um estudo realizado pelo CERN chamado CLOUD (Cosmic Leaving Outdoor Droplets),

Os resultados do experimento CLOUD mostram que a poucos quilômetros acima na atmosfera, o ácido sulfúrico e o vapor de água podem rapidamente formar aglomerados de nuvens, e que os raios cósmicos aumentam a taxa de formação em até dez vezes ou mais.

confirmou mais uma vez que a radiação solar e não a atividade humana e que impulsiona o clima da Terra. O relatório sobre as conclusões deste estudo foram proibidos de serem publicados, em parte, pelo chefe do CERN, o Rolf-Dieter Heuer, porque ele acha que os resultados das observações podem ser usadas para uma discussão pública, que uma vez por todas iria “cortar o rabo e as orelhas” da teoria do aquecimento global antropogênico. (6)

O que o estudo do GAO não detalha

Como explicado acima, o estudo do GAO, parece chegar com pelo menos 50 anos de atraso e, além disso, não tem nenhuma informação a respeito da evidência inequívoca de que experimentos como os descritos como “potencialmente perigosos” já foram realizados por muitas décadas. Mesmo alguns meios de comunicação fizeram eco das sugestões dos cientistas que defendem o uso de técnicas de modificação do tempo para “nos salvar do desastre.” Em março passado, o jornal USAToday publicou propaganda em suas páginas anunciando o uso de pulverização de químicos no ambiente (Chemtrails), que utiliza alumínio, bário, e outros produtos químicos letais como uma alternativa para salvar o mundo da destruição causada pelo o homem. (7) O artigo relata que alguns cientistas dizem que é uma oportunidade de fazer as coisas antes que a geoengenharia seja considerada uma necessidade. Um dos cientistas entrevistados chegou sugerir que a geoengenharia é uma opção viável para nos salvar do desastre. “A pesquisa em geoengenharia cria uma outra opção para o público”, disse David Victor, da Universidade da Califórnia-San Diego.

Além disso, a National Geographic publicou um artigo sugerindo o uso de armas nucleares para reverter o aquecimento global. O artigo da revista ecoou um programa patrocinado pelo governo, onde uma pequena guerra nuclear entre os países pequenos pode ajudar a reduzir os efeitos do aquecimento global. O artigo também advertiu que uma pequena guerra faria com que o planeta Terra perdesse os verões por vários anos, causando o surgimento e a propagação de doenças, mas que talvez esta seria uma boa idéia. (8)

Apesar da evidência histórica, o estudo do GAO não mencionou especificamente que a mudança do clima por meio de geoengenharia apresenta riscos à vida humana e para o próprio planeta. No entanto, há uma abundância de evidências a esse respeito. “Durante décadas nós temos sabido que os metais pesados e produtos químicos podem causar danos físicos graves. O livro da Rachel Carson intitulado “Primavera Silenciosa”, ensinou-nos sobre as graves conseqüências do uso ou exposição a esses venenos em nossas atividades diárias. Milhares deles são bem documentados como causadores de câncer “, escreve a médica Ilya Sandra Perlingieri.

    “Aeronaves comerciais e militares estão envolvidas em mais de 60 operações secretas. Ano passado, quando eu voei através do país, vi um avião da United Airlines (voando abaixo de nós a cerca de 37 mil pés), pulverizando um spray preto que se extendia por milhas e milhas no céu. Este programa clandestino agora inclui a pulverização aérea na América do Norte, Europa, Austrália e Nova Zelândia [todos os países da NATO]. Centenas (se não milhares) de pessoas pediram explicações a funcionários públicos para obter respostas. As respostas das autoridades dos EUA e Canadá nunca foram recebidas, ou na ausência de resposta, as consultas foram descartadas como insignificantes.

Os militares dos EUA fazem pulverizaçoes de armas químicas e biológicas em ensaios ao ar livre sobre os civis desde a década de 1940. Eles são chamados de “evidência de vulnerabilidade.” Esta não é uma declaração polêmica. O Exército reconheceu esta prática muitas vezes e há uma abundância de documentação por parte do governo para provar isso. Existe também documentação de fumigação intencional e radiação experimental sobre a população civil. Infelizmente, esta informação só foi publicada mais tarde, o que tornou impossível salvar vidas ou aliviar o sofrimento das vítimas.

Esta propriedade com aparência de HAARP é chamada Jicamarca, e é um Obervatório de Rádio que faz parte do Instituto Geofísico do Peru. Ele recebe a maior parte do seu apoio financeiro da Fundação Nacional de Ciências dos Estados Unidos através de um acordo de cooperação com a Universidade de Cornell.

Mas Chemtrails não é a única técnica de modificação do tempo para o uso exclusivo de experiências de governo, ou aquelas patrocinadas pelo governo. “A existência e aplicação da tecnologia para modificar o clima, a ionosfera e causar atividade das placas tectônicas está documentado e não é apenas uma teoria da conspiração.” Os cientistas envolvidos em testes usam estas tecnologias com permissão do governo para executar experiências ao redor do mundo “, diz Andrei Areshev, vice-diretor da Fundação Estratégica para a Cultura Russa. De acordo com Areshev “armas do clima tem sido aperfeiçoadas e podem ser usadas para causar seca, destruir áreas cultivadas e induzir vários fenômenos anômalos em alguns países.” Talvez o Sr. Areshev está falando sobre o Programa de Pesquisa de Alta Frequência Auroral (HAARP), (9) uma arma que a grande mídia e alguns cientistas de renome chamam “teoria da conspiração”, enquanto se recusam a falar sobre ela. No entanto, mudando o clima já foi considerado uma teoria da conspiração, certo? E o uso de Chemtrails também é considerado uma teoria da conspiração, certo? Mas elas existem.

Em seu livro de 1995 intitulado Angels Don’t Play This HAARP, Dr. Nick Begich explica como HAARP eletrifica a atmosfera superior com raios eletromagnéticos. “É um modelo avançado de um aquecedor ionosférico.” De acordo com Begich, HAARP é uma tecnologia de ondas de rádio super-poderosa, que afeta áreas da ionosfera, dirigindo um raio nessas áreas. Como resultado, as ondas eletromagnéticas sao dirigidas para a Terra penetrando tudo no seu caminho. (10)

Uma terceira forma de técnicas de modificação do tempo que se transformou em armas e a tecnologia laser no espaço. Em 1998, o tenente-coronel da Forca Aérea dos Estados Unidos, William H. Possel escreveu um relatório de pesquisa apresentado ao corpo docente da Air War College, explicando a atual situação das armas laser estabelecidas no espaço. No seu relatório intitulado: Armas Laser no Espaço: Uma Analise Critica, Possel fala sobre as vantagens que as armas espaciais tem para atacar e destruir mísseis balísticos. Ele ainda vai mais longe e explica os tipos de lasers que podem ser usados para fins militares. Entre eles, lasers de fluoreto de hidrogênio, laser de fluoreto de deutério e laser químico de oxigênio-iodo. Além disso, Possel entra em detalhes sobre como é vantajoso ter armas a laser no espaço. “Elas tem a vantagem sobre os sistemas terrestres de ser capaz de cobrir um grande teatro de operações estando apenas limitadas pela altura da órbita que é a plataforma. Ao aumentar a altitude aumentam as possibilidades. Chame-me um teórico da conspiração, mas o que acontece se alguém conseguiu aperfeiçoar o uso de raios de ondas eletromagnéticas (HAARP), e armas baseadas no espaço. E não era que as tecnologias de modificação do tempo seriam usadas em uma tentativa de evitar uma catástrofe, em vez de causar eventos catastróficos? Se você não entende, nós estamos falando sobre o uso de tecnologias para a modificação do tempo, as quais foram modificadas para criar armas de guerra em qualquer lugar do mundo. (11)

Modificação do Tempo não é uma Teoria da Conspiração

Em um artigo intitulado Geoengenharia Atmosférica: “Case Orange” A Manipulação do Clima e Chemtrails, o escritor Rady Ananda apresenta uma revisão do relatório “Case Orange” que de acordo com Anando, foi escrito para confirmaram que a manipulação do tempo não é nem um piada nem uma teoria da conspiração. “É totalmente operacional, com um forte passado de 60 anos de história.” De acordo com a história recente da Organização Meteorológica Mundial, existe um declínio no apoio à investigação da modificação do tempo e do clima e uma tendência acelerarada no uso de técnicas existentes que são chamadas de projetos operacionais. (12)

Como cita Ananda em seu artigo, “Case Orange” está ligado a um relatório de 1996 que foi escrito por militares. O relatório, intitulado: Tempo como um Multiplicador de Força: Controlando o Tempo em 2025 explica as evidências relacionadas a programas de pulverização estratosférica patrocinados por ordens dos governos, nomenclatura química nos manuais de operação aérea, e apelos por economistas para usar a geoengenharia. “Controlando o Tempo em 2025”, prevê um calendário específico para o uso da tecnologia e técnicas de modificação ambiental em colaboração com a Associação de Modificação do Clima (WMA), uma parceria entre empresas privadas e o governo que promove o uso benéfico de técnicas de modificação do ambiente. “Bem, não são tão benéficas como relatado pelo Government Accountability Office. Algumas das medidas a serem tomadas como parte do projeto “Controlando o Tempo em 2025” são: a criação de espelhos estratosféricos com a introdução de ions, com um aumento acentuado em 2008, o uso de produtos químicos para a modificação de nuvens por empreiteiros civis (e militares) criação de nuvens usando nanotecnologia, com um aumento exponencial a partir de 2010 e a introdução de ‘pó de carvão negro.”

O relatório sobre “Case Orange” termina com uma prática que é reveladora mas ao mesmo tempo familiar por parte do governo, militares e empresas do governo:

    “Nossa pesquisa conclui que programas de controle do clima, controlados pelos militares, mas adotados por governos, devem permanecer em segredo para evitar o pior dos casos, o que obviamente não se quer. Os dois instrumentos básicos são o controle de temperatura através da geração de nuvens artificiais e a manipulação da ionosfera através do aquecimento da mesma. (HAARP)

Ambos os sistemas continuam sendo essencialmente para o uso militar com a opção de tomar a ofensiva, se necessário. No entanto, devido a que existem vários aquecedores ionosféricos instalados em vários locais ao redor do mundo, pode-se supor que existe uma ampla cooperação entre os governos, a fim de alcançar as metas climáticas para 2025: o controle do clima e, portanto, do planeta.

Então vamos ver o que temos. Um dos objectivos claramente declarados é o de mudar o clima do planeta Terra, tal como apresentado por organizações governamentais, corporações, e uma parte da comunidade científica. Existe um plano para controlar o tempo até 2025. Existe um relatório escrito pelos militares que explica como a manipulação da ionosfera é realizada através de raios eletromagnéticos (HAARP), cuja infra-estrutura se estende por todo o globo, e é usado para operações de controle do clima. Um relatório escrito pelo tenente-coronel William H, Possel, do U. S. Air Force, explica a realidade das armas no espaço que são resultantes da tecnologia de manipulação do tempo. Existe uma apresentação histórica feita pelo Dr. Nick Begich em seu livro Angels Don’t Play This HAARP, explicando como a tecnologia de ondas eletromagnéticas e usada para afetar negativamente o clima pelo a través do aquecimento da ionosfera. Andrei Areshev lançou uma advertência explicando de forma independente, a existência e aplicação de tecnologia para mudar o clima, a ionosfera e as placas tectônicas. Existe documentação do uso histórico da tecnologia de modificação do tempo para artificialmente contaminar o planeta Terra em uma insana tentativa de “evitar um cenário fictício de destruição global”. Sugestões foram feitas pela mídia sobre quanto beneficioso é usar tecnologias de modificação do tempo, não importa o quão perigoso estas são. Relatórios médicos provam além de qualquer dúvida razoável como a mudança climática artificial afeta negativamente a saúde dos humanos, a quem os partidários da modificação artificial do tempo, ironicamente, dizem que estão protegendo. E finalmente, um estudo pelo Government Accountability Office dos Estados Unidos, remove qualquer dúvida sobre os perigos que apresenta para a humanidade e o planeta, o uso de tecnologias de modificação do tempo.

Você precisa de mais provas de que a modificação artificial do tempo, a fim de nos salvar de uma catástrofe global fictícia é uma má idéia? E se o aquecimento global e as mudanças climáticas são reais, como eles querem que nós pensemos, é prudente arriscar nossas próprias vidas e a saúde do nosso planeta para agradar a um grupo de cientistas malucos e burocratas controladores que querem militarizar tudo para criar mais guerras? (13) Não há já suficientes armas, guerras e morte? Quantos de nós tem que morrer para que os controladores estejam felizes? Parece que o número é 6.5 bilhoes.

Government Study: Geoengineering Too Dangerous

The potential negative consequences of geoengineering are still too unclear.

Geoengineering has been used for decades in forms known by the public as chemtrails, electromagnetic waves and laser beams.

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
September 7, 2011

2009 Moscow Halo. Case Orange cites this as evidence of cloud seeding, but others suspect it is electromagnetic in origin.

Geoengineering is in essence the artificial and deliberate manipulation of the weather by applying existent technologies to change weather and weather patterns over an area of planet Earth. The use of these technologies has been pushed by a section of the scientific community as well as influential climate change alarmists groups. But the technologies used to modify the climate go beyond climate modification and extend their function to other areas such as plate tectonics, and military weaponry. Main stream scientists do not discuss the uses cited before, but limit themselves to suggest practices such as ocean fertilization, cloud seeding and CO2 sequestration, among others.

Techniques such as ocean fertilization, and CO2 sequestration have not been, however, the most popular among those who deem these practices as life saving. The United States, mainly, and other developed countries have experimented with other, less discussed technologies that are often left outside main stream discussions. What all of these practices have in common, though, is the fact that none of them is safe and its implementation could cause more damage than the supposed catastrophe they intend to avoid. This is the conclusion of a study published last July by the United States Government accountability Office.

GAO Study comes half a century Late

You would think this and other studies would come before any of these weather modification techniques were tried out in the open, but that is not the case. If one goes back half a century or so, it is easy to find examples of how weather modification was used as a warfare practice. During the Vietnam War, the United States used cloud seeding to flood land areas where the Vietnamese armies were stationed in order to weaken their operation against the invasion. Project Stormfury consisted of planes flying inside tropical storms and seeding such storms with with silver iodide. The project was run by the United States Government from 1962 to 1983. Project Cirrus was another attempt to manipulate the weather; this time by affecting a hurricane’s behaviour. The project was headed by General Electric, the US Army Signal Corps, the Office of Naval Research, and the US Air Force. During this trial on October 13, 1974, government scientists, attempted to modify a hurricane heading west to east. Nowadays, even countries like China possess bureaucracies dedicated to the practice of weather modification. In Beijing, the Weather Modification Office coordinates the use of technologies to prevent or cause it to rain whenever it is needed. For the 2008 Olympics, China had 30 airplanes, 4,000 rocket launchers, and 7,000 anti-aircraft guns to stop rain. (1)

In its report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) begins by explaining that the reason of their study is the analysis of “climate engineering technologies, focusing on their technical status, future directions for research and potential responses.” Then it goes on to say that “GAO reviewed the scientific literature and government reports, consulted experts with a wide variety of backgrounds and viewpoints, and surveyed 1,006 adults across the United States.” (2)

Heavy use of Chemtrails for the purposes of modifying the climate. Image by NASA.

Among the conclusions found by GAO are that “Climate engineering technologies do not now offer a viable response to global climate change.” According to the report, technologies studied by GAO included Carbon Dioxide (the gas plants breathe in order to live) removal, and solar radiation management (SRM). This last technique would include blocking the life-giving sun light in order to, say some scientists and climate alarmists, prevent excessive heating of the planet. SRM technologies have been used widely in many countries this author has visited, including the United States, Brazil, Costa Rica and others like England and the rest of the western European countries. What SRM does, is spray crystals and toxic chemicals such as sulfate aerosols and barium,  into the stratosphere. “For more than a decade, first the United States and then Canada’s citizens have been subjected to a 24/7/365 day aerosol assault over our heads made of a toxic brew of poisonous heavy metals, chemicals, and other dangerous ingredients. None of this was reported by any mainstream media. The US Department of Defense [DOD] and military have been systematically blanketing all our skies with what are known as Chemtrails (also known as Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering), ” says Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri. (3)

The GAO study continues to relate its findings by saying that current geoengineering techniques are immature and that many of them could have potentially negative consequences. This confirms the health hazards cited above by Dr. Perlingieri. However, the study also incites collective thinking where regardless of the risks presented by the use of these technologies, researchers still believe it is worthwhile to practice controlled versions of weather modification. Later, it says many consulted scientists oppose research as they anticipate  “major technology risks or limited future climate change.” Most of the people consulted said they were not familiar with weather modification, but were opened to carrying out more research, says GAO. These people are obviously not only not aware of the existence of geoengineering techniques – mostly because the government and the companies involved have somehow successfully tried to hide their experiments – but are also unaware that such experiments are carried out already all over the world without their consent.

As explained before, studies like the one carried out by GAO should have been conducted before government and corporate experiments took place. However, as it happens often nowadays, governments feel they are entitled to do whatever they want without informing the public first. Although GAO’s study is pertinent because it exposes what many have called “conspiracy theories” as facts, it fails miserably to address the history of weather modification and stratospheric experimentation already being conducted all over the planet.

The study performed by GAO at the request of House Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, rated current weather modification technologies on a scale from 1 – 9 according to their “readiness”. Although this criterion is irrelevant from the point of view of the health hazard geoengineering poses to humanity, none of the available weather modification techniques scored above 3 on the study’s scale. “Both research advocates and opponents cautioned that climate engineering research carries risks either in conducting certain kinds of research or in using the results (for example, deploying potentially risky technologies that were developed on the basis of the research).”

The Government Accountability Office’s study seems to be originated on the widely debunked belief that human activity is the cause of what some scientists call Anthropogenic Global Warming (the planet has experienced global cooling in the last decade) that according to them is caused by Carbon Dioxide emissions. One can say that the study started with the left foot, because it is based on a premise that is at the very least dubious. At least one thousand re-known scientists have cast doubts about the theory of man-made warming and this belief should at least be given a second thought. (4)

The premise of the study that humans cause global warming is filled with half truths and previously exposed fallacies such as the belief that some islands will sink as a consequence of rising seas, that ice caps will uncontrollably melt and that polar bears will die because they can’t swim. (5) The study also considers other geophysical changes on the planet which would result from the supposed warming, such as changes in vegetation and precipitation which are unreasonably labeled a negative. In fact, the study says that many scientists “have proposed that rising temperatures might benefit certain geographic areas or economic sectors; for example, agricultural productivity might increase in some areas… …while global surface temperature is increasing on average, it is not increasing uniformly…” The former idea that agriculture in many parts of the world might benefit from the warming, coincides with the fact that scientific records indicate that planet Earth was once warmer and contained 10 times more CO2 than today, which resulted in greener landscapes and food abundance.

As The Real Agenda has informed before, the only concern people who defend the theory of anthropogenic global warming have, is that their beloved “ivory towers” and “premium centers of control” are saved from naturally occurring climate change. In the report, GAO cites concerns given by some scientists regarding “dangerous sea level rising that “could threaten several large ports and urban centers in the United States, such as Miami, New York, and Norfolk.” Of course these same people have no problem with preventing the Third World from developing to levels they enjoy today, or to take the planet to a post-industrial era if this is what it takes to reduce emissions to levels only seen pre-Industrial Revolution.

The CLOUD results show that a few kilometres up in the atmosphere sulphuric acid and water vapour can rapidly form clusters, and that cosmic rays enhance the formation rate by up to ten-fold or more.

More recently, a study by CERN, the CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) experiment, has once again confirmed that it is solar radiation and not human activity what drives Earth’s climate. The report describing the findings of this study were partially banned from public discussion by the head of CERN, Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer, as he thought that the results of the observations would be used to publicly, once and for all cut the ears and tail from the pink elephant in the room: There is no such a thing as man-made global warming. (6)

What GAO Does not address in the Study

As explained before, GAO’s study seems to come at least 50 years late and on top of this, it fails to present unmistakable evidence that experiments such as the ones described as “potentially dangerous” have been carried out for many decades already. Even some main stream media have made echo of scientists suggestions to employ weather modification techniques to “save us from disaster”. Just last March, USAToday advertised how trendy was to spray people with aluminum, barium and other deadly chemicals in order to save the world from human-caused destruction. (7) The article went on to present what some scientist said was an opportunity to make things right before geoengineering had to be considered as a necessity. One scientist even suggested that geoengineering was a viable option to save us from disaster. “Research into geoengineering creates another option for the public,” said David Victor of the University of California-San Diego.

Separately, National Geographic published an article suggesting the employment of nuclear weapons to reverse global warming. The magazine article echoed a government scenario where a small nuclear war among small countries could help reduce the effects of Global Warming. The article also warned that such a small war would cause the planet Earth to miss summers for several years, cause the appearance and spread of disease, but that perhaps it was a good idea to make it happen. (8)

Despite historical evidence, the GAO study does not specifically mention the dangers weather modification through geoengineering pose to human life or to the planet itself. However, there is plenty of evidence on this regard. “For decades, we have known that heavy metals and chemicals can cause grave physical harm. Going back to Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” we have known and been amply warned of the serious consequences of using or being exposed to these poisons in our daily activities. Thousands of these are well-documented carcinogens,” writes Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri.

Military and commercial planes are involved in more than 60 secret operations. Last year, when I flew across the country, I saw a United Airlines jet (flying below us at about 37,000 feet) spraying a black aerosol that went for miles and miles across the sky. This clandestine program now includes aerosol-spraying planes in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand [all NATO countries]. Hundreds (if not thousands) of people have called and written their public officials to get answers. Replies from US and Canadian officials are not forthcoming; or, if they do reply, queries are dismissed.

The U.S. military has been spraying chemical and biological weapons in open air testing over civilian populations since the 1940’s. They are called “vulnerability tests”. This is not a controversial statement. The military has admitted to this practice on many occasions and there’s plenty of documentation from the government to corroborate it. There is also documentation of intentional, experimental releases of radiation on civilian populations. Unfortunately, this information tends to surface long after it could have saved lives, or eased the suffering of victims.

The HAARP-looking Jicamarca Radio Observatory is part of the Geophysical Institute of Peru. It receives the majority of its financial support from the National Science Foundation of the United States through a cooperative agreement with Cornell University.

But Chemtrails is not the only weather modification technique used by government and government-sponsored experiments. “The existence and application of technology to modify the weather, the ionosphere and to cause plate tectonics activity is documented and not only a conspiracy theory.”  Scientists involved in the testing and use of these technologies admit to running experiments around the planet,” says Andrei Areshev, deputy director of the Strategic Culture Foundation. According to Areshev, “climate weapons may be reaching their target capacity and may be used to provoke droughts, erase crops, and induce various anomalous phenomena in certain countries.” Perhaps Mr. Areshev is talking about the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), (9) another of those weapons that main stream media and main stream scientists call a conspiracy theory, while refusing to talk about it. But weather modification was also considered a conspiracy theory, was it not? And the use of Chemtrails were also considered a conspiracy theory, was it not?

In his 1995 book Angels Don’t Play this HAARP, Dr. Nick Begich explains how HAARP zaps the upper atmosphere with an electromagnetic beam. “It is an advanced model of an ionospheric heater.” According to Begich, HAARP is a super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that affects areas of the ionosphere by directing a beam to those areas. As a consequence, electromagnetic waves bounce  onto earth and penetrate anything and everything. (10)

A third form of weaponized weather modification techniques is laser beam weapons in space. In 1998, USAF Lt Col. William H. Possel submitted a research report to the faculty of the Air War College, where he explains the current status of space-based laser beam weapons. In his report titled Laser Weapons In Space: A Critical Assessment, Possel cites how attractive laser beam weapons are for attacking and destroying ballistic missiles. He even goes into the type of laser beams that can be used for warfare purposes. Among them, Hydrogen Fluoride Laser, Deuterium Fluoride Laser and Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser. Additionally, Possel goes into detail about how advantageous Space-based Laser Weapon are. “It has the distinct advantage over ground systems of being able to cover a large theater of operations that is limited only by the platform’s orbital altitude. As the platform’s altitude increases, the size of the area it “sees” increases. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but what would happen if anyone has managed to perfect the use of Electromagnetic Wave beams (HAARP) and Space-based weapons. And, weren’t weather modification technologies intended to prevent catastrophe as supposed to create catastrophic events? In case you haven’t understood, we are talking about the use of enhanced weather modification technologies for the purpose of waging warfare anywhere on the planet. (11)

Weather Modification is no Conspiracy Theory

In an article titled Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails, writer Rady Ananda presents a review of the “Case Orange” report. According to Ananda, in May 2010, scientists confirmed that weather manipulation is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory. “It is fully operational with a solid sixty-year history.” According to the World Meteorological Organization recent history has seen a decline in support for weather modification investigation and an accelerated trend to turn existent research into what is called operational projects. (12)

As Ananda cites in his article, the Case Orange is tied to a 1996 report prepared by military personnel. The report titled Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 related existent evidence of government sponsored spraying schedules, chemical orders, nomenclature used in airline operating manuals, and calls for geoengineering by economists. “Owning the Weather in 2025 provides a specific timeline for the use of EnMod technologies in cooperation with the Weather Modification Association (WMA), a business-government group promoting the beneficial uses of environmental modification.” Well, they are not as beneficial as the Government Accountability Office has now found. Some of the steps to be taken as part of the project to “own the weather”, are: introduce ionic mirrors, with a sharp increase by 2008; the use of chemicals for atmospheric seeding by civilian (as well as military) aviation;  the creation of smart clouds thru nanotechnology, with exponential increase after 2010 and the  introduction of ‘carbon black dust’.

The Case Orange report concludes with a revealing yet familiar practice by government, military and government contractors:

Our investigation team comes to the conclusion that climate control programs, controlled by the military but approved by governments, are silently implemented in order to avoid the worst case scenarios they obviously do not want. The two basic instruments are temperature control through generation of artificial clouds and manipulation of the ionosphere through ionosphere heaters.

Both remain basically military combat systems with the option to go into the offensive if deemed necessary. However since several ionosphere heaters are installed on various places around the globe one can assume that there is wide cooperation between governments in order to reach the climate targets by 2025: controlling the weather and thus the planet.

So let’s see what we have. A clearly stated purpose to modify the climate of planet Earth as presented by government organizations, corporations and a section of the scientific community. A plan to own the weather by 2025. A report written by the military that explains how ionospheric manipulation through the use of electromagnetic beams (HAARP), whose infrastructure is spread all over the planet, is used to perform climate control programs. A report written by United States Air Force Lt Col. William H. Possel, where he explains the reality of space-based weapons derived from weather manipulation technology. A historical presentation by Dr. Nick Begich on his book Angels Don’t Play This HAARP, where he explains how electromagnetic wave technology is used to negatively affect the weather by heating up the ionosphere. A warning from Andrei Areshev, the deputy director of the Strategic Culture Foundation in Russia, who independently confirms the existence and application of technology to modify the weather, the ionosphere and to cause plate tectonics activity. Documented proof of the historical use of weather modification technology to artificially pollute planet Earth in an insane attempt to “avoid a fictitious global warming doom scenario. Suggestions by main stream media that took it upon themselves to advertise the use of weather modification technologies to affect weather, no matter how dangerous it may be. Documented medical statements that prove beyond any reasonable doubt how weather modification negatively impacts the health of us humans, who weather modification supporters ironically claim to be protecting. Lastly, but not less important, a study by the United States Accountability Office that once and for all eliminates any doubt about the dangers that artificial weather modification technologies and techniques pose to humanity and planet Earth.

Do you need further proof that weather modification in order to save us from an unexistent impending global catastrophe is a bad idea? And if global warming is real and climate change is real, either anthropogenic or otherwise, is it wise to risk our very own existence and the health of our planet to please a group of scientists and control freaks who want to militarize it all for warfare purposes? (13) Aren’t there enough weapons, enough wars and enough death? How many more of us need to die in order for the controllers to be satisfied? 6.5 billion, it seems.


Case Orange Report: The History of Weather Manipulation

Rady Ananda  

At an international symposium held in Ghent, Belgium May 28-30, 2010, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” It is “fully operational” with a solid sixty-year history. Though “hostile” environmental modification was banned by UN Convention in 1978, its “friendly” use today is being hailed as the new savior to climate change and to water and food shortages. The military-industrial complex stands poised to capitalize on controlling the world’s weather.  “In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” ~World Meteorological Organization, 2007 

 The only conspiracy surrounding geoengineering is that most governments and industry refuse to publicly admit what anyone with eyes can see. Peer-reviewed research is available to anyone willing and able to maneuver the labyrinth of scientific journals. So, while there is some disclosure on the topic, full public explanation is lacking. A brief list of confirmed cloud seeding events is produced at bottom, starting in 1915. 

  Going under a variety of names – atmospheric geoengineering, weather modification, solar radiation management, chemical buffering, cloud seeding, weather force multiplication – toxic aerial spraying is popularly known as chemtrails. However, this is merely one technique employed to modify weather. The practice of environmental modification is vast and well funded.  

  Hosted by the Belfort Group, which has been working for the last seven years to raise public awareness of toxic aerial spraying, the Symposium included chemtrail awareness groups from Greece, Germany, Holland, France and the U.S.  Belfort published five videos covering only May 29,[1] when filmmaker Michael Murphy (Environmental Deception and What in the world are they spraying)[2] and aerospace engineer Dr. Coen Vermeeren [3] gave the most dramatic presentations.  

  Dr Vermeeren, of the Delft University of Technology, presented [4] a 300-page scientific report entitled, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies.” [5]  

 Case Orange notes it was prepared for the Belfort Group by a team of scientists but presented anonymously. It was sent to embassies, news organizations and interested groups around the world “to force public debate.”  

 The report spends some time on HAARP, the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, [6] which is a military endeavor focused on ionospheric, electromagnetic, and global electrostatic field manipulation, and on other exotic weapon systems that manipulate the environment. While related, they go beyond this discussion of chemtrails.  

  In the interest of brevity, the health and environmental implications of cloud seeding is not discussed in any depth herein. Case Orange does go into it, as did most of the speakers at the Belfort Symposium. Cursory research reveals a debate among researchers as to chemtrail toxicity, but whether that’s a 50-50 or 99-1 argument is unknown. 

 Contrails Are Chemtrails

 Case Orange rejects use of the term ‘chemtrails’ because it is associated with amateur conspiracy theorists. The only credible document it could find that uses it is the Space Preservation Act of 2001 introduced by U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). [7]  H.R. 2977 sought to ban the use of exotic weapon systems that would damage climate, weather, tectonic and biological systems. “Chemtrails” are specifically listed. Though later removed, no version of the bill ever became law.  

  Instead, the writers prefer the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon since all contrails are chemtrails. ‘Persistent contrails’ distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes.  

  Case Orange also rejects misanthropic intentions behind persistent contrails. It shows that geoengineering is fully operational, but rejects it is used to sicken people on the assumptions that 1) public health agencies have the public interest at heart; and 2) the economy is consumer driven. The authors indicate no awareness of numerous reports of collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and government health agencies. This year, a significant conflict-of-interest report appeared in the prestigious British Medical Journal, which further heightened suspicions that the H1N1 flu and its vaccines were a scam.[8]  Nor do the authors consider that sick people will spur economic growth in a capitalist (for profit) health system.  

 Dr. Vermeeren gave his own introductory remarks and conclusions, but spent the bulk of the hour presenting information from Case Orange. He frankly admitted the existence of persistent contrails.  

 “We also know that chemtrails do exist because we do spraying; for crops, for example, and we know that they have been spraying for military purposes. So, chemtrails is nothing new. We know about it.”  

 “Weather manipulation through contrail formation… is in place and fully operational.”

 Case Orange cites publicly available material that shows geoengineering has been ongoing for “at least 60 years.” Used as a weapon of war in Hamburg by the UK during World War II, it was also used in the Vietnam Conflict by the US.  Controversy over its use, revealed by investigative reporter Jack Anderson, spurred Senate hearings in 1972. During those hearings, military officials denied the use of cloud seeding technology. Later, a private letter from Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird admitting that his testimony was false surfaced. He, again unbelievably, claimed he didn’t know what was happening. [9]  

  Environmental modification (EnMod) weaponry was finally banned by treaty in 1978. The UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques forced the end of such programs, overtly anyway.[10]  (Case Orange authors seem unaware of this international ban, as it is one of their recommendations.)  

 However, with widespread reporting of rising global temperatures, increasing population, and degradation of water supplies, renewed interest in EnMod is now becoming broadly supported. (See, e.g., Top economists recommend climate engineering, 4 Sep 2009 [11] and similarly, Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, 1 Sep 2009.[12]) 

 The crew in Operation Stormfury in 1963. Note the special belly on the Douglas DC6-B for cloud seeding purposes. (From Case Orange)

  Building a case for old technology finding a new market, Case Orange discusses several U.S. patents. For example, authors describe a 1975 patent, “Powder Contrail Generation,” [13] for the invention of a:  

 “specific contrail generation apparatus for producing a powder contrail having maximum radiation scattering ability for a given weight [of] material. The seeding material… consists of 85% metallic particles and 15% colloidal Silica and Silica gel in order to produce a stable contrail that has a residence period of 1 up to 2 weeks.”  

 In 2009, researchers published “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global warming,” which proposed two methods of delivery for this same proportion of metallics to silica and the same staying power of one to two weeks.[14]  

 Case Orange also reveals a 1991 patent held by Hughes Aircraft Company [15] that:  

 “contains 18 claims to reduce global warming through stratospheric seeding with aluminum oxide… thorium oxide… and refractory Welsbach material…”  

 The report notes that “the proposed scenario by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] in 2001 is identical to the claims” in Hughes Aircraft’s 1991 patent. Hughes was acquired by Raytheon, a private defense contractor, in 1997, “the same company that acquired E-systems and the HAARP contract.” 

 Case Orange presents evidence that Raytheon stands to control all weather, which the authors find repugnant given that it is a private corporation. The authors recommend suing private corporations instead of governments. But subcontracting is quite common for governments and agencies, especially the US military. The distinction between large, powerful corporations and governments is a fine line obscure to common folk. And, the effect is the same whether governments are spraying us with nano-sized metals, chemicals or biologicals, or whether corporations do. The authors’ protective posture toward governments is nonsensical.

 Case Orange suggests that geoengineering found new life in the global warming scare. Old patents are being dusted off and private interests stand to make substantial sums now that Cap and Trade has been exposed as ineffective in reducing greenhouse gases. (Although, lawmakers are still considering it since substantial sums can be made from the scheme, to wit: Al Gore reportedly achieved billionaire status from it.)  

 Since 2007, billionaire Bill Gates has spent at least $4.5 million on geoengineering research. [16]  Since reducing emissions is not popular with industry, ‘Plan B’ – geoengineering – is being touted as the answer to climate change and water shortage.  A longer description of Plan B is: Add more pollution to the sky and water to offset industrial pollution, without reducing industrial pollution. 

 Human rights and environmental watchdog, ETC Group, describes the momentum [17]: 

 The roll-out of geoengineering as Plan B is being skillfully executed: prominent high-level panels sponsored by prestigious groups, a spate of peer-reviewed articles this January in science journals, and a line-up of panicked politicians in northern countries, nodding nervously in agreement as scientists testify about the ‘need to research Plan B.’”  

 ETC reports that Gates’ top geoengineering advisor unveiled a plan to grow solar radiation management research “one-hundred-fold, from $10 million to $1 billion over ten years.”  

 Indeed, several watchdog groups recently ramped up calls to address clean water shortage. “At the end of July 2010, the United Nations General Assembly will vote on an important resolution, initiated by the Bolivian government, which would make clean water and sanitation a human right,” reports Food and Water Watch.[18] 

 Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025

 Case Orange ties a 1996 report by top military personnel in the U.S., “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” [19] to evidentiary details (like governmental spraying schedules, chemical orders, correct nomenclature used in airline operating manuals, and calls for geoengineering by economists) to support its notion of “heavy involvement of governments at top level in climate control projects.”  

Owning the Weather in 2025 provides a specific timeline for the use of EnMod technologies in cooperation with the Weather Modification Association (WMA), a business-government group promoting the beneficial uses of environmental modification [20]:  

 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’.  

 Though Case Orange decries the paucity of research into EnMod, in 2009 WMA published its position statement on the safety of seeding clouds with silver-iodide, citing three dozen research papers from 1970 through 2006. [21]  In 2007, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published a statement that included “Guidelines for the Planning of Weather Modification Activities.” Acknowledging that the modern technology of weather modification began in the 1940s, it is still “an emerging technology” today. [22] WMO indicated disappointment that research is being abandoned for operations. 

 Case Orange contains no reference to the WMA position statement citing all that research, although it cites the group. Nor does it mention the World Meteorological Organization, an agency of the United Nations, which has a link to its Weather Modification portal on its Index page.

At the end of the section, The bare necessity of geoengineering through cloud generation for survival of the planet (5.2.7), Case Orange states:  

 “[O]ur investigation team comes to the conclusion that climate control programs, controlled by the military but approved by governments, are silently implemented in order to avoid the worst case scenarios they obviously do not want. The two basic instruments are temperature control through generation of artificial clouds and manipulation of the ionosphere through ionosphere heaters.  

 “Both remain basically military combat systems with the option to go into the offensive if deemed necessary. However since several ionosphere heaters are installed on various places around the globe one can assume that there is wide cooperation between governments in order to reach the climate targets by 2025: controlling the weather and thus the planet.”  

 “The spraying schemes seem to be organized in a logical pattern so that the whole of Europe is covered in a 3-day period,” the authors write. The following images cover January 3-5, 2010:  

 

 Case Orange agrees that climate change needs to be addressed. Regarding Climate-Gate, the authors suggest that the University of East Anglia deliberately manipulated the climate data to gradually prepare the global population for its future on a hotter planet.   

 They also cite research that supports the notion that climate change is real. During the three-day grounding of most aircraft after 9/11, scientists noticed an increase in temperature of 1.1 °C (2 °F). [23] This is an astounding increase in such a short time frame. The incidence of cloud seeding reports by the public increases exponentially after this.   

 The 1996 military piece, Owning the Weather in 2025, gives climate change skeptics “an insight in what to expect in the 21st century:   

 ‘Current demographic, economic and environmental trends will create global stresses that provide the impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn weather modfication ability into capability. In the United States weather modification will likely become part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.’”   

 Recommendations 

 “Persistent contrails,” however, “have a devastating impact on eco-systems on this planet and quality of life in general.” Case Orange joins the call of Bill Gates’ geoengineering advisor and the WMO for new research measuring the impact on human health and the environment from EnMod programs. 

 Case Orange also recommends an immediate and full disclosure of current EnMod activities to the public; and that all civil aviation laws be abided.    

 Of note, in response to policy interest in geoengineering as a means to control climate change and enhance water supplies, on May 14, 2010, the science subcommittee of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity proposed a geoengineering moratorium. [24] This proposed ban on “friendly” EnMod programs will be heard at the Tenth Conference of Parties to UN Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan this October.  

 Case Orange reports that China and Russia openly admit to cloud-seeding, while the U.S. denies such activities. The U.S. does permit open air testing of chemical and biological weapons but not under the law the authors cited, which they paraphrased:   

 The secretary of defense may conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological agents on civilian populations.   

 Public law of the United States, Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977.    

 Codified as 50 USC 1520, under Chapter 32 Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, Public Law 85-79 was repealed in 1997 by Public Law 105-85. In its place, 15 USC 1520a provides restrictions (such as informed consent). 50 USC 1512, however, allows open air testing of chemicals and biologicals and allows presidential override of notices and of public health considerations for national security reasons. [25] Case Orange authors are thus correct in asserting that such programs are legal in the U.S.  

 Epilogue 

 Having heard enough conspiracy theories to last me a lifetime, I hesitated researching the subject of chemtrails, and maintained skepticism. That all changed in March when I personally observed two jets seeding clouds, along with about 30 other people in the parking lot at lunchtime. Someone took a picture from her cell phone. 

The trails lasted for hours, and looked distinctly different from other clouds. Since then, I’ve been watching the skies and can now tell when they’ve been seeded. We often have a white haze instead of a deep blue sky, even when persistent contrails aren’t visible. 

 A few days ago, someone sent me a link to the Belfort Symposium videos. Four hours into it, I became riveted when Dr. Vermeeren began his presentation of the Case Orange report. That’s when I decided to seriously look into the subject. As informative as Case Orange is for the newcomer, any serious research into the subject reveals that what all those “conspiracy theorists” suggest is true: they are spraying the skies, and they’re not telling us. 

 Discovering that the World Meteorological Organization has a tab on its website called Weather Modification shocked me. Reading their disappointment that governments are going ahead with operations instead of doing more research confirmed all of it for me. And that was published in 2007! 

 So, while we’re not being told, the information is publicly available to any armchair researcher. 

 Being so late to the game on all this accords me sympathy for others. Military leaders have for centuries recognized that it rains after a heavy battle, but harnessing that power in a way that doesn’t cause a deluge like in San Diego in 1915 has been a task. I came upon other stories like that in my research – misdirected hurricanes, farm wars, massive flooding and mudslides. It’s no wonder there are so many books on the subject.  It’s no wonder this turned into a 3,000-word essay. 

 Chemtrails are no hoax; I spent time going to as many original sources as I could find. The record is replete with mainstream news accounts of the early days of the modern EnMod program. If its birth can be marked by Britain’s successful use of chaff in 1943 to jam enemy radar, the program is 67 years old. That’s quite a history to keep under the radar of most people. That reflects most poorly on mainstream news sources, who are supposed to expose government shenanigans. 

 A Brief History of Cloud Seeding 

 Cloud seeding, as a US military research project, began as early as the 1830s, according to Colby College professor, James R. Fleming. [26]  Verifiably successful rainmaking attempts did not occur until 1915.   

 1915  To end a prolonged drought, San Diego hired reputed rainmaker Charles Hatfield, who claimed that the evaporation of his secret chemical brew atop wooden towers could attract clouds.  San Diego was rewarded with a 17-day deluge that totaled 28 inches. The deadly downpour washed out more than 100 bridges, made roads impassable over a huge area, destroyed communications lines, and left thousands homeless. [27]   

Charles Hatfield’s rain washes out dam 1915, San Diego. Dozens died. 

 1943 “The first operational use of chaff (aluminium strips which are precisely cut to a quarter of the radar’s wavelength) took place in July 1943, when Hamburg was subjected to a devastating bombing raid. The radar screens were cluttered with reflections from the chaff and the air defence was, in effect, completely blinded.” [28]   

 1946  General Electric’s Vincent Schaefer dropped six pounds of dry ice into a cold cloud over Greylock Peak in the Berkshires, causing an “explosive” growth of three miles in the cloud. [29]   

New York dry ice seeding 1946 (Life Magazine) 

 1947  Australian meteorologists successfully repeated the process. [30]   

 1949  Project Cirrus: Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir and General Electric researcher Vincent Schaefer fed ten ounces of silver iodide into a blowtorch apparatus and brought down 320 billion gallons of rain across half of New Mexico from a desert near Albuquerque. [31]   

 1950  Harvard meteorologist Wallace Howell seeded New York City skies with dry ice and silver iodide smoke, filling the city’s reservoirs to near capacity. [32]   

 1952  The UK’s Operation Cumulus resulted in 250 times the normal amount of rainfall, killing dozens and destroying landscapes. [33]  

 1962-1983  Operation Stormfury, a hurricane modification program, had some success in reducing winds by up to 30%. [34]   

 1966-1972  Project Intermediary Compatriot (later called Pop Eye) successfully seeded clouds in Laos. The technique became part of military actions in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos from 1967 to 1972. Initially revealed by Jack Anderson in the Washington Post, 18 Mar 1971. [35]   

 1986  The Soviet air force diverted Chernobyl fallout from reaching Moscow by seeding clouds. Belarus, instead, was hit. [36]   

Notes: 

 [1] Belfort Group videos of International Symposium on Chemtrails, May 29, 2010 proceedings. http://www.ustream.tv/channel/belfort-test   

 [2] Michael Murphy website: http://truthmediaproductions.blogspot.com/   

 [3] Dr Coen Vermeeren, Delft University of Technology bio, n.d.

[4] Dr Coen Vermeeren Symposium speech, Afternoon Part 1 video, (starting at about 35 mins..) (29 May 2010) http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7299427   

 [5] Anonymous, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies,” 10 May 2010. PDF without appendices:

 http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/case_orange-5-10-2010-belfort-chemtrails.pdf   

 [6] High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, Fact Sheet, 15 Jun 2007. http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/factSheet.html   

 [7] Space Preservation Act of 2001, H.R.2977, 107th Congress, 1st Session. Introduced by U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich.   

 [8] Deborah Cohen and Philip Carter, “Conflicts of Interest: WHO and the pandemic ‘flu conspiracies,’” British Medical Journal 2010;340:c2912, 3 Jun 2010. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jun03_4/c2912   

 [9] The Sunshine Project, “The Limits of Inside Pressure: The US Congress Role in ENMOD,” n.d. Accessed July 2010. http://www.sunshine-project.org/enmod/US_Congr.html   

 [10] United Nations, “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,” Resolution 31/72, 10 Dec 1976, effective 1978. Geneva. http://www.un-documents.net/enmod.htm   

 [11] Copenhagen Consensus Center, “Top economists recommend climate engineering,” 4 Sep 2009. Press release [pdf]

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2fFiles%2fFiler%2fPress+Releases+2010%2fCC_PRESS_STATEMENT__4september2010_.pdf   

 [12] Catherine Brahic, “Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, New Scientist 1 Sep 2009.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17716-top-science-body-calls-for-geoengineering-plan-b.html   

 [13] Donald K. Werle, et al., “Powder contrail generation,” U.S. Patent 3,899,144, 12 Aug 1975. Assignee: U.S. Secretary of the Navy.

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=3,899,144.PN.&OS=PN/3,899,144&RS=PN/3,899,144   

 [14] David L Mitchell and William Finnegan, “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global warming,” Environmental Research Letters Vol. 4 No. 4, 30 Oct 2009. Available by subscription: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102   

 [15] David B. Chang and I-Fu Shih, “Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming,” U.S. Patent 5,003,186, 26 Mar 1991. Assignee: Hughes Aircraft Company.

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=5,003,186.PN.&OS=PN/5,003,186&RS=PN/5,003,186   

 [16] Eli Kintisch, “Bill Gates Funding Geoengineering Research,” Science Insider, 26 Jan 2010. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/01/bill-gates-fund.html.   

 [17] ETC Group, “Top-down Planet Hackers Call for Bottom-up Governance: Geoengineers’ Bid to Establish Voluntary Testing Regime Must Be Opposed,” 11 Feb 2010. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5073   

 [18] Food and Water Watch: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/world-water/right/  

 [19] Col Tamzy J. House, et al. “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,” Department of Defense U.S. Air Force, 17 Jun 1996. Publicly released August 1996. Reproduced at Federation of American Scientists:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm   

 [20] Weather Modicaton Association website: http://www.weathermodification.org/   

 [21] Weather Modification Association, “Position Statement on the Environmental Impact of Using Silver Iodides as a Cloud Seeding Agent,” July 2009.

http://www.weathermodification.org/AGI_toxicity.pdf 

 [22] World Meteorological Organization, “WMO Statement on Weather Modification,” UN Commission for Atmospheric Sciences Management Group, 26 Sep 2007.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WM_statement_guidelines_approved.pdf 

 [23] Donald J. Travis, et al. “Contrails reduce daily temperature range,” Nature 418, 601, 8 Aug 2002. Reproduced in full by University of Washington, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~rennert/etc/courses/pcc587/ref/Travis-etal2002_Nature.pdf   

 [24] Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, “In-depth Review of the Work on Biodiversity and Climate Change, Draft Recommendation,” Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environmental Programme, UNEP/CBD/SBTTA/14/L.9, 15 May 2010. http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-14/in-session/sbstta-14-L-09-en.pdf   

 [25] United States Code, Title 50, Chapter 32, “Chemical and Biological Warfare Program.” http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C32.txt   

 [26] James Rodger Fleming, “The pathological history of weather and climate modification: Three cycles of promise and hype,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2006. Available at

http://www.colby.edu/sts/06_fleming_pathological.pdf   

 [27] Stephen Cole, “Weather on Demand,” American Heritage, 2005. http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2005/2/2005_2_48.shtml   

 [28] Monsignore Pizzafunghi Bosselese, “The History of Radar,” BBC, 14 Jul 2003. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A591545   

 [29] Fleming, citing New York Times, 15 Nov 1946, 24.   

 [30] Squires, P. & Smith, E. J., “The Artificial Stimulation of Precipitation by Means of Dry Ice,” Australian Journal of Scientific Research, Series A: Physical Sciences, vol. 2, p.232, 1949AuSRA…2..232S, 1949. Republished at Harvard University:

 http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1949AuSRA…2..232S/0000244.000.html  

 Also see: Stephen Cole, “Weather on Demand,” American Heritage, 2005.

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2005/2/2005_2_48.shtml   

 [31]  Life Magazine, “Solution to Water Shortage: Rain makers’ success shows how New York could fill its reservoirs,” p. 113, 20 Feb 1950.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FVMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA113&dq=Irving+Langmuir&as_pt=MAGAZINES&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Irving%20Langmuir&f=false   

 [32] Life Magazine, “U.S. Water: We can supplement our outgrown sources at a price,” 21 Aug 1950, p. 52.

http://books.google.com/books?id=wUoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=Irving+Langmuir+rainmaker&source=bl&ots=Ehqq8hZNsE&sig=

tkN51NoxqMsKVq6ClZU9Hvej8g0&hl=en&ei=9mhMTO3vG93llQfjpJHGDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false   

 [33] John Vidal and Helen Weinstein, “RAF rainmakers ’caused 1952 flood’: Unearthed documents suggest experiment triggered torrent that killed 35 in Devon disaster,” The Guardian, 30 Aug 2001.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/silly/story/0,10821,544259,00.html  

 Also see: BBC News, “Rain-making link to killer floods,” 30 Aug 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1516880.stm  

 [34] Jerry E. Smith, “Weather Warfare: The Military’s Plan to Draft Mother Nature,” Adventures Unlimited Press, 2006. pp. 47-54.

http://books.google.com/books?id=G7t260XD8AYC&pg=PA47&dq=stormfury&hl=en&ei=9wJ

OTOfVE4G88gbZ3IGaDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=stormfury&f=false   

 [35] ibid. pp. 54-60.   

 [36] Richard Gray, “How we made the Chernobyl rain,” Daily Telegraph, 22 Apr 2007.

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549366/How-we-made-the-Chernobyl-rain.html   

 [37] Ian O’Neill, “The Chinese Weather Manipulation Missile Olympics,” Universe Today, 12 Aug 2008.

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/12/the-chinese-weather-manipulation-missile-olympics/   

 [38] Anonymous, “Moscow Halo,” cell phone video uploaded to YouTube, 7 Oct 2009. reposted at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXF9HSB627U