Alexandra May Hunter reports Senior EPA Official Admits USAF Involved in Aerosol Spraying Program More…
Scientists are finding courage to expose secret climate engineering programs driving the lucrative Climate Change propaganda of fear. More…
“It is unscientific to assume that most scientists believe what they have neither said nor written.”
The HAARP report demonstrates how Hurricane Joaquin was deliberately steered into the Bahamas, and then, to Bermuda. More…
Black carbon (BC) aerosol emitted by boreal fires has the potential to accelerate losses of snow and ice in many areas of the Arctic. More…
J. Marvin Herndon Issues Plea For Governments To Disclose Secret Climate Engineering More…
Impact of engineered storms can fuel the climate change urgency while moving $ Billions in economic investments. More…
Mike Adams of naturalnews and Paul Preston of agenda21radio join Dane Wigington to expose the global contrail geoengineering agenda. More…
Dmitriev’s Russian perspective on earth changes are going unreported in America. The planets are changing – most notably in their atmospheres. More…
The Laudato Si’ (PDF): It’s more than a disgrace that the Pope and Vatican would censor alternative perspectives from highly respected climate scientists to be included in encyclical’s “Laudato Si’. Instead, only the most radical ideologs from the extreme corners of the climate debate were allowed to advide the Pope. Reading the “Laudato Si” could give the uneducated a false impression that the Pope is a qualified climatologist speaking in the first person from his own career of research and published work. (more)
Although the “Laudato” could be seen as adulterated with cherry-picked assertions on climate change, neither the speech to Congress or to the United Nations contained explicit reference to “climate change” or “global warming”. Instead, both speeches more appropriately focused on man-made environmental damage, loss of species, damage to forests, destruction of war, nuclear weapons and reckless harvesting of natural resources as the dominant theme. Pope’s Congressional Transcript (PDF) — UN Transcript (PDF)
The Climategate Inquiries: A detailed assessment of the Climategate inquiries set up by the University of East Anglia and others which finds that they avoided key questions and failed to probe some of the most serious allegations. The Climategate Inquiries, written by Andrew Montford and with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate. (Report – PDF)
The Myth of 97% Scientific Consensus: The media propaganda alleging a 97% consensus that climate change is man-made comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises now contradicted by more reliable research. Andrew Montford (PDF)
In 2009, James Corbett reports “Climategate is still the issue”
In 2009, James Corbett Interviewed Climatologist, Tim Ball on the consequences of East Anglia climate science corruption.
In 2014, Dr. Tim Ball published a book: “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”, an astonishing work detailing the massive fraud where climate authors indulged in the incestuous practice of “peer reviewing” each others’ papers in order to make the best case for the IPCC’s repeatedly failed climate models.
James Corbett easily debunks the myth that climate denial is a well-funded conspiracy when $Trillions in profit are revealed to be in the global industry of “climate change” – a term with no meaningful definition such that climate can be usefully distinguished from the more ordinary term, ” weather “.
“The global warming industry has generated over $140 billion in government grants, a $315 billion carbon market and is expected to generate 10s of trillions more in government-sponsored investment in the coming decades.”
Controlling the Weather Yields $BIllions in Profit for Rothschilds
In 2011 Evelyn De Rothschilds and wife purchased a 70% stake in Weather Central seeing strong growth prospects for selling it’s weather data to insurers, commodity traders, energy companies and emerging market broadcasters” (Source FT)
How the Media Reports Fake Weather as “Climate Change”
Top 6 “Climate Change” Problems
Ben Davidson is a Solar and Space weather analyst at Suspicious0bservers.org with more than 40,000 online subscribers. Ben’s regular 3 to 4 minute Youtube daily updates on solar, earthquake, geophysical and weather activity are widely regarded as unique, highly informative and professional. (Complete Bio)
In March, 2015, Davidson posted a video outlining what he regards as the top 6 problems with the flawed IPCC version of Climate Change.
Many of Ben’s observations look outside planet earth to explain how the sun, galactic forces and observed changes within our own solar system exert influences on the earth and other planets revolving around our sun.
Problem #6 focuses on the covert geoengineering operations that are “messing with the weather”. Aerosol spraying is a global program known to exist but rarely acknowledged by IPCC investigators, corporate media, government agencies or elected officials.
Occasionally, a climate expert, not subscribed to the cult network of climate corruption will comment openly on the aerosol climate engineering operation. In the video below, Dr. Jasper Kirkby, presents the evidence for climate engineering to an audience at CERN:
Failure for IPCC workgroups to acknowledge this aerosol deployment is the smoking gun that these geoengineering eco-weapons combined with electromagnetic transmitters and ionospheric heaters, are creating the weather disruption being sold to the public as man-made climate change.
Suspicious 0bservers, Top 6 “Climate Change” Problems
The following video was captured by an astronomer to reveal the release of chemicals from several jet aircraft. Although the evidence for chemical aerosol releases is confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no evidence that these aircraft were actually carrying passengers.
Vatican’s Curious Jet “Contrail Coin” Minted in 1985
This Vatican’s “chemtrail coin” was minted in 1985 just as NASA began to indoctrinate school children into accepting chemtrails as normal clouds. A clip from Rosalind Peterson’s excellent 2010 discussion confirms the deliberate science fraud and mind-washing of school children is now in effect with forced vaccinations next on the NWO agenda. (More)
The Supreme Court recognised the epidemiological correlation between the toxic defoliant and skin diseases for the first time, saying the 39 victims should receive a total of 466 million won ($A454,445) from Dow Chemical and Monsanto.
The veterans had complained that Agent Orange was responsible for skin diseases such as “chemical acne”, which is caused by exposure to dioxin contained in Agent Orange, the court said.
Payment is now up to the US firms, but Dow Chemical said in a statement quoted by Yonhap news agency that it disagrees with the Supreme Court’s decision as Friday’s verdict was not backed by clear evidence, citing US court rulings.
The South Korean court also reversed an appeals court verdict that the two firms should compensate thousands of other veterans who claimed to have similarly suffered from exposure to defoliants used during the Vietnam War.
But the Supreme Court, in its ruling on Friday, sent the case back to the appeals court for review.
“There is no evidence their diseases were caused by their exposure to the defoliant sprayed during the Vietnam War,” it said in a statement.
South Korea sent some 300,000 troops to fight alongside the United States and southern Vietnamese forces during the war.
Veterans in South Korea estimate the number of Korean victims of the chemicals at about 150,000. Many insisted they were suffering from various ailments associated with exposure to the powerful herbicide.
Vietnam says millions of its people have died or suffered from direct or second-generation disabilities as a result of the use of Agent Orange.
Washington has never accepted responsibility for the Vietnamese government’s claim.
Message From Resident Victims of EPA Superfund Site – 9/13/2009
Since its creation in 1916, for use as a chemical treatment facility for wood products, especially telephone poles and railroad ties using creosote, the officially federally (EPA) registered Cabot-Koppers Superfund (or Brownfields) site has been steadily and cumulatively chemically polluting Gainesville, to the point where this travesty can now no longer be ignored, having become a serious threat to the very future of Gainesville itself as a once pleasant place in which to live, to be educated, and to do business.
Lying just north-west of Downtown, the Cabot-Koppers site is STILL! being licensed by local authorities for the same industrial purpose, but it now uses an even more toxic and carcinogenic “chemical cocktail” known as Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA). This mix, used to protect “treated lumber”, is now known to present a major danger to Public Heath throughout the entire USA.
These, and multiple other such pollutants from Koppers, are officially known to be about to pollute the city’s very own water supply – the Murphree Aquifer. These chemicals also constantly run off into the large Floridan Aquifer via a natural creek system. Moreover, toxic, dioxin-laden dust has only just been officially recognized as being yet another major pollutant, with dire consequences to the health of ALL Gainesville citizens, including students of the University of Florida, which lies a mere 2 miles from the Cabot-Koppers site.
USAF Physician in Charge of Assessing Troop and Civilian Health Damage From Agent Orange
Dr. Joel Michalek listens to a reporter’s question during a press briefing on the Ranch Hand Study in the Pentagon on March 29, 2000.
The Ranch Hand Study, titled after the Vietnam operation of the same name, is the result of the 1997 physical examination of 2,300 Vietnam veterans exposed to the defoliant Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.
Michalek is the U.S. Air Force Health Study senior principle investigator for the study. (source)
As humanity works to avoid further environmental and ecological destruction to the planet, scientists continue to search for possible solutions to the numerous issues facing our species. One of these proposed solutions has been the science of geoengineering.
According to a 2013 congressional report:
The term ‘geoengineering’ describes this array of technologies that aim, through large-scale and deliberate modifications of the Earth’s energy balance, to reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change. Most of these technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Moreover, very few studies have been published that document the cost, environmental effects, socio-political impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. If geoengineering technologies were to be deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects.
In general, geoengineering technologies are categorized as either a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method or a solar radiation management (SRM) method. CDR methods address the warming effects of greenhouse gases by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CDR methods include ocean fertilization, and carbon capture and sequestration. SRM methods address climate change by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere or surface.
Aerosol injection and space-based reflectors are examples of SRM methods. SRM methods do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but can be deployed faster with relatively immediate global cooling results compared to CDR methods.
Geoengineering is seen as a controversial solution, to say the least. That controversy is likely to deepen following a recent study from MIT’s Center for Global Change Science and the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences. The study, published in Nature’s Scientific Reports, has found that ocean fertilization geoengineering would alter global rainfall patterns and affect water resources.
Ocean fertilization is a type of geoengineering that seeks to mimic the ability of phytoplankton, the microalgae at the base of most oceanic food webs, to photosynthesize sunlight. As the phytoplankton absorb carbon dioxide, they also release dimethyl sulfide (DMS) into the atmosphere, which can form sulfate aerosols and reflect sunlight and cool the climate. Geoengineers hope to reproduce this natural process and thus reflect sunlight and cool the Earth.
According to Phys.org, the researchers used one of the global climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which simulates the evolution of and interactions among the ocean, atmosphere, and land masses. These simulations found that increased DMS emissions would actually lead to an increase of 1.2 degrees Celsius by 2100 and “substantial reduction in precipitation for some regions.”
Chien Wang, a co-author of the study and a senior research scientist at MIT’s Center for Global Change Science and the Department of Earth, said the study was “the first in-depth analysis of ocean fertilization that has highlighted the potential danger of impacting rainfall adversely.”
Benjamin Grandey, a senior postdoc in Wang’s group who configured the model simulations and analyzed the data, said that although “Generally, our results suggest that the cooling effect associated with enhanced DMS emissions would offset warming across the globe, especially in the Arctic,” it would also lead to dangerous changes in global weather. “Precipitation would also decline worldwide, and some parts of the world would be worse off. Europe, the Horn of Africa, and Pakistan may receive less rainfall than they have historically,” Grandey stated.
The lower rainfall could reduce water resources considerably and threaten the environment and livelihoods of the animals and people in the affected regions.
The MIT team is not the first to ring the alarm bells when it comes to geoengineering and other forms of weather modification. Although a number of authorities have warned about the dangers of geoengineering techniques, the risks are seen as secondary to the perceived risks of climate change. The interesting thing to note is that although proponents of geoengineering hail it as the solution to climate change and sustaining life, studies show that geoengineering could actually have the reverse effect of heating the Earth.
In February of 2015, an international committee of scientists released a report stating that geoengineering techniques are not a viable alternative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat the effects of climate change. The committee report called for further research and understanding of various geoengineering techniques, including carbon dioxide removal schemes and solar-radiation management before implementation.
The scientists found that Solar Radiation Management, or albedo-modification techniques, are likely to present “serious known and possible unknown environmental, social, and political risks, including the possibility of being deployed unilaterally.” The report was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. intelligence community, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Department of Energy.
Another danger of manipulating the weather is the loss of blue skies. According to a report by the New Scientist, Ben Kravitz of the Carnegie Institution for Science has shown that releasing sulphate aerosols high in the atmosphere would scatter sunlight into the atmosphere. He says this could decrease the amount of sunlight that hits the ground by 20% and make the sky appear more hazy.
According to a 2013 study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, if geoengineering programs were started and then suddenly halted, the planet could see an immediate rise in temperatures, particularly over land. The study, titled, “The impact of abrupt suspension of solar radiation management,” seems to indicate that once you begin geoengineering, you cannot suspend the programs without causing the very problem you were seeking to resolve.
What are the solutions to the many ecological and environmental problems facing humanity? The studies indicate that attempting to play God with the weather will have disastrous effects on the ability of the human population to live and prosper. If you fear the results of mad scientists controlling the weather or pursuing dangerous solutions like geoengineering, please share this article and continue to spread knowledge. It is time for the awakened people of this Earth to stand together against those who seek to destroy the planet — and seek solutions that work with Earth rather than seeking to dominate and exploit it.
This article (MIT Study Warns About the Dangers of Geoengineering & Weather Modification) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Derrick Broze and theAntiMedia.org. Tune in! The Anti-Media radio show airs Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos: email@example.com.
On August 14th, 2015, there was a major event in Northern California that was organized for the purpose of exposing and halting global climate engineering programs that are decimating our planet and the entire web of life. More…
Gov. Brown has repeatedly been presented with scientific data showing that weather manipulation, particularly over the last five years, More…
Climate geoengineering has often been considered to be a “last-ditch” response to climate change, to be used only if climate change damage should produce extreme hardship. Although the likelihood of eventually needing to resort to these efforts grows with every year of inaction on emissions control, there is a lack of information on these ways of potentially intervening in the climate system. More…