U.S. Government ordered DHS to work on Manipulating Hurricanes

By MELISSA MELTON | INFOWARS | OCTOBER 31, 2012

While the debate rages regarding whether or not the U.S. government uses weather manipulation technology to steer storms like Hurricane Sandy, further evidence shows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been engaged in research to do just that for years.

In 2008, an article in New Scientist discussed a new DHS project that funded research into guiding and directing the intensity of hurricanes.

Citing Hurricane Katrina as the basis for the project, the Hurricane Aerosol and Microphysics Program (HAMP) worked with Project Stormfury veteran Joe Golden and a panel of other experts “to test the effects of aerosols on the structure and intensity of hurricanes.” HAMP was funded under contract HSHQDC-09-C-00064 at a taxpayer price tag of $64.1 million.

In 2009, Richard Spinrad, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) assistant administrator for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), sent then DHS Program Manager for Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) William Laska an official memorandum regarding OAR’s review of a “Statement for Work” for HAMP.

Read the memo here.

“While OAR recognizes that weather modification, in general, is occurring through the funding of private enterprises, NOAA does not support research that entails efforts to modify hurricanes,” Spinrad wrote.

He then went on to list all the reasons Project Stormfury was discontinued, including the inability to separate the difference in hurricane behavior when human intervention is present versus nature’s inherent unpredictability overall. Spinrad also noted that any collaboration with DHS must occur within NOAA’s mission (which Spinrad and NOAA obviously felt HAMP did not do).

NOAA houses the National Hurricane Center, the primary U.S. organization responsible for tracking and predicting hurricanes. Recent budget cuts are expected to hit NOAA’s satellite program, the heart of the organization’s weather forecasting system, by $182 million.

Note that even Spinrad admits the existence of weather modification programs as if its general, accepted knowledge. Although DHS was turned down, the agency moved ahead with their research without NOAA’s participation.

A paper co-written by several participants in the HAMP project including Joe Golden entitled, “Aerosol Effects and Microstructure on the Intensity of Tropical Cyclones,” was released in the July 2012 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. In conclusion, the authors wrote, “We recommend that hurricane reconnaissance and research airplanes are equipped with aerosol and cloud physics instruments and fly patterns that will allow such measurements.” Drone use in “areas where safety concerns preclude aircraft measurements” was also called for.

The spraying of aerosols into the air, otherwise known by the monicker “chemtrails,” is promoted under the guise of geoengineering with a surface excuse to halt global warming. The practice has been openly called for more and more recently, although the chemtrail phenomenon has already been reported across the globe for years now. In the Environmental Research Letters journal, scientists’ most recent geoengineering proposal detailed an “affordable” $5 billion project wherein airplanes will spray sulfur particles in the atmosphere to cool the planet.

In HAMP’s final report, authors concluded, “Pollution aerosols reduced the cloud drop size and suppressed the warm rain forming processes in the external spiral cloud bands of the storms.” It was also mentioned, “During the past decade it was found that aerosols (including anthropogenic ones) substantially affect cloud microphysics,” proving deliberate chemtrailing has been occurring for at least the past ten years.

Though the paper was labeled “final report,” further journal articles regarding HAMP have been released, and the HAMP project was reportedly not scheduled to end until 2016.

The question remains: With its bizarre combination of elements, was deliberate manipulation through HAMP research at play in Hurricane Sandy?

Why are they Manipulating the Weather?

The most dangerous weapon is not nuclear, chemical or biological, it is the weather.

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | AUGUST 20, 2012

The weather is changing and the effects of such change have been felt by millions already. But this drastic change in weather is not a result of anthropogenic activity as many would have you believe. It is the result of decades of open air tests by government and large corporations who hold the patents to carry out the largest experiment to change the amount of sun the planet receives, the amount of rain that falls over a determined area, where hurricanes and tornadoes form and where do they go to, among others.

Experiments to manipulate the weather have been envisioned since the 1800s, but were only fully executed in the 1940s, when many powerful entities saw the potential to use weather manipulation as a weapon not only to flood large areas or to cause severe droughts, but also to limit the amount of food available for a determined population. That is the intent being carry out today, as weather extremes wrongfully blamed on anthropogenic warming due to fossil fuel use, wreak havoc all over the planet.

At no other time in history has humanity seen such abrupt changes in weather patters as today, and no, it’s not because of human activity, development, industrialization or because we have more cars on the road than ever before. It is because of the explicit attempt to change weather patterns to impose an anti-human agenda of financial, economic, social and scientific fraud. Here is where geoengineering comes into play. The power of a few corporations and well-paid scientists to play around with weather elements to obtain a specific benefit is a reality today, as you will see in the new documentary Why in the World are they Spraying?

The video is the sequel of What in the World are they Spraying?, which unveiled the reality of chemtrails or aerosol spraying. Although the risks of weather modification has not been seriously assessed and its proponents recognize the potential for dire consequences, tons of aluminum, barium and other heavy metals are sprayed daily all over the world without any kind of consultation to the people who live on the planet. The damage that chemtrails cause to Earth is visible in the water, soils and plant and animal life. But worse, people all over the world are also suffering the effects of having to breathe heavily contaminated air.

“While geoengineers maintain that their models are only for the mitigation of global warming, it is now clear that they can be used as a way to consolidate an enormous amount of both monetary and political power into the hands of a few by the leverage that weather control gives certain corporations over the Earth’s natural systems. This of course, is being done at the expense of every living thing on the planet.” But the effects or geoengineering go beyond all this, as it has now been observed that spraying sulfur, aluminum and other chemicals on the atmosphere either to reflect sun light or to cause droughts or floods is actually causing more warming.

See for yourself, get your own conclusions and pass this information to as many people as possible.

Get the documentary here: Why in the World are they Spraying?

Mad: Engineer Humans to Combat Climate Change?

by Ross Andersen
The Atlantic
March 13, 2012

The threat of global climate change has prompted us to redesign many of our technologies to be more energy-efficient. From lightweight hybrid cars to long-lasting LED’s, engineers have made well-known products smaller and less wasteful. But tinkering with our tools will only get us so far, because however smart our technologies become, the human body has its own ecological footprint, and there are more of them than ever before. So, some scholars are asking, what if we could engineer human beings to be more energy efficient? A new paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment proposes a series of biomedical modifications that could help humans, themselves, consume less.
Some of the proposed modifications are simple and noninvasive. For instance, many people wish to give up meat for ecological reasons, but lack the willpower to do so on their own. The paper suggests that such individuals could take a pill that would trigger mild nausea upon the ingestion of meat, which would then lead to a lasting aversion to meat-eating. Other techniques are bound to be more controversial. For instance, the paper suggests that parents could make use of genetic engineering or hormone therapy in order to birth smaller, less resource-intensive children.
The lead author of the paper, S. Matthew Liao, is a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University. Liao is keen to point out that the paper is not meant to advocate for any particular human modifications, or even human engineering generally; rather, it is only meant to introduce human engineering as one possible, partial solution to climate change. He also emphasized the voluntary nature of the proposed modifications. Neither Liao or his co-authors,  Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache of Oxford, approve of any coercive human engineering; they favor modifications borne of individual choices, not technocratic mandates. What follows is my conversation with Liao about why he thinks human engineering could be the most ethical and effective solution to global climate change.
Judging from your paper, you seem skeptical about current efforts to mitigate climate change, including market based solutions like carbon pricing or even more radical solutions like geoengineering. Why is that?

Liao: It’s not that I don’t think that some of those solutions could succeed under the right conditions; it’s more that I think that they might turn out to be inadequate, or in some cases too risky. Take market solutions—so far it seems like it’s pretty difficult to orchestrate workable international agreements to affect international emissions trading. The Kyoto Protocol, for instance, has not produced demonstrable reductions in global emissions, and in any event demand for petrol and for electricity seems to be pretty inelastic. And so it’s questionable whether carbon taxation alone can deliver the kind of reduction that we need to really take on climate change.
With respect to geoengineering, the worry is that it’s just too risky—many of the technologies involved have never been attempted on such a large scale, and so you have to worry that by implementing these techniques we could endanger ourselves or future generations. For example it’s been suggested that we could alter the reflectivity of the atmosphere using sulfate aerosol so as to turn away a portion of the sun’s heat, but it could be that doing so would destroy the ozone layer, which would obviously be problematic. Others have argued that we ought to fertilize the ocean with iron, because doing so might encourage a massive bloom of carbon-sucking plankton. But doing so could potentially render the ocean inhospitable to fish, which would obviously also be quite problematic.
One human engineering strategy you mention is a kind of pharmacologically induced meat intolerance. You suggest that humans could be given meat alongside a medication that triggers extreme nausea, which would then cause a long-lasting aversion to meat eating. Why is it that you expect this could have such a dramatic impact on climate change?

Liao: There is a widely cited U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization report that estimates that 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and CO2 equivalents come from livestock farming, which is actually a much higher share than from transportation. More recently it’s been suggested that livestock farming accounts for as much as 51% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. And then there are estimates that as much as 9% of human emissions occur as a result of deforestation for the expansion of pastures for livestock. And that doesn’t even to take into account the emissions that arise from manure, or from the livestock directly. Since a large portion of these cows and other grazing animals are raised for consumption, it seems obvious that reducing the consumption of these meats could have considerable environmental benefits.
Even a minor 21% to 24% reduction in the consumption of these kinds of meats could result in the same reduction in emissions as the total localization of food production, which would mean reducing “food miles” to zero. And, I think it’s important to note that it wouldn’t necessarily need to be a pill. We have also toyed around with the idea of a patch that might stimulate the immune system to reject common bovine proteins, which could lead to a similar kind of lasting aversion to meat products.
Your paper also discusses the use of human engineering to make humans smaller. Why would this be a powerful technique in the fight against climate change?

Liao: Well one of the things that we noticed is that human ecological footprints are partly correlated with size. Each kilogram of body mass requires a certain amount of food and nutrients and so, other things being equal, the larger person is the more food and energy they are going to soak up over the course of a lifetime. There are also other, less obvious ways in which larger people consume more energy than smaller people—for example a car uses more fuel per mile to carry a heavier person, more fabric is needed to clothe larger people, and heavier people wear out shoes, carpets and furniture at a quicker rate than lighter people, and so on.
And so size reduction could be one way to reduce a person’s ecological footprint. For instance if you reduce the average U.S. height by just 15cm, you could reduce body mass by 21% for men and 25% for women, with a corresponding reduction in metabolic rates by some 15% to 18%, because less tissue means lower energy and nutrient needs.

Bill Gates Finances Insane Geo-Engineering Programs

by John Vidal
The Guardian
February 8, 2012

A small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.

The scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a “plan B” for climate change will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US government and others should pay for a major programme of international research.

Solar geoengineering techniques are highly controversial: while some climate scientists believe they may prove a quick and relatively cheap way to slow global warming, others fear that when conducted in the upper atmosphere, they could irrevocably alter rainfall patterns and interfere with the earth’s climate.

Geoengineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the technology could undermine efforts to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich countries to their advantage. In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on experiments in the sea and space,except for small-scale scientific studies.

Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy.

“We will need to protect ourselves from vested interests [and] be sure that choices are not influenced by parties who might make significant amounts of money through a choice to modify climate, especially using proprietary intellectual property,” said Jane Long, director at large for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, in a paper delivered to a recent geoengineering conference on ethics.

“The stakes are very high and scientists are not the best people to deal with the social, ethical or political issues that geoengineering raises,” said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace. “The idea that a self-selected group should have so much influence is bizarre.”

Pressure to find a quick technological fix to climate change is growing as politicians fail to reach an agreement to significantly reduce emissions. In 2009-2010, the US government received requests for over $2bn(£1.2bn) of grants for geoengineering research, but spent around $100m.

As well as Gates, other wealthy individuals including Sir Richard Branson, tar sands magnate Murray Edwards and the co-founder of Skype, Niklas Zennström, have funded a series of official reports into future use of the technology. Branson, who has frequently called for geoengineering to combat climate change, helped fund the Royal Society’s inquiry into solar radiation management last year through hisCarbon War Room charity. It is not known how much he contributed.

Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, are the world’s two leading advocates of major research into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield. They have so far received over $4.6m from Gates to run theFund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (Ficer). Nearly half Ficer’s money, which comes directly from Gates’s personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of large-scale interventions.

Read Full Article…

Newt Gingrich Supports Geo-engineering Fringe Science

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
December 6, 2011

You must have seen it already, but this week’s republican presidential front-runner, Newt Gingrich, is an avid advocate of imposing government policies on the people to help out with the “threat” global warming poses to humanity. In the past, Mr. Gingrich even taped a Public Service Announcement with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, calling on everyone to submit to the demands a group of mad scientists and bureaucrats want to turn into laws to combat the widely debunked global warming myth.

More specifically, Mr. Gingrich supports the use of geo-engineering to save us all from the coming “disasters” that anthropogenic warming will bring in the near future. Geo-engineering is the deliberate modification of the weather and climate on a local, regional or worldwide basis. In order to achieve the changes that the green fringe calls for, governments in developed and developing countries use a series of techniques include but are not limited to the spraying of disease-causing chemicals in the atmosphere, such as Aluminum, Barium and Sulphur (Chemtrails), the injection of nitrogen in ocean waters, and reflecting solar rays with large mirrors to be placed on Fringe looking blimps.

The cost of carrying out these experiments is monumental and has not left any positive results after decades of application both in laboratories and outdoors over hundreds of cities around the world. In fact, our planet has become 20 percent  darker in the last few decades as a result of the use of sun ray reflecting chemicals on our skies. Even a recent government study concluded that geo-engineering is just too dangerous to try. But Mr. Gingrich still believes is worthwhile because it would promote ingenuity and innovation.

In the government study, geo-engineering was found to pose graver threats to the health of the people and the planet than any possible effect anthropogenic global warming would, if it was true. Of course, Mr. Gingrich’s interest is not bound by the benefits geo-engineering or any other technology would have for humanity, but to conveniently make it look as a good deal, some kind of magic solution, whose only goal is to finance the technocratic central world government that is now being established by globalists and corporations all over the planet. Mr. Gingrich surprisingly calls himself a “conservative”, but the truth is that he supports environmental policies sponsored by Barack Obama, based on the premise that government must dictate what is done about the environment and everything else for that matter.

The same environmental policies supported by Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Obama rendered no visible or measurable results in countries like Spain, where just like in the United States, alternative technology companies were born and grew as a result of large government subsidies, only to collapse on their footprints after those subsidies were drawn away or due to the high cost of producing alternative energy sources, also called green technologies. Everyone must still remember how Solyndra, one of the companies subsidized by the current American administration literally ran away with taxpayer money without producing one single product or service that helped end dependence on oil, nuclear energy or any other source usually demonized by the “greens”. The Obama administration gave $535 million in subsidies to Solyndra, whose CEO visited the White House many times before receiving the cash.

Along with Mr. Gingrich, the climate change scare machine uses all kinds of scare tactics to induce the public to support initiatives like the imposition of taxes on carbon emissions, funding the green police, accusing neighbors and relatives for not separating the trash, buying fluorescent light bulbs that cause skin burns and adopting the infamous smart grid technology now being used in the United States, Latin America and Australia which allows energy companies and ultimately governments to control how much energy, water and other basic services people use.

Newt Gingrich endorsements are not limited to so-called environmental policies. He agreed with the idea that North Korea should be attacked with laser beams. Incidentally, some of the same laser-based technology is used in weather modification. Even Ron Paul has had to talk about who Newt Gingrich is. Mr. Paul, one of the front runners in the Republican field, has produced an ad where he exposes Gingrich’s two-faced attitude. Watch it and think: Is this the candidate we want to replace Barack Obama? Is he not worse than Obama?

Judge for yourself and please comment below: