The Fight To Expose and Stop Global Climate Engineering Continues Reply

Geoengineering Watch Header

dane-wigington-mugAs the completely out of control and totally unregulated stratospheric aerosol geoengineering rages on in our skies day in and day out, most of the population remains oblivious. Now, a campaign to erect “in your face” billboards along highly traveled freeways is being initiated.

Our planet is literally under an all out assault by the climate engineers day in and day out, virtually all life on Earth is being subjected to the dire ramifications from this assault. The fight to expose the heavy metal and chemical spraying of our skies is nothing short of a fight for life, all of us are needed in this battle. Each of us can help to raise awareness by passing on credible information with an appeal to investigate to all those that are surprisingly still uninformed of this critical issue, this effort is of immense importance. Each day the climate engineering insanity continues to darken an already dim horizon, it is imperative that we all pull together in the task of exposing global geoengineering programs. *** Continue

Citizens File $60 Million Suit Against Government Failure to Respond to Chemtrails Questions 4

Geoengineering Watch Header

4/1/2014: Four thousand Swedish Citizens file $ 60 million class Action suit against Swedish government for not responding to questions about covert geoengineering, aka Chemtrails.

On April 1, 2014, charges were filed against the Swedish government and three of its agencies to the nation’s Chanceller of Justice for widespread and systematic violations of the much heralded “public principle” (“offentlighetsprincipen” similar to FOI).

The violations occurred when the government failed to respond to over 4,000 citizen requests for information related to the ubiquitous spraying of aerosols over the country from aircrafts (a k a “chemtrailing”) that has been going on for several years.  *** Continue

Chemtrails tankers Panel Header-B

Not Just Chemtrails: Aircraft Currently Dropping Biological Agents as Experimental “Vaccines” 6

Perhaps we’ve been focused too exclusively on Chemtrails as Geoengineering for ultimate profit by those who rule the Corporations.

A broader look reveals the Climate Industrial Complex has been using aircraft to deploy all sorts of chemicals and biological agents into our breathable atmosphere for decades.

Just as chemtrails appeared in the sky around the mid-1990′s a completely separate program of releasing biological agents as so-called “vaccines”, began in 1995.

They call it “vaccine” but here’s the reality: there’s a little bit of the disease in every vaccine. That’s how vaccines are theoretically supposed to work.So what’s the rationale in dropping millions of rabies vaccines on Texas? The government there has been doing this for years now.I can see the profit for pharmaceutical companies. They get an idiot government to give them millions of dollars a year ever year like clockwork. But where’s the benefit for the people? – See more at: http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/vaccines-1/texas-drops-millions-of-doses-of-rabies-by-plane.html#sthash.BaqjQLYC.dpuf

 

The Story Behind the ZOMBIE VIRUS (Delerium and drooling)

Combined Rabies and Ebola Vaccine Experiments go “Viral”

Published on Apr 2, 2014

 

Weather Modification is Not a Secret

If the FAA, NASA and EPA know that many licensed Weather Modification programs exist in the US, why is it taboo for concerned citizens to ask questions and get clear answers about aircraft Geoengineering with aerosols, aka “Chemtrails”?

Have you noticed more planes flying overhead in your community that leave trails behind them in the sky? These patterns are the result of “weather modification” programs — also referred to as “solar radiation management” or “chemtrails”. The international program involves spraying aluminum, barium, strontium and other toxic chemicals from airplanes at high altitudes that then fall to the ground, ending up in our bodies, our water, our soil and the air we breathe.

For more information, including links mentioned in the video, please visit: http://www.thrivemovement.com/chemtra…

Thank you to GeoEngineering Watch, Chemtrails 911, Space Weather, SkyderAlert, Rob Leslie, Ray Gale, truthseeker1922 and Skull for chemtrail footage that helped make this video possible.

FDA Reveals Shocking Statements On Vaccines

This might completely blow your mind so make sure you’re sitting down.

Boyd E. Haley, PhD, Professor and Chair, Department of Chemistry, University of Kentucky points out that,

“[T]he differential effects of estrogen versus testosterone on mercury toxicity to neurons may explain the increased susceptibility of males to autism.”

Now where in the world is all this toxic mercury coming from?

As you may be aware, Dr. Haley states,

“The mercury sources we consider are from dentistry and from drugs, mainly vaccines, that, in today’s world are not only unnecessary sources, but also sources that are being increasingly recognized as being significantly deleterious to the health of many.”

  *** Continue

Senator Demands End to Secrecy on Chemtrails 4

  • Print The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

 

Christina Sarich

Source: Natural Society
April 15, 2014

Have you noticed increased cases of Alzheimer’s and Autism? The CDC recently admitted that autism numbers have doubled in a decade and more than 5 million Americans have a form of dementia. While there are multiple contributors to these phenomenon, including the increased use of pesticides and herbicides, the decline of real food, and the degradation of our environment as a whole, it is likely chemtrails play a significant part in the cognitive decline of our nation as well.

Our politicians, however, refuse to comment on the subject, with the exception of a rogue informant often put swiftly back into his place by mainstream media and their puppeteers. Now, an Italian senator is demanding that important state secrets be declassified so that the world can understand what is really happening in the sky above.

Senator Domenico Scilipoti MugSenator Domenico Scilipoti is not a champion for every Italian, often accused of taking party sides wherever it will benefit him personally, but he is aiming to abolish the classification of documents regarding the death of Ilaria Alpi, an Italian journalist killed in 1994 after she discovered radioactive toxic waste was being shipped to Somalia. There is a free documentary people can watch here, but it is not allowed in the US. Quite some censorship. Why?   *** Continue

 

Aerospace Engineer Confirms “Chemtrails” as Covert Aerosol Geoeongineering 2

120369At 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

charles_hatfield-1915-san-diego[1]

Rainmaker Charles Hatfield, in 1915, destroyed much of San Diego.

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.

chemt

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])

stormfy

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

usaf 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 report published the following images provided by a former meteorologist at the Ontario Weather Service, showing spraying schemes for Europe. For December 6, 2008 in the first image.

owning-the-weather-all

In the last 3 images – “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:

9 chemtrails-davie-fl-3-30-2010-x325

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]

10 charle-hatfields-rain-washes-out-dam-1915

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]

11 romy-ny-dry-ice-seeding-1946

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]

12 china-weather-rocket-x-impactlab

China weather rocket (2008 by ImpactLab)

2008 Chinese government used 1,104 cloud seeding missiles to remove the threat of rain ahead of the Olympic opening ceremony in Beijing. [37]

05_Flatbed_2 - OCTOBER

2009 Moscow Halo. Case Orange cites this as evidence of cloud seeding, but others suspect it is electromagnetic in origin. Russian authorities said it was an optical illusion. [38]

 

________________________________________

This is by no means a comprehensive list; indeed, volumes are dedicated to the subject.

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

# # #

Comparative Contrail Analysis Shows Evidence of Covert Geoengineering Aerosols Reply

Published on Jul 31, 2012

EVIDENCE for COVERT GEOENGINEERING: In 2010 Aerospace Engineers submitted conclusive evidence for Covert Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering, (aka “Chemtrails”) in a 336 page report called “CASE ORANGE”.

The report was commissioned by THE BELFORT GROUP (UK), who held a “CHEMTRAILS SYMPOSIUM” where the conclusions were presented by Aerospace Engineer, Dr. Coen Vermeeren.

The Term Chemtrails was invented by The Department of Defense as title to a chemistry manual for for Air orce Acedemy pilot training.

 

The Term “Chemtrails” is in the text of 2001 legislation (HR-2977) defined as an “exotic weapon”.    http://tinyurl.com/7d7v57o

Documentary: What In The World Are They Spraying?: http://youtu.be/jf0khstYDLA

Documentary: Why In The World Are They Spraying? (Trailer) http://youtu.be/s3__ssxTvN

 

Analysis of Welsbach Alumina Aerosol Seeding Patent As Major Contributor to Global Warming 1

Welsbach Seeding-Patent-AA

Image from Page 1 of Welsbach Patent (PDF) Click Here

Notice the Welsbach patent specifies deployment of aluminum oxide into the STRATOSPHERE at 70 to 90,000 feet where the majority of military and commercial aircraft cannot even fly.

When aluminum oxide – as artificial contrails and clouds – is sprayed up to 7 miles lower in the troposphere, the result is consistent with climatologist data that confirms the result could warm surface temperatures - thus aggravating global warming.

Welsbach Patent Increse Global Warming

Image from Page 1 of Welsbach Patent (PDF) Click Here

IPCC scientists and NASA agree that Contrails and artificial clouds have significant impact of climate.

“Contrails tend to warm the Earth’s surface, similar to thin high clouds”. (1)

Artificial clouds sprayed by jet aircraft can “change the climate and affect natural resources”. (2)

“The notion that the aerosols are in some way cooling the planet is contradictory to direct observation and the examinations of physics” (3)

Sources:

After 15 years of spraying aluminum oxide in the troposphere, the level of spraying has increased. This suggests the plan to warm the climate is more likely the true motive all along.

This deception evolved from proposals to warm the climate as far back as 1877 – 7 years after the formation of Standard Oil – when Harvard geologist Nathaniel Shaler proposed channeling more of the warm Kuroshio Current through the Bering Strait to raise temperatures in the Polar region by 30 degrees.

The amazing history of “Global Warming” – as a good thing – was popular until  the 1960′s, when (in 1966) NASA organized government agencies into the “National Weather Modification” program that was quickly taken over by the military to develop climate weapons. This could explain why government agencies have adopted a “top secret” deniability about covert geoengineering – aka “chemtrails” as they are sworn to secrecy for the usual “national security” reasons.  (Complete article)

In April, 2013, Weather Modification Inc. listed 37 Cloud Seeding operations in 17 States within the CONUS with a total of 66 such operations in 18 Countries.

In April, 2013, Weather Modification Inc. listed 37 Cloud Seeding operations in 17 States within the CONUS

Texas-Precip-Enhancement-Lg

Public Health Issue

dr-russell_blaylock-mug-CaptionEven without considering “Chemtrails”, the fallout of toxins as the demand for cloud-seeding increases is disturbing.

This relatively provincial level of cloud seeding is evidence that the corporate mentality will inflict public exposure to massive levels of airborne toxins. We would be foolish to expect any less from the perpetrators of covert, and global geoengineering operations.

“My major concern is that there is evidence that they are spraying tons of nanosized aluminum compounds. It has been demonstrated in the scientific and medical literature that nanosized particles are infinitely more reactive and induce intense inflammation in a number of tissues. Of special concern is the effect of these nanoparticles on the brain and spinal cord, as a growing list of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) are strongly related to exposure to environmental aluminum.” - Neurologist, Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. (Complete Article)

Environmental Monitoring Captures Covert Geoengineering With Time-Lapse Video Reply

Luke Skywatcher

Apr 14, 2014  Youtube LukeSkywatcher  –  Facebook

Many people are noticing the aggregate effect chemtrails are having on the environment, and the increasing respiratory ailments of people in their cities and towns. We all share pictures online and are able to compare what an area is like on any given day, doing this.

However, I wanted to see whether I could make an effective continual time-lapse of the sky with the bare minimum resources, ( spare computer parts, old wires, recycled monitors, etc.) so that ANYONE interested, would know that THEY TOO, could create their own time-lapse set-up.

With many of us doing this around the world, we could answer the important questions:

Do these chemtrails occur at certain times, on certain days and over certain areas? Are they really sequestering radiation, or cooling the atmosphere? Is there a predictable pattern? Are they happening at the same time in different regions? Do they follow the stages of the sun? Do they affect certain people and types of flora? On the days that they happen, are there more people admitted to hospitals for similar complaints? How do they affect temperature and humidity readings? or vice versa? Does heavy chemtrailing activity precede large storms, or long periods of drought? Is there more activity surrounding an environmental disaster, ie: radiation leaks, chemical spills and unusually destructive tornadic activity?

So, I created this video as a simple, visual, step-by-step guide to making your own set-up in order to prove that ANYONE can do it, with just about any old parts. You don’t have to have amazing equipment, just a little time, a true concern for the world (and your HEALTH) and some determination.

Chemtrails tankers Panel Header-B

Jet Aircraft Geoengineering and THE POISONER Reply

The Poisoner

 

This Brazilian TAM Airline Airbus is revealing  a leak in the chemical aerosol container due to faulty design at sea level vs. actual competency under rarified atmospheric pressure differential at thousands of feet above the ground.

Careful inspection of the video shows the origin of the leak is close to the belly of the aircraft rather than from the tip of the tail.

Aerosols have been noted leaking from similar commercial aircraft in the same area of the belly while spraying “poison” into our breathable atmosphere.

TAM_A330-200_PT-MVO_FRA_2011-10-28

A TAM Brazilian Airlines Airbus A330-200 wearing the new livery at Frankfurt Airport. (2011) with Headquarters in Allentown, PA and São Paulo, Brazil

See More Chemtrail Tankers

 

 

 

 

Geoengineering The Skies in North Florida 4-14-2014 5

4/14 2014 – Gainesville, Florida:

High altitude atmospheric data reveals no conditions of near saturated relative humidity exist at flight levels above 29,000 feet (8,841 meters) to explain formation of persistent contrails and/or persistent-spreading contrails in this example.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

4.14.2014: Top photo taken at dawn. Botton photo near 8 AM local time

High altitude atmospheric data reveals no conditions of near saturated relative humidity exist at flight levels above 29,000 feet (8,841 meters) to explain formation of persistent contrails and/or persistent-spreading contrails in this example.

The absence of near-saturated relative humidity points to release of non water vapor jet emissions as deliberate and covert deployment of aerosols into the troposphere. (1)

Relative humidity is the amount of moisture in the air compared to what the air can “hold” at that temperature. When the air can’t “hold” all the moisture, then it condenses as dew. (Dew Point) (2)

The USAF contrail science facts document requires that relative humidity (RH)  be near saturation. (ie: RH near 100% ) at the altitude where the aircraft is flying.

” If the atmosphere is near saturation, the contrail may exist for some time. Conversely, if the atmosphere is dry, the contrail will dissipate quickly.” (3)

The Case for Covert Geoengineering to Produce Deliberate Surface Warming and Climate Change.

man_made_global_warming_is-chemtrails-xyThe IPCC and NASA Agree on significant climate change effects of contrails and thin, high (Cirrus) clouds.

“Contrails tend to warm the Earth’s surface, similar to thin high clouds”. (4)

Artificial clouds sprayed by jet aircraft can “change the climate and affect natural resources”. (5)

Sources:

NASA Contrail Education

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

 

 

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

 

 

 

Talk Radio Disinfo Trolls at WHO Lose Debate to Dane Wigington 1

Geoengineering Watch Header

Dane Wigington
geoengineeringwatch.org

dane wigington mug bDebating a “doubleteam” of disinformation trolls on a major national radio station can make for some interesting conversation. After I stumped the ideologue “head in the sand” disinfo host on an earlier show, he invited me back for another go, this time with his hand picked “expert” who teamed up with the host against me. The two of them did their best to “debunk” hard geoengineering data, you can decide who had their facts straight. The interview is only the first 40 minutes of the linked recording below. Though it was scheduled for a full hour, it seemed the disinformation “tag team” decided to throw in the towel. The host even cuts off one of his own listeners who calls in at the end of the debate to agree with the facts I had presented. It is my hope that this debate might be of assistance to activists that inevitably find themselves in such exchanges.   *** Continue to 20 Minute audio

Air Force Decides to “Cut Power” to HAARP By June 4

Alaska Dispatch Header

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy organized a meeting Feb. 26 of federal agencies with an interest in ionospheric research, hoping to develop options to save HAARP. The 30-acre field of antennas, power plant and associated buildings is about 15 miles from Glennallen along the Tok Cutoff near Gakona.

Mixed signals emerged from that February session. At first, it appeared that research agencies might have two or three years to develop a business plan. But then the Air Force said it wanted to cut the power when a final research project wraps up next month. *** Continue

HAARP Facility in Gakona, AK

HAARP Facility in Gakona, AK

Italian Senator Demands Public Disclosure Of “Chemtrail” Agreement With US Air Force 7

 

News Voice Header

Italian senator wants to publish secret agreement with the U.S. on chemtrails

Original Post – April 2nd (Italian)

Italian to English Translation provided by “Google” with comprehensive editing by HSaive
April 2, 2014 By NewsVoice

Senator Domenico Scilipoti MugItalian Senator Domenico Scilipoti has recently requested that the Italian government, through the Prime Minister, publish declassified documents about chemtrails .

The senator from “Forza Italia” alleges the Italian government made ​​secret agreements with the United States.

According to Scilipoti, Italy entered into a bilateral agreement in 2002 with the U.S. on climate research. The following year, in 2003, former Defence Minister Antonio Martino, gave U.S. Air Force permission to fly over Italian airspace.

“From that moment on, our country’s population has been exposed to major health risks”, said the Senator. “The flights emit heavy metals and chemicals in the air, forming long lines, and polluting the rain and damaging agriculture.”

Note 1.   In Italy there is a newly coined term “pentito” which refers to key persons in organized crime who turn state evidence and whose evidence becomes crucial In establishing a case and uncovering cover ups and intrigues . There is no proper word to translate it into English but the literal translation is ” confessed person.”  The new culture of “pentiti” informers in Italy in recent years has started to break the back of the mafia and expose not only mafia gangsters who were protected by long years of Mafia secrecy within the mafia organization (omerta ‘ – silence, wed pain of death) but overpriced their political allies.

Comment:  Pentito appears to be the Italian concept of the USA’s “whistleblower”.

Rodolfo Ragonesi, CEO of the Gaia Foundation,  is clearly a man of truly exceptional courage and focus. While nearly all of the environmental and science communities have remained criminally silent about the blatant and highly toxic climate engineering constantly occurring in skies around the globe, Ragonesi has taken a stand and is demanding answers. Rodolfo’s efforts to expose the truth in Malta are outlined in the link below. *** Continue

 

 

 

 

 

 

IPCC Lost Credibility on Global Warming, Necessarily Renamed “Climate Change” Reply

Listen Closely to Media Fear Porn Propaganda That Blames Fukushima Disaster on “Climate Change”

IPCC History Lesson

February 17, 2014 (Original upload by Suspicious 0bservers)

The impetus to create this page was the assertion that Maurice Strong wrote the terms of reference for the IPCC Climate Assessments to cover only man-made causes of climate change. Terms of Reference are the de-facto “thou shalt only speak of these things” in this realm of study. While Mr. Strong is currently living in China-unresponsive to all attempts for contact- and while his signature is found on no official documents for that reference that I can find on the internet, I can say this… “U.N., we have a problem.”

IPCC WG1 Full Report – 1st Assessment +400 pages: Selected Screenshots and explanations for inclusion.
Click the Images for a Larger Version

Title 1 title 2

The Initial Charge to the IPCC:
1st IPCC WG1 Human Only
This is the first indication of how the IPCC views Climate Change. Although we do not yet see an expressly biased position, we see where the focus of causation could be found.

The Activities of Working Group 1:
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 10.15.12 AM
Working Group 1. The IPCC was divided into three working groups, each group was to build on the work of the previous group ONLY. This is not a wholly improper scientific technique, as it helps define the scope of the work. However, here we see the scope defined in the early 90s (actually much earlier) as being only that which might arise as a result of man’s activities. Working Group 1 built on those. Does this mean that WG2 and WG3 can only consider the work of WG1 on the result of human activities? Yes.

Oops.
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 10.19.19 AM
Nothing dishonest here… their models said one thing, that with the increasing CO2 we would see warming SURFACE TEMPERATURES. We know that CO2 is skyrocketing, and that the IPCC recently (2013) said there has been no global warming since the first report – but that the warming was occurring deep in the oceans. Honest mistake :)

Mister Twister calling the Past
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 10.20.37 AM
“Paleo-climate data is potentially useful but it’s not. It has too many variables but may yet be useful.” Is this a serious segment of a scientific report? Essentially, the historical CO2/Temperature data-match is one of their proofs for the current CO2 story, but where that correlation is now broken and we appear to be on the precipice of another temperature drop (keep reading) the historical context is clearly not a factor… right?

Discussing THEIR POTENTIAL ERRORS (A sign of good science; 1 point awarded to Slytherin)
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 10.23.58 AM
This is what we have come to learn more and more, including a few days ago in our morning news via NASA, Johns Hopkins and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem …maybe not such a drastic forcing effect after all?

So much for good science.
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 10.25.32 AM
As the highlighted portion suggests, it is obvious to the IPCC that our emissions are the primary factor. This cuts against their recognition of cooling mechanisms from the previous screen-shot, and indeed the words directly above the highlighted portion itself. They are NOT certain; they list their uncertainties but then claim that certain things are obvious. As it turns out, we now know our emission levels since then, the effect on atmospheric concentrations, and their LACK of an ability to warm the SURFACE TEMPERATURES as they so obviously predicted.

The can’t decide how uncertain they are…
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 10.27.35 AM
…but they can definitely say that they considered their current ocean-warming explanation way back then. Another point for the IPCC.

They should choose a different word.
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 10.28.52 AM
Significant. adjective – to the extent where it materially alters the outcome of a given scenario. I’ll use it in a sentence: No conclusion is worth reading if it has ‘significant’ errors.

We’re starting to get serious.
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 10.31.31 AM
So what exactly is Working Group 1 supposed to cover? They characterize these as “scenario” evaluations, and the scenarios are restricted to greenhouse gas emissions. Imagine the Reverse: It would be unwise to leave out all scenarios involving greenhouse gases, right? …just as absurdly, the “STEERING GROUP” veered WG1 away from anything natural, such that the scope of climate change would be so-defined.

Just Read.
Gangbusters
Plain and simple, from the start, CLIMATE CHANGE did not include naturally-forced variability.

Kind-of a cheap shot.
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 11.00.49 AM
“Oh look how cold we would be!” You mean if we took away a huge part of our atmosphere we’d be colder? You don’t say. In the box- I’m pretty sure there are a gargantuan amount of radiators from the earth that are not the direct result of greenhouse gases… oh crap, I forgot, that’s not allowed to be part of this analysis. My bad.

Look how close they were…
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 11.01.31 AM
Greenhouse gases are #2, the Sun is #1 – they knew it all along.

Don’t Lose Perspective
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 11.13.39 AM
One of the primary messages of our C(lie)mate video series is that the health affects of pollution, including those to the flora and fauna of earth, is a paramount concern, but one that cannot be used to cloud the meteorological analysis of our planet, and especially not in perspective with the changes in the rest of the solar system. Fact is, pollution is not a good thing for a large number of reasons. Even where no emissions are present, this author strongly opposes things like deforestation- for more reasons than I care to mention here. Got a little bit of hippy in me, so what?

Remember that paleo-data which may or may not be useful? They say THIS part is useful-
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 11.02.02 AM
Let’s go ahead and take their word for it…

…Look familiar?
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 11.38.20 AMScreen Shot 2014-02-17 at 12.00.12 PM
On the left side you see the image given in the original IPCC report with the latest data on the left and going into the past as the chart goes to the right; on the right side you see a bit more data-directly from the best available ice core data, and current day is at the right with the past shown to the left. Keeping this mirror-effect in mind, you should recognize the same source of the two charts. Look at the IPCC’s version, where it claims to show the current levels as of 1990… compare to the right side, where even that is outdated as we’ve broken the 400ppm mark in the atmosphere in the last 24 months. The IPCC chart is a lie; it does not show the most current data they had available, as 1990 levels of CO2 were well above the high 200s, and had already stopped being so-perfectly correlated to global surface temperatures once the industrial revolution began.

“Searching for a handle on the moment?” Feel like you have seen a lot but don’t know where to go from here? Curious about the implications, the natural variability, and what’s coming? Click Here.

The scientists at the IPCC aren’t necessarily doing anything wrong – although it is quite clear that at least some members of the steering committee and the scope-definition parameters for the initial project had just one agenda in mind. The scientists, for the most part, are performing a scientific process under the scope of those who are ‘above them.’ Consider that the evidence has been pushing us towards a more detailed look at solar forcing and the cooling mechanisms of certain emissions, then see the NEW definition of Climate Change in the latest IPCC Assessment (5th):
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 1.11.21 PM
Well now… that’s quite the shift now isn’t it? Great revelations in understanding do not happen overnight… and apparently only to small extents even over a couple decades. Baby steps…

The pattern is clear; the warming has stopped. The sun was strongest during the periods identified for global warming, and while scientists have identified the pacific ocean cycle as the current cause for a lack of surface warming, it matches the solar weakening we’ve now seen for years (better described in the C(lie)mate series). Despite the shift in evidence and discourse, the IPCC’s conclusions mysteriously get “more certain.”

Dear IPCC-

You brought all your skills, you brought all your data, you brought all your friends…