Neurologist Warns of Exploding Neurodegenerative Disease Due to Chemtrail Toxins 3

Natural Society header
October 27th, 2013
Updated 10/27/2013 at 9:22 am

dr-russell_blaylock-mug-CaptionChemtrails are real and they are dangerous, yet so many people still deny their existence. Well if a former Airforce veteran, chemicals and bio-environmental engineering whistle blower or other researchers aren’t convincing enough, then perhaps a neurologist will help people wake up to the fact that millions of tons of cancer-causing and brain-debilitating nano-particles are being dumped from the air by our government.

There are still people arguing about whether contrails are chemtrails, and the evidence is incredibly right before our eyes. Michigan is hazed out one week, California, the next, then back down south to hit Texas or Georgia. You can see the pictures others have captured if you don’t see them with your own ocular lenses.

*** Continue

4 Jets Spraying chemtrails-C

Solution to Climate Change: Hack the Planet With Dangerous Geoengineering Experiments Reply

North-Florida-Skywatch-Header-1026x163

Note:  The overwhelming conspiracy of silence on the past 25 year of “chemtrails” extends to “National Public Radio” – an organization that pretends to rely on public support but betrays their subscribers with gaterkeeping two of the most important issues of our time (1) Chemtrails (2) The coverup of the 9/11 False Flag.

Complete Article, Audio and Transcripts

In the summer of 2012, a small group of the Haida people, a native community in Canada, had a problem. The salmon they rely on were disappearing. So the Haida took matters into their own hands.

They partnered with an American businessman, drew up plans and then took a boat full of iron dust into the waters off their home island and put the dust in the ocean.

When they spread the iron dust, it created a big algae bloom. They hoped the algae would soak up carbon dioxide and bring back the fish.

The reaction to the experiment was immediate and negative, and as the “world’s first rogue geoengineering project.”

“ I can think of academics who agree on almost everything else in terms of science who are diametrically opposed on geoengineering.

- Matthew Watson, University of Bristol

While it scared a lot of people and angered a lot of scientists, this event could be a sign of what’s to come. Some very mainstream scientists are saying the climate change situation is so bad that saving life as we know it might require something radical: like shooting chemicals into the stratosphere to protect Earth from the sun. In essence, these scientists are talking about hacking the climate.

Geoengineering 101

In scientific circles, what the Haida did is called ocean fertilization. Jason McNamee, a spokesman for the group that carried out the experiment, says the goal was to protect the Haida people who live off the coast of Canada

“They get most of their protein straight out of the ocean,” McNamee says. “What they have noticed over the last hundred or so years is that the fisheries have become less predictable and less abundant.”

And while it’s still unclear how successful the operation was scientifically, the legal and social backlash was immediately apparent. The Canadian government condemned the dump and has launched an investigation, seizing documents and data from the company’s headquarters.

“So this is the really knotty problem,” says Matthew Watson, a climate scientist at the University of Bristol, “if that experiment had been solely about salmon, nobody would have batted an eyelid. But because it was really about geoengineering, people got very worried.”

Watson is also the author of the Reluctant Geoengineer blog.

People get scared because a lot of these plans sound like mad scientist schemes. Ocean fertilization is just one of a wide array of climate-engineering techniques out there.

One technique is to suck the carbon dioxide out from the atmosphere and put it somewhere else.

“You might do that by planting lots of trees or setting up machines that draw down CO2 and store it somewhere, or generating ocean fertilization where you add iron to the ocean and that generates phytoplankton, which locks up carbon dioxide,” Watson tells NPR’s Arun Rath. “The whole point is that you’re trying to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and put it somewhere else.”

A second technique is to try and reflect sunlight away from the Earth to keep the Earth cooler. You can do that, Watson says, by painting roofs white, through making natural clouds a little brighter or through volcanic aerosols.

In fact, there is evidence of volcanic eruptions that have dramatically lowered the temperature on Earth. Scientists want to replicate that. But the catch is that scientists haven’t really tested either technique.

“For the most part we’ve got more questions than answers,” Watson says. “It’s a very emotive subject and a divisive subject. I can think of academics who agree on almost everything else in terms of science who are diametrically opposed on geoengineering.”

Watson says that some people see it as a necessary evil to protect the environment and some see it as retention of the status quo, just trying to techno-fix our way out of what is already a technological problem.

If the schism in the science community weren’t enough, Watson points out there are serious questions about the basic feasibility of actually using any of these techniques. What is already a divisive problem in the sciences is quickly becoming a governance nightmare.

“A better way to categorize the technologies might be by whether they have a local or global scale,” he says. “In that case painting roofs white or planting trees might be done on a local scale, whereas things like volcanic aerosols and ocean fertilization act on your atmosphere, my atmosphere [and] the people in Bangladesh’s atmosphere. And they’re much less controllable because they have a global effect.”

According to Watson, most governments have been slow to take on the issue of the potential global effects of climate engineering.

The Climate Change Elephant In The Room (Never mind chemtrails)

Ted Parson, an environmental law professor at UCLA, works on the tough question of how international bodies should regulate climate engineering. He says there is fairly active debate on whether any international law exists that covers climate engineering, but it’s his view that there really isn’t.

“There are a number of environmental treaties that are relevant to doing this, but they are all rather narrow in the constraints and obligations they impose,” Parson tells Rath. “So none of them would have the effect of the United States or China or any other country from doing this.”

Parson says the has adopted a couple of decisions that expressed disapproval of geoengineering technologies, but they are very vague and nonbinding. He says the U.S. and many other nations that haven’t dealt with geoengineering are in a situation where it’s difficult to even talk about it because of the potential for intense political controversy.

“One unfortunate consequence of that is that early, small-scale research that could help us understand more about whether these things would work, what risks they would pose and how you would do them most effectively, isn’t really getting done,” he says. “And that’s really quite a risky situation.

“Because if we find ourselves in a situation where climate change gets really bad, and we’re desperately looking around for something to do to make it less bad, if we haven’t done the research at that point all we’ll have is a set of kind of untested, un-risk-assessed, undeveloped options that are kind of crude to throw up in a hurry,” he says.

By now you’re probably thinking — what about the potential for harm? If scientists got their calculations wrong, it could be catastrophic for life on Earth. Or what if the technology got into the wrong hands? This is what Parson calls the “Dr. Evil” scenario, and fortunately he says it can’t really work like that.

“Dr. Evil would have to have a great big airport and a supply chain and a bunch of airplanes going up all the time,” he says. “There are probably only about 10 or 12 nation states that could actually sustain a program of changing the climate that wouldn’t be trivial.”

 

 

Chemtrails: A Planetary Catastrophe Created by Geoengineering 2

Planet Earth has been besieged by many and diverse scientific experiments over the past one hundred years. Applied science and technology have seen a literal explosion of top secret and highly classified operations conducted in the atmosphere, throughout the planetary surface, as well as deep within the Earth’s crust. However, none comes close to the degree of round-the-clock damage inflicted on the biosphere as the DARPA-sponsored program of geo-engineering.

Just one component of this secret geo-engineering program is known as chemtrails. For those who have never heard of chemtrails, they are not to be confused with contrails, which are the normal exhaust vapors ejected from jet engines in flight. Here is a photo of numerous chemtrails having just been laid down by special jets equipped to do the job

Can you imagine that the government has labeled these chemtrails as normal contrail activity?

Every reader of this article needs to understand that, where it concerns the outright destruction of the human habitat, geo-engineering reigns supreme in it’s potential to render the planet unfit for life … all life — human, animal, and plant. Geo-engineering has so many different facets to it, each of which are extraordinarily harmful to all levels of the Earth’s atmosphere, the entire surface environment, as well as the subterranean geology and oceans of the world.So dangerous and little understood are the far-reaching repercussions of this geo-engineering assault that those of us who are initiated in this realm wonder if we are literally “one minute to midnight“.  *** Continue   

Scientists Push For Aerosol Geoengineering to Fix Global Warming 9

AAAS Magazine Features David keith and Geoengineering

By Harold Saive

It’s been less than a month since the World Health Organization announced that particulate pollution causes cancer.

Today, geoengineer, David Keith proclaims that spraying particles (vapor) in the atmosphere to mitigate global warming/climate change is long overdue.

This article completely ignores Keith’s 2010 AAAS presentation where his preferred method is to spray alumina into atmosphere using stratospheric jet aircraft.  If David Keith succeeds in realizing the “chemtrails” conspiracy-theory-come-true, the abnormally long contrails in the sky would more likely be called “Keith-trails”.

By the way, contrary to popular internet rumors, it was a conspiracy theorist in the Department of Defense who invented the term “Chemtrails” in 1990 and 1991 as the title to a chemistry course for new pilots attending the esteemed US Air Force Academy. The term “Chemtrails”, and its implied meaning was eventually adopted by civilian observers to describe unusual jet contrail emissions.  Download 26 MB Chemtrails

Article excerpts:

Sun blocker. Serious geoengineering research is long past due, says physicist David Keith.

“Keith wants to bring geoengineering out of the ivory tower and into the stratosphere.”

“…the development of solar geoengineering technologies … as public and transparent as possible,” he writes.

“And he faces a myriad of obstacles, including a lack of organized government support and fierce opposition from critics—one of whom calls Keith’s sun-blocking ideas “barking mad.” He’s even gotten death threats.”

“And this month, Keith is releasing a book, A Case for Climate Engineering, in which he argues that “the potential upsides of geoengineering” demand greater research.”

“…complicating matters is Keith’s ownership stake in a company that is pursuing a different flavor of geoengineering—sucking carbon dioxide out of the air.”

“In particular, Keith focuses on one technique: releasing sulfuric acid vapor high in the stratosphere, where it would scatter sunlight away from Earth’s surface. The approach mimics the global cooling effect of large volcanic eruptions, which spew sulfates into the stratosphere.”  (not true – alumina was the topic of his 2010 AAAS presentation)

“Keith was becoming an entrepreneur himself, launching Carbon Engineering, a startup aiming to build machines to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, in 2009. One of its investors is Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates, for whom Keith has served as an informal energy adviser since 2006.”

“The amount of Gates’s investment in the company is undisclosed, but the mogul has also provided roughly $6 million to the informal Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research, managed by Keith and Caldeira.”

Complete article retrieved by membership privilege. Please do not re-publishPDF

________________

A case for climate engineering David keith

Book Excerpt:

In stark retreat from his 2010 AAAS presentation, Keith’s book contains only one reference to “aluminum” and no references to “alumina”. (Page 123 of 197 – Kindle version)

Keith gives away his desperation when he lists Mick West’s “Contrail Science” website as a laughable debunking authority. West is an admitted novice with no expertise except as a hobbyist. Why would Keith not direct his readers to visit the NASA or Air Force websites that explain (poorly) why persistent contrails cannot exist in low relative humidity?  Who advised David Keith to list these two imposter websites as contrail authorities?  Was it Bill Gates?

“Critiques of geoengineering arise from diverse worldviews, and passions run very high. I have received two death threats that warranted calls to the police, and received many outraged comments from colleagues whom I respect. The most extreme critiques (and the death threats) have come from people who are convinced by the chemtrails conspiracy theory, which holds that the US government is deliberately spraying its citizens with toxins from aircraft. Believers claim that metals such as aluminum and barium are sprayed from commercial aircraft for purposes that are alleged to range from mass culling of the human population to mind control. (43) These views are widely held; one sixth of respondents in a large public survey we ran in Canada, Britain, and the United States believed that it was partially or completely true that “The government has a secret program that uses airplanes to put harmful chemicals into the air.” (44)

Examine Notes 43 and 44

43. Evidence offered to support this view is often little more than the conviction that aircraft contrails persist longer than is natural. Wikipedia provides a good overview of the conspiracy theory, http:// en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory . There are many good websites devoted to debunking chemtrails including http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/chemtrails/ and http://contrailscience.com .

44 . The survey was run by my PhD student Ashley Mercer and administered by survey firms that guarantee representative samples. We surveyed about 3000 people in Canada, Britain and the US in 2010. See A. M. Mercer, D. W. Keith, and J. D. Sharp. “Public understanding of Solar Radiation Management”,

Note: “sprayed from commercial aircraft” misrepresents the observations that military aircraft were initially identified as the exclusive agents of aerosol releases. It remains that military aircraft are identified along with a growing number of civilian, passenger jets that may, or may not be carrying passengers while spraying.  I have personally logged a commercial aircraft releasing aerosols over Alachua County, Fl, however the erratic flight plan is not consistent with normal passenger service. It is more likely that the Airtran flight 9100 was releasing aerosols even though the flight carried no typical commercial passengers. (See Airtran report)

# #

Motion Picture “SHADE” – Geoengineering, Chemtrails and Who’s Behind Global Dominance 5

Shade motion picure header

Shade exposes the power structure embedded in our global reality, revealing the perpetrators, their plans to Geoengineer our planet and dominate the populace.

Visit http://www.shadethemotionpicture.com to order a DVD, rent or download the film.

Follow the filmmakers @JasonBermas and @ShepardAmbellas on Twitter.

Shop at http://www.mypatriotsupply.com for all of your preparedness needs.

A portion of this film was made possible by MyPatriotSupply.com

SHADE the Motion Picture Copyright 2013 Unbound Productions LLC

Council on Foreign Relations Pushes for Solar Radiation Management aka “Chemtrails” 8

Comment:  It now appears the challenge of initiating solar radiation management (SRM) in the public domain is to overcome the massive public awareness of decades of covert deployment of aerosols to manipulate the climate for more reasons than to simply, “cool the planet”.   SRM can probably not be initiated without appearing to be too similar to the streaks in the sky and particulate fallout that have plagued the planet for nearly three decades. To integrate the more legitimate SRM program while continuing to deny “chemtrails” will take a propaganda campaign that we can hardly imagine.  Since the global warming hypothesis has clearly fallen apart, the initiation of SRM could be highly fought between the scientific and pseudo-scientific arenas.

If SRM can be distinguished from the current chemtrail operation, then we have a covert operation running concurrently with a widely promoted aerosol program with, presumably different desired outcomes: AGW Mitigation vs. Climate Chaos.

If a mini ice-age is imminent, as suspected by solar weather experts, it will appear blatantly dishonest to see SRM appear to chemtrail the sky while Florida drivers are scraping ice off their wind-shields in March. 

The propaganda to gain public support for SRM is in that ability of covert chemtrails and Tesla weapons to succeed in climate manipulation to create catastrophic “climate change” that appears real and sensational enough on wide-screen TV. Whether  increases in severe weather can be statistically demonstrated is not important. it only matters that Congress is able to use the plausible deniability presented on the Weather Channel to fund SRM – and that, without needing to read the entire pesky details in the legislation they vote to pass. (HWS)

CFR admits the future of chemtrails is a valid objective

Posted by Chemtrail Evidence

Chemtrails Neighborhood-WatchSome conspiracy theories are crazy. Some turn out correct. It now turns out that one of the craziest-sounding and most dismissed conspiracy subjects is actually true: chemtrails.  The revelation comes straight from the horse’s mouth: the Council on Foreign Relation’s own flagship sourceForeign Affairs.

[I]t is becoming increasingly likely that governments will adopt risky strategies, known as “geoengineering,” to rapidly cool the planet. Four years ago, in order to raise awareness about geoengineering, we published “The Geoengineering Option” in Foreign Affairs. Almost nobody thought that such tactics — which included spraying particles into the upper atmosphere to make the earth more reflective, akin to how big volcanoes cool the planet — were a particularly good option. The risks were simply too great and the unknowns too many. . . .

SRM [“solar radiation management”] technologies could cool the planet in just a few months by tinkering with the planet’s energy balance. The usual proposals involve spraying material into the stratosphere, where it would turn into reflective clouds, or blowing seawater into the air, with a similar effect. The clouds could deflect just enough incoming sunlight to offset, crudely, the number of degrees human emissions have warmed the planet. . . .

SRM raises serious political and policy questions. Although quick and cheap, messing with the complex and imperfectly understood climate system, which is already stressed by warming gases, could end badly. Severe side effects might, for example, include a shift in the seasonal monsoons that many countries rely on for rainfall and agriculture, or accelerate the destruction of the ozone layer. No one knows whether it would be possible to predict and offset all such harmful side effects or how much it might cost. Further, once an SRM system is deployed for an extended period of time, stopping it suddenly would lead to even more rapid and severe climate change as the mask is lifted. Another wrinkle is that some aspects of climate change, such as degraded coral reefs, might be irreversible, and, since the driving forces behind the destruction would remain, it would be particularly irresponsible to deploy SRM without an accompanying program to control carbon emissions.

Of course, the question still remains: is “geoengineering” all they’re doing up there? What else could they be spraying, and why?

Foreign Affiars - Council nf Foreign Relations CFR headerThe Truth About Geoengineering

March 27, 2013 –  Source

Global warming is accelerating, and although engineering the climate strikes most people as a bad idea, it is time to take it seriously.

Officials prepare to seed clouds near Bangkok, 2007. Royal Thai Air Force rainmakers hoped to coax rains to clear away thick smoke from forest fires and stubble burning. (Sukree Sukplang /Courtesy Reuters)

The failure to make much progress at the UN Climate Change Conference in Doha, Qatar this winter was yet another reminder that the world might soon face extreme climate shifts. In response, it is becoming increasingly likely that governments will adopt risky strategies, known as “geoengineering,” to rapidly cool the planet. Four years ago, in order to raise awareness about geoengineering, we published “The Geoengineering Option” in Foreign Affairs. Almost nobody thought that such tactics — which included spraying particles into the upper atmosphere to make the earth more reflective, akin to how big volcanoes cool the planet — were a particularly good option. The risks were simply too great and the unknowns too many. Still, if reliable data and specific models showed that climate change was about to get out of hand, we wrote, such drastic measures might start to look more appealing. The world could no longer ignore the geoengineering option, and we argued that a major science program should begin to explore it.

These days, barely a month goes by without new research that shows that the planet’s climate could be more sensitive to global warming than experts previously thought. For example, some ice sheets now appear a lot less stable than scientists had imagined. And new estimates of how much the sea will rise when ice sheets melt far surpass the best estimates of just a few years ago. It is clear that, unchecked, climate change won’t just menace natural ecosystems; it will also cause severe harm to humans and could even threaten national security. And, because governments have made barely any progress in controlling the emissions that cause global warming — the 2000s saw the most rapid growth in emissions of carbon dioxide and other warming gases since the 1970s — it’s not so crazy to imagine that some nation will launch an emergency geoengineering scheme, perhaps before its viability and consequences are understood.

Since we wrote our essay, press coverage of geoengineering has exploded. The topic makes for good copy: it is weird, sexy, and steeped in exotic science. The term is also incredibly vague, including both techniques for removing carbon dioxide from the air and technology that could rapidly change the amount of sunlight reflected back to space and cool the planet. That method is often termed solar radiation management (SRM).

Carbon dioxide removal schemes include everything from planting trees to fertilizing the oceans in an attempt to cajole great blooms of phytoplankton. Both hinge on photosynthesis, which sucks carbon dioxide from the air; carbon dioxide is the chief long-term cause of global warming. These techniques also include installing scrubbers almost anywhere on the planet, which can strip carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Such removal strategies are intriguing, but seem likely to cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year and would take decades to have much of an effect.

In contrast, SRM technologies could cool the planet in just a few months by tinkering with the planet’s energy balance. The usual proposals involve spraying material into the stratosphere, where it would turn into reflective clouds, or blowing seawater into the air, with a similar effect. The clouds could deflect just enough incoming sunlight to offset, crudely, the number of degrees human emissions have warmed the planet. Flying a fleet of high-altitude aircraft that spray particles into the upper atmosphere would cost perhaps ten billion dollars per year — a pittance for a country that is suffering from severe climate change and seeks a quick solution.

Most carbon dioxide removal schemes appear relatively safe, although tinkering with a fragile ecosystem by fertilizing the ocean does involve risks. In contrast, SRM raises serious political and policy questions. Although quick and cheap, messing with the complex and imperfectly understood climate system, which is already stressed by warming gases, could end badly. Severe side effects might, for example, include a shift in the seasonal monsoons that many countries rely on for rainfall and agriculture, or accelerate the destruction of the ozone layer. No one knows whether it would be possible to predict and offset all such harmful side effects or how much it might cost. Further, once an SRM system is deployed for an extended period of time, stopping it suddenly would lead to even more rapid and severe climate change as the mask is lifted. Another wrinkle is that some aspects of climate change, such as degraded coral reefs, might be irreversible, and, since the driving forces behind the destruction would remain, it would be particularly irresponsible to deploy SRM without an accompanying program to control carbon emissions.

Given the real and imagined dangers, a movement to regulate geoengineering has been gaining momentum. In the fall of 2010, 193 governments adopted a nonbinding decision under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity that would all but ban testing of geoengineering systems. Most environmental NGOs seem to be opposed to even talking about geoengineering out of fear that it might distract from the urgent task of controlling emissions or encourage governments to go ahead with their own projects.

The missing ingredient in all this controversy, though, is arguably the most important: the science. Since 2009, there has been a significant increase in geoengineering research. So far, however, the research is almost exclusively devoted to modeling. It has not yet really moved on to the next stages — careful monitoring nature’s own geoengineering processes (for example, volcanic eruptions) and small-scale field tests. There has been some limited field work on ocean fertilization, with less than encouraging results.

The result is that the scientific community knows little more than it did four years ago about how geoengineering would actually work or what its consequences would be. These technologies might not be well understood when and if they are needed, and could be deployed prematurely. In the growing efforts to regulate geoengineering, governments and activists are flying blind as they conjure up new regulations.

Since 2009, several proposals have been made for new SRM research, including by the United Kingdom’s Royal Society, the U.S. Bipartisan Policy Center, and a variety of other scientific groups. Yet funding for serious laboratory, modeling, and field study has not followed, in part because government officials fear the political spotlight that follows this kind of research. Indeed, when White House science adviser John Holdren broached the topic some years ago, he quickly retreated after a blizzard of controversy.

Getting started on serious research need not be expensive. When managed correctly, a well-designed scientific research program also needn’t be that controversial if government funders and scientists follow some simple guidelines. Small-scale field trials in the upper atmosphere to test components of an SRM system are particularly urgent. The countries with the leading atmospheric research programs already have the rockets, satellites, and aircraft technologies needed to deploy, instrument, and gather data from tests. For now, research doesn’t even require much new investment, since better knowledge of the upper atmosphere overlaps heavily with broader needs of climate research.

The key is to draw a sharp line between studies that are small enough to avoid any noticeable or durable impact on the climate or weather and those that are larger and, accordingly, carry larger risks. (In a recent paper, Ted Parson, a scientist at the Emmett Center for Climate Change and Law, and David Keith, an engineer at Harvard, suggested some reasonable limits.) A smart research program begins with small tests, for example to study whether and how very fine particles in the stratosphere might clump together and how long they will persist. Results would be essential to develop guidelines for larger experiments down the road.

Such small-scale tests should not be viewed as the camel’s nose under the tent. As the results are analyzed, it is likely that deficiencies of SRM will become more apparent. And the public, far from seeing SRM as a silver bullet, could become yet more concerned about climate change and about the fact that failures to control emissions have made even terribly risky options plausible.

In 1891, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes admonished Dr. Watson, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.” And right now, the politics of geoengineering are far ahead of the science. As the 2010 decision within the Conventional on Biological Diversity shows, fears about geoengineering are leading to counterproductive policy schemes. More practical understanding of what is at stake could help reorient the debate, and if the science is funded and published openly, then best practices and norms for behavior will emerge. In time, those norms and new information will make it easier to focus treaty negotiations — if they prove necessary at all — on the aspects of geoengineering that actually need formal intergovernmental regulation.

That nations are talking seriously about climate engineering is a sign of just how sick the planet has become. In 2009, we presented geoengineering as an intriguing research project that had potentially profound political consequences. Since then, the politics and public discourse have run quickly, but the research has not. Until the science gets serious, the politics won’t reflect what’s really at stake. Meanwhile, the planet keeps warming and the day when geoengineering might be needed draws nearer.

Government Shutdown No Problem: CIA Drug Money Funds Chemtrails Reply

 Prison Planet Header

Comment:  See federally funded (NOAA) aerosol Geoengineering of hurricanes is carried out by the Department of Homeland Security under Operation H.A.M.P.  Joe Cohen’s comments in his presentation to the American Meteorological Society confirms that spraying aerosols from jet aircraft is an admittedly proven weather manipulation technology that can either mitigate or intensify a hurricanes. HERE

____________________

CIA Is Funding Government Led Chemtrailing Project

Spy agency to help study “security impacts” of geo-engineering

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
July 19, 2013

The CIA is funding a scientific study to determine the feasibility of altering the planet’s climate in order to stave off climate change, according to documents released by The National Academy of Sciences.

The papers reveal that the project will run for 21 months at a cost of $630,000, with a final report due in 2014. The CIA backed scientists will study how weather patterns could be influenced and altered, and asses the potential impacts of geo-engineering attempts.

The NAS website notes that the funding for the study is coming from “the US intelligence community”. William Kearney, a spokesman for NAS, told Mother Jones that the agency in question is the CIA.

The revelations mark the first time that an intelligence agency has publicly funded such a study.

A CIA spokesman would not confirm that the agency was involved, yet stated that “It’s natural that on a subject like climate change the Agency would work with scientists to better understand the phenomenon and its implications on national security.”

It seems that the CIA has outsourced its geo-engineering studies following the apparent closure of its own research center on climate change and national security in 2012. The move came following criticism from Republican members of Congress who said that the intelligence community should not be spending time researching weather modification.

The NAS website states that the study will encompass a “technical evaluation of a limited number of proposed geoengineering techniques.” A prominent technique that will be evaluated, according to the papers, is “solar radiation management”, which involves spraying aerosol particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight away from the planet – in other words chemtrailing.

The study will also look into “carbon dioxide removal (CDR)”, which involves sucking carbon out of the air via chemical reactions or porous nanosponges. Of course, Carbon Dioxide is fundamental to all life on Earth, so “sucking it out of the air” could come with dire consequences.

The study is also being backed by two other government agencies – NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Reporting on the project, The New Scientist stresses that CIA involvement in weather modification should not be seen as sinister.

“In fact, the CIA’s main interest in geoengineering does not lie in any offensive use. Rather, the US intelligence community sees climate change as a potential threat to global geopolitical stability, and so wants a thorough analysis of the mitigation options.” the report states.

Critics will balk at such a naive statement, given the history the CIA has for covertly subverting and overthrowing foreign governments that it does not approve of, and doing anything but securing geopolitical stability.

Weather weapons have existed for decades, with research on such offensive techniques dating back to the 1950s. In 1997, U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen admitted that weather modification techniques had been actively used by governments for over 15 years. The US military has been using weather modifcation techniques since the Vietnam war.

One need only look up at the sky to confirm that our governments, at the behest of think tanks, ‘research’ groups, and radical environmental organisations, are already engaging in these type of programs. Our skies are riddled with artificial clouds, that are patently not merely the contrails of standard air planes.

Indeed, as we reported last year, a Harvard University project experiment funded by Microsoft founder Bill Gates saw thousands of tonnes of sulphur particles sprayed over New Mexico as part of a geoengineering study, despite the fact that even staunch environmentalists have warned the process could have catastrophic effects on the earth’s eco-system.

This is just one example of a practice that has now been in operation for years, if not decades.

Groups such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meet routinely to discuss ongoing geoengineering programs, specifically the spraying of aerosols into the atmosphere.

Levels of aluminium, barium and strontium in our air, water and soil have exponentially increased, leading many to conclude that these are the after effects of radical geoengineering programs that are already in operation.

A further study last year revealed that the cost of a massive program to spray sun-dimming particles into the upper atmosphere would be around $5 billion dollars a year. However, the study conducted by U.S. scientists writing in the journal Environmental Research Letters completely failed to analyze whether such a massive geoengineering program would be a good idea and what environmental consequences it would have.

A similar Carnegie Institution for Science proposal also recently advocated spraying the upper atmosphere with aerosols, a process that would “reduce by 20 per cent the amount of sunlight that takes a direct route to the ground” and make blue skies “fade to hazy white,” the New Scientist reported.

Given the fact that most advancements in science and technology are already taking place years before they are disclosed to the public, it stands to reason that geoengineering programs based around spraying the upper atmosphere with particles are already underway.

Scientists now admit that vapor trails from airplanes are creating “artificial clouds” that block out the sun. This is no longer a matter of debate. The chemtrail “conspiracy theorists,” who were ridiculed for pointing out that from the mid-90′s onwards contrails from jet planes were lingering for hours and forming artificial clouds, have been proven correct.

Reading University’s Professor Keith Shine told the Daily Mail that the clouds “formed by aircraft fumes could linger ‘for hours’, depriving those areas under busy flight paths, such as London and the Home Counties, of summer sunshine.”

The report also makes reference to a 2009 Met Office study which found that high-level winds did not disperse contrails that later formed into clouds which covered an astonishing 20,000 miles.

As we have documented, geoengineering programs based around the premise of artificial aerosols were already in operation years ago, including at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C, which in 2009 began conducting studies which involved shooting huge amounts of particulate matter, in this case “porous-walled glass microspheres,” into the stratosphere.

Another program under the Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Science Program is directed towards, “developing comprehensive understanding of the atmospheric processes that control the transport, transformation, and fate of energy related trace chemicals and particulate matter.”

The DOE website states that, “The current focus of the program is aerosol radiative forcing of climate: aerosol formation and evolution and aerosol properties that affect direct and indirect influences on climate and climate change.”

These programs are already having the effect of blocking out sunlight. The emergence of the chemtrails phenomenon coincided with an average 22% drop in sunlight reaching the earth’s surface.

In 2008, a KSLA news investigation found that a substance that fell to earth from a high altitude chemtrail contained high levels of Barium (6.8 ppm) and Lead (8.2 ppm) as well as trace amounts of other chemicals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium and silver. Of these, all but one are metals, some are toxic while several are rarely or never found in nature.

The newscast focuses on Barium, which its research shows is a “hallmark of chemtrails.” KSLA found Barium levels in its samples at 6.8 ppm or “more than six times the toxic level set by the EPA.” The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality confirmed that the high levels of Barium were “very unusual,” but commented that “proving the source was a whole other matter” in its discussion with KSLA.

KSLA also asked Mark Ryan, Director of the Poison Control Center, about the effects of Barium on the human body. Ryan commented that “short term exposure can lead to anything from stomach to chest pains and that long term exposure causes blood pressure problems.” The Poison Control Center further reported that long-term exposure, as with any harmful substance, would contribute to weakening the immune system.

Spraying sulphur into the upper atmosphere is linked with both environmental catastrophes and human health problems.

The following health effects are linked with exposure to sulphur.

- Neurological effects and behavioral changes
– Disturbance of blood circulation
– Heart damage
– Effects on eyes and eyesight
– Reproductive failure
– Damage to immune systems
– Stomach and gastrointestinal disorder
– Damage to liver and kidney functions
– Hearing defects
– Disturbance of the hormonal metabolism
– Dermatological effects
– Suffocation and lung embolism

Even pro-geoengineering scientist Mark Watson, admits that injecting sulphur into the atmosphere could lead to “acid rain, ozone depletion or weather pattern disruption.”

Rutgers University meteorologist Alan Robock also, “created computer simulations indicating that sulfate clouds could potentially weaken the Asian and African summer monsoons, reducing rain that irrigates the food crops of billions of people.”

“Imagine if we triggered a drought and famine while trying to cool the planet,” Robock told a geoengineering conference in 2010.

The Canada-based Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC) has called for such experiments to be shut down. “This experiment is only phase one of a much bigger plan that could have devastating consequences, including large changes in weather patterns such as deadly droughts,” the group said in a written statement.

Fred Singer, president of the Science Environmental Policy Project and a skeptic of man-made global warming theories, warns that the consequences of tinkering with the planet’s delicate eco-system could have far-reaching dangers.

“If you do this on a continuous basis, you would depress the ozone layer and cause all kinds of other problems that people would rather avoid,” said Singer.

Even Greenpeace’s chief UK scientist – a staunch advocate of the man-made global warming explanation – Doug Parr – has slammed attempts to geoengineer the planet as “outlandish” and “dangerous”.

—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

Biomass Pollution and Timeline of Public Comments Reply

hsaive:

Updates to Biomass Incinerator – So far not one positive comment.

Originally posted on Chemtrails: The Exotic Weapon:

Stop Polluting Alachua County Header-b

Biomass Pollution and Timeline of Public Comments

The log will be updated as items appear in the news or on the internet.

___________________________

10/14: Now the the biomass plant is coming online we’re finding out that even the opponents under-estimated the cost, much less the noise pollution and the dust pollution. What I want to know is where are our former Mayors, Pegeen Hanrahan and Craig Lowe, now that this is all coming to light?  They fired the man that was in charge of GRU who told them it was going to be too expensive. As soon as the plant was forced down everyone’s throat, they ran around the County patting themselves on the back. I think it’s time they answered for it. Now!.  (Oct, 14 2012 – Speaking Out, Sun, 2B)

___________________________

10/14:  Judy Hooker: Victims of the biomass plant

By Judy Hooker – Special to The Sun

Published:…

View original 6,127 more words

Can Chemtrails Filter Sunlight to Manipulate Global Food Supply? 7

Kucinich Chemtrails exotic weapon
Chemtrails are not much different than placing a plastic bag over the head of the global population and calling it a remedy for “climate change”.

The implications of blocking frequencies of sunlight is far more than bigger watermelons and tomato color.

The interruption of photosynthesis on the oxygen life support system of mainly oceanic phytoplankton is an insidious way to augment the atmosphere towards increased levels of CO2.

Add to that the eco-terrorism associated with electric generation from  biomass incinerators (burning trees) to understand what’s behind the UN’s Agenda 21 and their IPCC on “global warming”.

___________________________

Violent Weather in Pacific Northwest Assisted by Chemtrails and Tesla Reply

This 48 hour loop reveals the aerosol deployment with clues about how they are disbursed in the atmosphere using Jet Aircraft similar to the Evergreen 747 Supertanker expressly fitted for spraying enormous quantities of weather modification compounds.

The Bankster cabal and those promoting Agenda-21 were depending on the fear of rising sea levels due to  global warming as an agent of social control and perpetual financing to enrich the controlling elite.

But when three decades of chemtrails failed to deliver the warming as expected, the IPCC re-classified the alleged climate emergency as “climate change” – a sufficiently nebulous term where pseudo-scientists could throw all manner of plausible deniability at weather data that could be twisted into sensational propaganda by the lying media.

The banker push to establish the carbon tax and social control has turned frantic as the planet is almost certainly beginning a long cooling period to further defy the lie of climate change that can be blamed on humans.  The illuminati doesn’t have a crystal ball after all.

9/30/2013:  Morning ABC News reported the flooding and damage over the Pacific Northwest with record rainfalls and flooding.

is New Developmet in Alachua Using Biomass Recycled Water? Reply

Historic Hgue Photos-14

Hague Methodist Church, Historic Community Cemetery & 2 Lane, CR25A. Historic Desoto Trail

Submitted by Lyn Coullias, Hague

Our Neighborhood recently found out WHY the BioMass Waterline came down our Historic and Protected Road on Old US 441, aka: CR25A. It was targeted for intense development in conflict with historic preservation.

Immediately after this water line was installed, a 9,000 sq.ft. Retail Store–“DOLLAR GENERAL” is proposed to be built right across the street from the Hague Methodist Church & Historic Cemetery. ( 36,000 sq. ft. of total impervious concrete).

521 Traffic Trips Daily will be added to this already dangerous intersection. (3) Fatalities in recent years.

Alachua City Officials STILL have that piece of property in front of my yard listed as Commercial Intensive, despite our 4 year legal battle to have it reverted back to Commercial General. (?)

City of Alachua continues to do their back-room deals, utilizing Public Funds for Private Developer’s !

I can’t believe in this day and age of Accountability and Transparency – The City of Alachua CONTINUES with these ILLEGAL Shenanigan’s !

On June 24th–They will hold another of their “staged” Commission Meetings.

This will CHANGE HAGUE –FOREVER.

The Packet presented by (CHW) is so full of inaccurate information–they didn’t even LIST the Hague Methodist Church, Historic Community Cemetery or Kelley Property (all within 50 Ft.) — Mrs.Kelley’s Property is Protected under the Domingo Fernandez Spanish Land Grant (209 Acres). * they listed all the developments, across US441- a four lane federal highway.

I am VerKlempt!

Sincerely, Lynn Coullias

Photo’s of Hague Methodist Church, Historic Community Cemetery & 2 Lane— CR25A.

The Packet that the DEVELOPER’S (Caussaux, Hewitt & Walpole) –who were also the Surveyor’s for the BioMass Waterline – Listed the Road in front of our home as a (4 Lane Arterial Main Roadway) ?

*This is Old Historic US 441 (Desoto Trail) in Hague is clearly a 2 lane road mostly used by cyclists and tourists.

Chair of P

Sandy Burgess- with Gary Dedenbach, Robert Walpole, Kevin Hewitt (CHW) & Matt Cason- Const. Developer along with Land Owner’s.

Above: City of Alachua’s “Chair” of Planning & Zoning Board- Ms. Sandy Burgess, came out to the parking lot to congratulate Caussauex, Hewitt & Walpole’s Developer’s & Land Owner’s after the meeting.

Alachua Post article below clearly showing the land in front of our neighborhood was converted to Commercial General, although to this day, City Officials still list this site as Commercial Intensive. *In CHW package*

Alachua Post Header

October 7th, 2002

Alachua Commission Meeting Near Unanimous Decision on All Items
C.L. Heuss

At the October 7, 2002 Commission Meeting several agenda items were resolved with unanimous Commission approval.
1. Jablonka – Coullias Litigation Settled
2. Comp Plan Amendment Approved for Florida Communities Trust Grant Application
3. Auditor General encourages City to get bids after half a century with Purvis Gray and Company
4. Garbage contract goes to Waste Management
5. LDR`s will be crafted by Clarion & Associates with help from citizens
6. Staff will revise Comp Plan with citizen help
7. Summit Professional Services no longer a shoe-in as grant writers
8. Commission appoints a 5 member Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals
9. Vision 2010 Document is adopted
10. City missing 110 million gallons of water
11. It`s Official – Wal-Mart Looking at Alachua

Jablonka – Coullias Litigation Settled
A four year legal dispute received closure as the Commission moved unanimously to approve the rezoning request on .99 acres of land along Highway 441 and the Hague neighborhood. Resident Lynn Coullias told the Commission she was happy to see the battle coming to an end. Coullias said she had recently learned that the zoning category of commercial neighborhood may have afforded a higher degree of assurance of more compatible neighbors, but she and residents of Hague were happy to obtain the rezoning to Commercial General.

Coullias said the dispute arose over a zoning change from residential to commercial intensive in 1999 when the owner received approval of the site plan for self storage units. The owner never built the proposed storage facility and began site preparation for a gas station adjoining the residential neighborhood. The home owners started legal proceedings to reclaim the neighborhood after discovering the change in the owners plans. “Our situation fell on deaf ears with the previous commission [in 1999] and the city showed no consideration toward our rights, the safety of our children, or the common sense, common courtesy, approach to handling the situation,” said the resident of the Oaks Hague subdivision.

According to the statement of support, in 1999, the City Commission approved a small-scale Future Land Use Map amendment and rezoning on the property owned by Mr. Jablonka and Mr. Harrington. This action which changed the land use to Commercial and the zoning to Commercial Intensive was challenged in court by neighbors in the Hague Estates and Oaks subdivisions to the north of the subject property. The neighbors are currently appealing the decision of the court that found in favor of the City on this action. The neighbors approached the City Commission in August with a proposal to settle the appeals claim. That proposal was that the City Commission pursue an administrative rezoning of the subject property from the Commercial Intensive designation to the Commercial General designation. The neighbor`s attorney felt that this might be an appropriate compromise that would preserve the Commercial designation while protecting the neighborhood from the more intense uses allowed in the Commercial Intensive district.

Sylvia Holland said “I have lived in my house for 25 years and was horrified when I became aware of the changes when I came out of my house one morning to find hundred year old trees being cut and burned. We were not notified by the city of the changes or the danger to our homes and children. We received no consideration back then. We just want our neighborhood back.”
After years of legal posturing by the City, the Commission passed Ordinance O-03-01 to rezone the property to Commercial General.

Why is New Developmet in Alachua Using Biomass Recycled Water? Reply

Historic Hgue Photos-14

Hague Methodist Church, Historic Community Cemetery & 2 Lane, CR25A. Historic Desoto Trail

Submitted by Lyn Coullias, Hague

Our Neighborhood recently found out WHY the BioMass Waterline came down our Historic and Protected Road on Old US 441, aka: CR25A.  It was targeted for intense development in conflict with historic preservation.

Immediately after this water line was installed, a 9,000 sq.ft. Retail Store–“DOLLAR GENERAL” is proposed to be built right across the street from the Hague Methodist Church & Historic Cemetery.  ( 36,000 sq. ft. of total impervious concrete).

521 Traffic Trips Daily will be  added to this already dangerous intersection. (3) Fatalities in recent years.

Alachua City Officials STILL have that piece of property in front of my yard listed as Commercial Intensive, despite our 4 year legal battle to have it reverted back to Commercial General.  (?)

City of Alachua continues to do their back-room deals, utilizing Public Funds for Private Developer’s !

I can’t believe in this day and age of Accountability and Transparency – The City of Alachua CONTINUES with these ILLEGAL Shenanigan’s  !

On June 24th–They will hold another of their “staged” Commission Meetings.

This will CHANGE HAGUE –FOREVER.

The Packet presented by (CHW) is so full of inaccurate information–they didn’t even LIST the Hague Methodist Church, Historic Community Cemetery or Kelley Property (all within 50 Ft.) — Mrs.Kelley’s Property is Protected under the Domingo Fernandez Spanish Land Grant (209 Acres).  * they listed all the developments, across US441- a four lane federal highway.

I am VerKlempt!

Sincerely,  Lynn Coullias

Photo’s of Hague Methodist Church, Historic Community Cemetery & 2 Lane— CR25A.

The Packet that the DEVELOPER’S (Caussaux, Hewitt & Walpole) –who were also the Surveyor’s for the BioMass Waterline – Listed the Road in front of our home as a (4 Lane Arterial Main Roadway) ?

*This is Old Historic US 441 (Desoto Trail) in Hague is clearly a 2 lane road mostly used by cyclists and tourists.

Chair of P

Sandy Burgess- with Gary Dedenbach, Robert Walpole, Kevin Hewitt (CHW) & Matt Cason- Const. Developer along with Land Owner’s.

Above:  City of Alachua’s “Chair” of Planning & Zoning Board- Ms. Sandy Burgess, came out to the parking lot to congratulate Caussauex, Hewitt & Walpole’s  Developer’s & Land Owner’s after the meeting.

Alachua Post article below clearly showing the land in front of our neighborhood was converted to Commercial General, although to this day, City Officials still list this site as Commercial Intensive.  *In CHW package*

Alachua Post Header

October 7th, 2002

Alachua Commission Meeting Near Unanimous Decision on All Items
C.L. Heuss

At the October 7, 2002 Commission Meeting several agenda items were resolved with unanimous Commission approval.
1. Jablonka – Coullias Litigation Settled
2. Comp Plan Amendment Approved for Florida Communities Trust Grant Application
3. Auditor General encourages City to get bids after half a century with Purvis Gray and Company
4. Garbage contract goes to Waste Management
5. LDR`s will be crafted by Clarion & Associates with help from citizens
6. Staff will revise Comp Plan with citizen help
7. Summit Professional Services no longer a shoe-in as grant writers
8. Commission appoints a 5 member Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals
9. Vision 2010 Document is adopted
10. City missing 110 million gallons of water
11. It`s Official – Wal-Mart Looking at Alachua

Jablonka – Coullias Litigation Settled
A four year legal dispute received closure as the Commission moved unanimously to approve the rezoning request on .99 acres of land along Highway 441 and the Hague neighborhood. Resident Lynn Coullias told the Commission she was happy to see the battle coming to an end. Coullias said she had recently learned that the zoning category of commercial neighborhood may have afforded a higher degree of assurance of more compatible neighbors, but she and residents of Hague were happy to obtain the rezoning to Commercial General.

Coullias said the dispute arose over a zoning change from residential to commercial intensive in 1999 when the owner received approval of the site plan for self storage units. The owner never built the proposed storage facility and began site preparation for a gas station adjoining the residential neighborhood. The home owners started legal proceedings to reclaim the neighborhood after discovering the change in the owners plans. “Our situation fell on deaf ears with the previous commission [in 1999] and the city showed no consideration toward our rights, the safety of our children, or the common sense, common courtesy, approach to handling the situation,” said the resident of the Oaks Hague subdivision.

According to the statement of support, in 1999, the City Commission approved a small-scale Future Land Use Map amendment and rezoning on the property owned by Mr. Jablonka and Mr. Harrington. This action which changed the land use to Commercial and the zoning to Commercial Intensive was challenged in court by neighbors in the Hague Estates and Oaks subdivisions to the north of the subject property. The neighbors are currently appealing the decision of the court that found in favor of the City on this action. The neighbors approached the City Commission in August with a proposal to settle the appeals claim. That proposal was that the City Commission pursue an administrative rezoning of the subject property from the Commercial Intensive designation to the Commercial General designation. The neighbor`s attorney felt that this might be an appropriate compromise that would preserve the Commercial designation while protecting the neighborhood from the more intense uses allowed in the Commercial Intensive district.

Sylvia Holland said “I have lived in my house for 25 years and was horrified when I became aware of the changes when I came out of my house one morning to find hundred year old trees being cut and burned. We were not notified by the city of the changes or the danger to our homes and children. We received no consideration back then. We just want our neighborhood back.”
After years of legal posturing by the City, the Commission passed Ordinance O-03-01 to rezone the property to Commercial General.

Cliff Carnicom: Environmental Filament Project 2

Environmental Filament Project :
An Introduction

Clifford E Carnicom – Source
Jul 09 2013 

Under current projections, it wll be some months ahead before I will be able to engage fully into the Environmental Filament Project that has been outlined under this site. In the interim, however, an important introduction to what lies ahead can be presented.  Carnicom Institute is now able to display a series of scanning electron microphotographs of a typical sample; they will not be discussed in any detail until I am able to begin the study project.  Those familiar with my work may be aware of my reluctance to use the term nano-technology in association with any environmental or biological samples examined thus far; this has been due to the lack of any electron microscope images that are derived directly from these same samples.  This is no longer the case, and the use of the nano-technology term in association with this material is now fully justified.  The samples shown below are identical to those that the United States Environmental Protection Agency has refused to identify or analyze.    It has taken close to a decade and a half to acquire these images; appreciation is extended to all parties that have helped to make this information available to the public.  Sufficient additional samples have been received, both national and internationally, to support the Institute project plans.  This study will begin as the opportunity affords itself and as parallel work that is underway is completed.  Light microscope images of the same material are also shown below.

Carnicom electron Micrograph A

Carnicom electron Micrograph B

Source: http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/environmental_filament_project.htm

Then and Now: The Sky Before and After Chemtrails 2

Then and Now

Clifford E Carnicom – source
June 28 2013 

The following is a comparison between stock photography images that predate the year of 1999 and environmental photographs that have been published by the public on the internet after that same date.  The reader can make his or her own determination, from both environmental and health perspectives, as to the source and impact of the significant changes that have taken place.  Please show this page to your children so that they may understand what has been stolen from them.

PDF Version

carnicom the sky - then and now*** Continue