Analysis of Welsbach Alumina Aerosol Seeding Patent As Major Contributor to Global Warming 3

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)


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


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)

Geoengineering Aerosols Migrate to Polar Regions to Warm Atmosphere 1

Geoengineering exposed Header

National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (NCAOR) Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India

“…the presence of aerosols including the Black carbon has already been reported over the Polar Regions”

Aerosol radiation forcing over the Arctic region by measuring aerosol optical depth spectrum and radiation

Atmospheric aerosols are important constituents that affect the radiation budget of the region. Although the polar regions are not the source of locally generated aerosols but due to large scale global circulations the aerosols generated naturally as well as anthropogenic find their way at poles. The presence of aerosols including the Black carbon has already been reported over the Polar Regions. We aim to assess the amount of radiation forcing at Ny-Alesund at the surface and top of the atmosphere by measuring the AOD spectral variation and the amount of global radiation falling on the surface.

The spectral variation of the column AOD, total column ozone and water vapor will be measured using sun photometer (MICROTOPS as they are handy to use). These will then be used in model to estimate the necessary aerosol parameters like single scattering albedo, phase function, etc which will then be used in the radiative transfer model like SBDART to obtain the aerosol radiation forcing. In order to have direct assessment of the impact of aerosols on radiation the ground based measurements of total global radiation will also be done using pyranometer in the broad band radiation range. The impact on UVB radiation will be studied using the UV-Biometer.

The following instruments are proposed to be utilized on a regular basis for the studies proposed:  MORE

NOTE:  It is little challenge to deduce that the net result of atmospheric warming results when GE aerosols and black carbon trap heat and provide less reflective albedo than polar ice.  H Saive

Ny Alesund Science Plan

Arctic Ocean and the surrounding regions are one of the most important areas that not only govern the earth’s climate but also faithfully record its past climatic history. The region is also an excellent harbinger of future change, because the signals or clues that signify climate change are so much stronger in the Arctic than elsewhere on the planetMore

1947 Shock News : “Enormous” “Alarming” “Serious” “Catastrophic” Polar Melt To Drown The Planet. International Agency Needed To Study The Problem 3

Gore Chemtrails is Conspiracy Theory GW is Real
This very interesting find by Steven Goddard deepens the intrigue of manufactured panic having to do with earth’s climate, Arctic warming and global flooding.  I missed this when researching my post from 11/16/2012 – Government Documents Link Global Warming to Advanced Military Climate Modification Technology  HERE

For almost 100 years, until the 1960’s –  proposals to warm the arctic were met with open arms.


In 1962, popular meteorologist, Harry Wexler proposed a mammoth, draconian project to warm the arctic as late as 1962 – 19 years after Hans Ahlmann’s research found the Arctic was already warming.  It’s interesting that these opposing “climatic” proclamations were announced in the years following WWII when the 1947 National Security Act formed the CIA and “operation overcast” (later named “operation paper clip”) had put many Nazi scientists to work on rocket projects in the US.  This unmistakable push to do something BIG about the climate, weather and atmosphere came about when rockets were being developed to launch payloads of nuclear warheads and chemicals into near-earth orbit including the Van Allen belt, Magnetosphere, Ionosphere and stratosphere.

Now, jet aircraft aerosol nano-particles and pathogens infect us in the troposphere where we breathe.

Now that the US is revealed as little more than a fascist regime these weather and climate modification schemes are now more obviously instruments of social and population control.  The organized denial of Chemtrails and Tesla technologies by ALL US government agencies serves to cloak the secret deployment of these weather weapons as climate and weather manipulation long enough to subdue organized resistance.  Violent weather,  hurricanes, tornadoes and drought will be manufactured by secret weather weapons to soften the public will to accept climate change, carbon taxes and ultimate financial slave


Remember when Scientists Thought Arctic Warming was a Good Idea?

1962 Harry Wexler (March 15, 1911- 1962) was an MIT graduate and PhD in meteorology. Wexler had been researching the link connecting chlorine and bromine compounds to the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layers, but died of a heart attack while on vacation in Woods Hole, Mass.  Wexler had already accepted an invitation to deliver a lecture entitled “The Climate of Earth and Its Modifications” at the University of Maryland Space Research and Technology Institute. (Source)

Wexler’s was last in a long line of ambitious proposals to warm the Arctic.   Coincidently, his proposals were made at the same time the National Academy of Sciences was working to create a national weather modification program – a direction in which the military had already embarked in 1958.

“Global Warming” initiatives proposed by Wexler:

  •  To increase the global temperature of the Earth by 1.7°C, “by injecting a cloud of  ice crystals into the polar atmosphere by detonating 10 H-bombs in the Arctic Ocean – the subject of his 1958 article in Science magazine” (Wexler H., 1958, “Modifying Weather on a Large Scale,” Science, n.s. 128 (Oct. 31, 1958): 1059-1063).
  • To diminish the global temperature by 1.2°C could be doable, “by launching a ring of dust particles into equatorial orbit, a modification of an earlier Russian proposal to warm the Arctic”.
  • To destroy the ozone layer and hence increase abruptly the surface temperature of the Earth, by spraying “several hundred thousand tons of chlorine or bromine” with a stratospheric airplane.  Fleming, 2007(a), pp. 56-57; Fleming, 2007(b), “note n° viii” p. 9 & p. 5  (source)        



Saturday 31 May 1947:  Dr. Ahlmann added that temperatures in the Arctic have increased by 10 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900. An ‘enormous’ rise from the scientific standpoint. Waters in the Spitsbergen area, in the same period, have risen from three to five degrees in temperature, and one to one and a half millimetres yearly in level. ‘The Arctic change is so serious that I hope an international agency can speedily be formed to study conditions on a global basis.’ said Dr. Ahlmann. He pointed out that in 1910 the navigable season along the western Spitsbergen lasted three months. Now it lasts eight months.


Arctic Climate Alarming Change 1947


Townsville Daily Bulletin Sat., 31 May 1947

ARCTIC CLIMATE’S ALARMING CHANGE LOS ANGEL.ES. May 30 (1957).— A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, and in the Antarctic ice regions and the major Greenland ice cap should reduce at the same rate as the present melting, oceanic surfaces would rise to catastrophic proportions, and people living in lowlands along the shores would be inundated, said Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist today, at tbe University of California’s Geophysical Institute. Dr. Ahlmann added that temperatures in the Arctic have increased by 10 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900.  An ‘enormous’ rise from the scientific standpoint. Waters in the Spitsbergen area, in the same period, have risen from three to five degrees in temperature, and one to one and a half millimetres yearly in level. 

“The Arctic change is so serious that I hope an international agency can speedily be formed to study conditions on a global basis.” said Dr. Ahlmann.

He pointed out that in 1910 the navigable season along the western Spitsbergen lasted three months. Now it lasts eight months.



Book Climate Change Chilling possibilities


Cosmic Rays Replace CO2 as Driver For Climate Change and Global Warming Reply


” Global warming isn’t manmade and it’s best to be quiet about that.  Scientists after all, mostly run on government funds.” – source

Full AR5 draft leaked here, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing

Posted by Alec Rawls, 12/13/12

I participated in “expert review” of the Second Order Draft of AR5 (the next IPCC report), Working Group 1 (“The Scientific Basis”), and am now making the full draft available to the public. I believe that the leaking of this draft is entirely legal, that the taxpayer funded report is properly in the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act, and that making it available to the public is in any case protected by established legal and ethical standards, but web hosting companies are not in the business of making such determinations so interested readers are encouraged to please download copies of the report for further dissemination in case this content is removed as a possible terms-of-service violation. My reasons for leaking the report are explained below.   Complete PDF report: CLICK HERE

Why leak the draft report?

By Alec Rawls (email)

General principles

The ethics of leaking tax-payer funded documents requires weighing the “public’s right to know” against any harm to the public interest that may result. The press often leaks even in the face of extreme such harm, as when the New York Times published details of how the Bush administration was tracking terrorist financing with the help of the private sector Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), causing this very successful anti-terror program to immediately collapse.

That was a bad leak, doing great harm to expose something that nobody needed to know about. With the UN’s IPCC reports the calculus is reversed. UN “climate chief” Christina Figueres explains what is at stake for the public:

… we are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science.

So may we please see this “science” on the basis of which our existing energy infrastructure is to be ripped out in favor of non-existent “green” energy? The only reason for secrecy in the first place is to enhance the UN’s political control over a scientific story line that is aimed explicitly at policy makers. Thus the drafts ought to fall within the reach of the Freedom of Information Act.

The Obama administration implicitly acknowledged this when it tried to evade FOIA by setting up private “backdoor channels” for communications with the IPCC. If NCAR’s Gerald Meehl (a lead author of AR5’s chapter on near-term climate change), has working copies of the draft report (and he’s only one of dozens of U.S. government researchers who would), then by law the draft report (now finished) should be available to the public.

The IPCC’s official reason for wanting secrecy (as they explained it to Steve McIntyre in  January 2012) is so that criticisms of the drafts are not spread out across the internet but get funneled through the UN’s comment process. If there is any merit to that rationale it is now moot. The comment period ended November 30th so the comment process can no longer be affected by publication.

As for my personal confidentiality agreement with the IPCC, I regard that as vitiated by the systematic dishonesty of the report (“omitted variable fraud” as I called it in my FOD comments). This is a general principle of journalistic confidentiality: bad faith on one side breaks the agreement on the other. They can’t ask reviewers to become complicit in their dishonesty by remaining silent about it.

Then there is the specific content of the Second Order Draft where the addition of one single sentence demands the release of the whole. That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole.

Lead story from the Second Order Draft: strong evidence for solar forcing beyond TSI now acknowledged by IPCC

Compared to the First Order Draft, the SOD now adds the following sentence, indicated in bold (page 7-43, lines 1-5, emphasis added):

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don’t know what the mechanism is. This directly undercuts the main premise of the report, as stated in Chapter 8 (page 8-4, lines 54-57):

There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero (–0.04 W m–2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 ± 0.3 W m–2.

The Chapter 8 authors (a different group than the Chapter 7 authors) are explicit here that their claim about natural forcing being small compared to anthropogenic forcing is based on an analysis in which the only solar forcing that is taken into account is TSI. This can be verified from the radiative forcing table on page 8-39 where the only solar variable included in the IPCC’s computer models is seen to be “solar irradiance.”

This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing.

The Chapter 8 premise that natural forcing is relatively small leads directly to the main conclusion of the entire report, stated in the first sentence of the Executive Summary (the very first sentence of the entire report): that advances since AR4 “further strengthen the basis for human activities being the primary driver in climate change” (p.1-2, lines 3-5). This headline conclusion is a direct descendant of the assumption that the only solar forcing is TSI, a claim that their own report no longer accepts.

The report still barely hints at the mountain of evidence for enhanced solar forcing, or the magnitude of the evidenced effect. Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. At least the Chapter 7 team is now being explicit about what this evidence means: that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work.

My full submitted comments (which I will post later) elaborate several important points. For instance, note that the Chapter 8 premise (page 8-4, lines 54-57) assumes that it is the change in the level of forcing since 1980, not the level of forcing, that would be causing warming. Solar activity was at historically high levels at least through the end of solar cycle 22 (1996), yet the IPCC is assuming that because this high level of solar forcing was roughly constant from 1950 until it fell off during solar cycle 23 it could not have caused post-1980 warming. In effect they are claiming that you can’t heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there, that you have to keep turning the flame up to get continued warming, an un-scientific absurdity that I have been writing about for several years (most recently in my post about Isaac Held’s bogus 2-box model of ocean equilibration).

The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.

President Obama is already pushing a carbon tax premised on the fear that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. Last week his people were at the UN’s climate meeting in Doha pretending that Hurricane Sandy was caused by human increments to CO2 as UN insiders assured the public that the next IPCC report will “scare the wits out of everyone” with its ramped-up predictions of human-caused global warming to come, but this is not where the evidence points, not if climate change is in any substantial measure driven by the sun, which has now gone quiet and is exerting what influence it has in the cooling direction.

The acknowledgement of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing should upend the IPCC’s entire agenda. The easiest way for the UN to handle this disruptive admission would be to remove it from their final draft, which is another reason to make the draft report public now. The devastating admission needs to be known so that the IPCC can’t quietly take it back.

Will some press organization please host the leaked report?

Most of us have to worry about staying within cautiously written and cautiously applied terms-of-service agreements. That’s why I created this new website. If it gets taken down nothing else gets taken with it. Media companies don’t have this problem. They have their own servers and publishing things like the draft IPCC report is supposed to be their bailiwick.

If the press has First Amendment protection for the publication of leaked materials even when substantial national security interests are at stake (the Supreme Court precedent set in the Pentagon Papers case), then it can certainly republish a leaked draft of a climate science report where there is no public interest in secrecy. The leaker could be at risk (the case against Pentagon leaker Daniel Ellsberg was thrown out for government misconduct, not because his activity was found to be protected) but the press is safe, and their services would be appreciated.

United States taxpayers have funded climate science to the tune of well over 80 billion dollars, all channeled through the funding bureaucracy established by Vice President Albert “the end is nigh” Gore when he served as President Clinton’s “climate czar.”  That Gore-built bureaucracy is still to this day striving to insure that not a penny of all those taxpayer billions ever goes to any researcher who is not committed to the premature conclusion that human contributions to atmospheric CO2 are causing dangerous global warming (despite the lack of any statistically significant warming for more than 15 years).

Acolytes of this bought “consensus” want to see what new propaganda their tax dollars have wrought and so do the skeptics. It’s unanimous, and an already twice-vetted draft is sitting now in thousands of government offices around the world. Time to fork it over to the people.

Below are the Chapters of the leaked report

Summary for Policymakers
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean
Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere
Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives
Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols
Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
Chapter 8 Supplement
Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models
Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
Chapter 13: Sea Level Change
Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
Chapter 14 Supplement
Technical Summary

Related articles:

CERN Confirmed Global Warming Fraud before they found the God particle

shhhhhShh…(CERN Proves Global Warming Natural, But Don’t Say So)

By jackcurtis on August 29, 2011

Global warming is now proven natural, not manmade. Experiments at CERN published in Nature have traced earth’s surface temperature to cosmic radiation and the Sun. “New, Convincing Evidence Indicates Global Warming Is Caused By Cosmic RAys and the Sun–Not Humans“ will bring you up to date on the science.  Unfortunately as the article also tells, the politics of global warming are still in play, so much so that the managers at Cern forced the scientists reporting their experiments to hide the inevitable conclusions in a maze of technospeak and bureaucratese so that few would understand. But the results are out and experts will get both messages: Global warming isn’t man-made and it’s best to be quiet about that. Scientists after all, mostly run on government funds.source


The Telegraph:  12/17/2012 – “Man-made global warming: even the IPCC admits the jig is up”

Breaking news from the US where a leaked draft of the IPCC’s latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in “climate change” than the scientific “consensus” has previously been prepared to concede.  Here’s the killer admission:

“Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.”

As the leaker explains, this is a game-changer:

The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.  continue…


We Are Change Victoria Hosts Climate Change Expert, Tim Ball 1

We Are Change Victoria org

Excellent Presentation on Global Warming/Climate Change

Published on Dec 10, 2012

In this episode of Freedom Free For All Dr. Tim Ball shares his life-long experience surrounding the continuous misinformation trail of climate change and ‘global warming’. Dr Tim Ball’s presentation focuses on the factual science that is omitted by the politicians and academia who profit from the propaganda of man made global warming.

Dr Tim Ball is a climatologist who’s resume far exceeds both Al Gore’s and David Suzuki’s when it comes to climate science and logical approach to modern climate change. But little will you hear of Dr. Ball and his balanced information from the controlled mainstream media and educational institutions.

It is only when you have balanced information that you can then make educated and intellectual decisions – thus is the key of the New World Order propaganda machine!    



John Coleman’s Excellent History of the Global Warming Movement


John Coleman's Corner Global Warming

Military’s New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change 3

Why In The World Are They Spraying

Washington’s New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change

Global Research, January 04, 2002
17 June 2005

While there is no evidence that this deadly technology has been used, surely the United Nations should be addressing the issue of “environmental warfare” alongside the debate on the climatic impacts of greenhouse gases…

The important debate on global warming under UN auspices provides but a partial picture of climate change; in addition to the devastating impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the ozone layer, the World’s climate can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated “non-lethal weapons.” Both the Americans and the Russians have developed capabilities to manipulate the World’s climate.

In the US, the technology is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) as part of the (“Star Wars”) Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). Recent scientific evidence suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the ability of potentially triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction. Potentially, it constitutes an instrument of conquest capable of selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.

While there is no evidence that this deadly technology has been used, surely the United Nations should be addressing the issue of “environmental warfare” alongside the debate on the climatic impacts of greenhouse gases…

Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate climatic manipulations for military use has never been explicitly part of the UN agenda on climate change. Neither the official delegations nor the environmental action groups participating in the Hague Conference on Climate Change (CO6) (November 2000) have raised the broad issue of “weather warfare” or “environmental modification techniques (ENMOD)” as relevant to an understanding of climate change.

The clash between official negotiators, environmentalists and American business lobbies has centered on Washington’s outright refusal to abide by commitments on carbon dioxide reduction targets under the 1997 Kyoto protocol.(1) The impacts of military technologies on the World’s climate are not an object of discussion or concern. Narrowly confined to greenhouse gases, the ongoing debate on climate change serves Washington’s strategic and defense objectives.


World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirms that “US military scientists … are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth’s atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods.” (2) Already in the 1970s, former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had foreseen in his book “Between Two Ages” that:

“Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised… [T]echniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm.”

Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlines several types of “unconventional weapons” using radio frequencies. He refers to “weather war,” indicating that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had already “mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s.”(3) These technologies make it “possible to trigger atmospheric disturbances by using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radar [waves].” (4)

A simulation study of future defense “scenarios” commissioned for the US Air Force calls for:

“US aerospace forces to ‘own the weather’ by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications… From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary… In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a 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.(5)


The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokoma Alaska –jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy– is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating “controlled local modifications of the ionosphere”. Scientist Dr. Nicholas Begich –actively involved in the public campaign against HAARP– describes HAARP as:

“A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere [upper layer of the atmosphere] by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything — living and dead.” (6)

Dr. Rosalie Bertell depicts HAARP as “a gigantic heater that can cause major disruption in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet.” 7


HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of scientific and academic research. US military documents seem to suggest, however, that HAARP’s main objective is to “exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes.” (8) Without explicitly referring to the HAARP program, a US Air Force study points to the use of “induced ionospheric modifications” as a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar.9

According to Dr. Rosalie Bertell, HAARP is part of a integrated weapons’ system, which has potentially devastating environmental consequences:

“It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere. It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately being planned by the United States. HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and development of a deliberate military nature. The military implications of combining these projects is alarming. … The ability of the HAARP / Spacelab/ rocket combination to deliver very large amount of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle beams, are frightening. The project is likely to be “sold” to the public as a space shield against incoming weapons, or, for the more gullible, a device for repairing the ozone layer. (10)

In addition to weather manipulation, HAARP has a number of related uses:

“HAARP could contribute to climate change by intensively bombarding the atmosphere with high-frequency rays… Returning low-frequency waves at high intensity could also affect people’s brains, and effects on tectonic movements cannot be ruled out. (11)

More generally, HAARP has the ability of modifying the World’s electro-magnetic field. It is part of an arsenal of “electronic weapons” which US military researchers consider a “gentler and kinder warfare”. (12)


HAARP is part of the weapons arsenal of the New World Order under the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). From military command points in the US, entire national economies could potentially be destabilized through climatic manipulations. More importantly, the latter can be implemented without the knowledge of the enemy, at minimal cost and without engaging military personnel and equipment as in a conventional war.

The use of HAARP — if it were to be applied — could have potentially devastating impacts on the World’s climate. Responding to US economic and strategic interests, it could be used to selectively modify climate in different parts of the World resulting in the destabilization of agricultural and ecological systems.

It is also worth noting that the US Department of Defense has allocated substantial resources to the development of intelligence and monitoring systems on weather changes. NASA and the Department of Defense’s National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) are working on “imagery for studies of flooding, erosion, land-slide hazards, earthquakes, ecological zones, weather forecasts, and climate change” with data relayed from satellites. (13)


According to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:

“States have… in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the (…) responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.” (14)

It is also worth recalling that an international Convention ratified by the UN General Assembly in 1997 bans “military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.” (15) Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention. The Convention defines “‘environmental modification techniques’ as referring to any technique for changing–through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes–the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or of outer space.” (16)

Why then did the UN –disregarding the 1977 ENMOD Convention as well as its own charter– decide to exclude from its agenda climatic changes resulting from military programs?


In February 1998, responding to a report of Mrs. Maj Britt Theorin –Swedish MEP and longtime peace advocate–, the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the HAARP program.(17) The Committee’s “Motion for Resolution” submitted to the European Parliament:

“Considers HAARP… by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body…; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration… to give evidence to the public hearing …into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program.” (18).

The Committee’s request to draw up a “Green Paper” on “the environmental impacts of military activities”, however, was casually dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacks the required jurisdiction to delve into “the links between environment and defense”. (19) Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington.


While there is no concrete evidence of HAARP having been used, scientific findings suggest that it is at present fully operational. What this means is that HAARP could potentially be applied by the US military to selectively modify the climate of an “unfriendly nation” or “rogue state” with a view to destabilizing its national economy.

Agricultural systems in both developed and developing countries are already in crisis as a result of New World Order policies including market deregulation, commodity dumping, etc. Amply documented, IMF and World Bank “economic medicine” imposed on the Third World and the countries of the former Soviet block has largely contributed to the destabilization of domestic agriculture. In turn, the provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have supported the interests of a handful of Western agri-biotech conglomerates in their quest to impose genetically modified (GMO) seeds on farmers throughout the World.

It is important to understand the linkage between the economic, strategic and military processes of the New World Order. In the above context, climatic manipulations under the HAARP program (whether accidental or deliberate) would inevitably exacerbate these changes by weakening national economies, destroying infrastructure and potentially triggering the bankruptcy of farmers over vast areas. Surely national governments and the United Nations should address the possible consequences of HAARP and other “non-lethal weapons” on climate change.


1. The latter calls for nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2 percent to become effective between 2008 and 2012. See Background of Kyoto Protocol at .

2. The Times, London, 23 November 2000.

3. Intelligence Newsletter, December 16, 1999.

4. Ibid.

5 Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, (emphasis added).

6 Nicholas Begich and Jeane Manning, The Military’s Pandora’s Box, Earthpulse Press, . See also the HAARP home page at

7. See Briarpatch, January, 2000. (emphasis added).

8 Quoted in Begich and Manning, op cit.

9. Air University, op cit.

10. Rosalie Bertell, Background of the HAARP Program, 5 November, 1996,

11. Begich and Manning, op cit.

12. Don Herskovitz, Killing Them Softly, Journal of Electronic Defense, August 1993. (emphasis added). According to Herskovitz, “electronic warfare” is defined by the US Department of Defense as “military action involving the use of electromagnetic energy…” The Journal of Electronic Defense at has published a range of articles on the application of electronic and electromagnetic military technologies.

13. Military Space, 6 December, 1999.

14. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 1992. See complete text at , (emphasis added).

15. See Associated Press, 18 May 1977.

16. Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed, States Parties Declare, UN Chronicle, July, 1984, Vol. 21, p. 27.

17. European Report, 7 February 1998.

18. European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999.

19. EU Lacks Jurisdiction to Trace Links Between Environment and Defense, European Report, 3 February 1999.

UN Summit: Transforming Your Kids into “Climate Change Agents Reply

UN Disinfo Could Create New Generation of “Climate Change Gestapo”

New American

By William F. Jasper – 12/7/2012

Frightened-Child-2Do your children (or grandchildren) have nightmares about the Earth melting or exploding due to human-caused global warming?

Do they believe they have no future because our planet is dying, the icecaps and glaciers are melting, the sea levels are rising, islands and coastal areas are disappearing, polar bears and children are drowning, plant and animal species are rapidly going extinct, and extreme weather will soon make human life unbearable, if not impossible?

Frightening, not Enlightening

Fear of an impending Climate Apocalypse apparently afflicts millions of children and adolescents worldwide, according to news stories in the mainstream media over the past few years (see hereherehere, and here).

Psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers, and parents report that many children are depressed and fearful, have difficulty sleeping, and believe it is pointless to study or plan a career, since there is little hope for a livable future. As a result, many are experiencing serious psychological and physical health issues.

This should not surprise anyone, considering that hundreds of millions of students have been captive audiences for Al Gore’s “documentary,” An Inconvenient Truth, (with many of them being subjected to multiple classroom showings) and other similar fare. After being continuously marinated in climate-change K-12 indoctrination in almost every subject area, it is little wonder that many kids suffer from depression and anxiety.

Classroom Child Abuse for a “Higher Cause”

Climate-doomHowever, many children turn their global-warming angst into activism, becoming little climate warriors who will work tirelessly to convert their peers, their parents, and local and national political leaders into supporters of “sustainable development.”

And this, clearly, is what the proponents of “climate change education” intend. Climate change education, they say, must be “transformative” and turn young children and adolescents into “climate change agents.”

That is the message being delivered by officials of UNICEF, UNESCO, and other UN agencies and NGOs at the UN Climate Conference currently underway (November 26-December 7) in Doha, Qatar. Stephanie Hodge, education program specialist for UNICEF, was interviewed at Doha by Climate Change TV, a UN-funded television network dedicated exclusively to propaganda about the global warming and the supposed solutions to this “crisis” that can only be attained through UN-directed global action.

According to Hodge, our current climate change education is “antiquated” and in dire need of renovation. We should be asking, she said, “What is global citizenship?

What are some of the global values that need to be imparted through local content?” Climate change education, says UNICEF’s Hodge, is “really about a process of change, about starting transformation through education.”

To help bring about this change and transformation, UNICEF, with help from its sister agency, UNESCO, has come up with a new curriculum guide, entitled, Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction in the Education Sector: Resource Manual, which Hodge held up for viewers to see.

The UNICEF Resource Manual opens with this paragraph, which is sure to intensify any climatic stress already being felt by students:

“I am the present and the future. A victim of climate change, I live in a region that is constantly affected by disasters. Hurricanes and floods are my reality.”  — Walter, a 12-year-old boy from Belize

Climate Mafia US Agencies-squareOf course, “Walter, a 12-year-old boy from Belize,” is almost certainly a fabrication of the curriculum developers at UNICEF. Or at least the words attributed to him have been crafted by adults.

How many 12-year-old boys do you know who speak like that? Or 16-year-olds, for that matter? But in UN materials even 6-year-olds and illiterate aborigines speak profoundly and poignantly in perfect poetic cadence.

In an article entitled, “Forcing Global Warming Nightmares on Children,” Tom DeWeese, the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center, reproduced an impassioned letter he received from an elementary school girl who was upset with him for not accepting the global-warming “consensus.” The letter dutifully regurgitated the UN/Al Gore talking points.

It is unlikely that it was composed by the girl who sent it. However, even if she did actually cut-and-paste the text herself without the prompting and assistance of her teacher and/or “facilitator,” it is obvious that she did not arrive at her state of mental agitation by calmly and maturely evaluating a balanced menu of data and perspectives in the heated climate “debate.”

She, as with millions of her peers, has been force-fed a steady diet of climate-change hysteria disguised as scientific fact.

The UNICEF Resource Manual makes frequent and reverential reference to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the authoritative scientific source on all things related to climate, notwithstanding the fact that the IPCC has suffered repeated scandals and has been exposed as a thoroughly politicized tool that has slaughtered science in the service of a politically-driven agenda.

Parroting the IPCC, the Manual declares:

Climate change will generally increase disaster risks — not only through the increased frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events and sea-level rise. As water becomes scarcer, agriculture is strained, ecosystems are degraded, and societies will become more vulnerable to hazards.

“Climate Change Agents”

A major (or the major) purpose of the Resource Manual, we are told on page 11, is “to help children become agents of change.” The term “agents of change” is used five times in the Manual. In addition, it twice refers to “adolescents as climate change agents,” and describes “the role of youth themselves as change agents in sustainable development.”

The glossary of the Manual provides this UN-approved definition of sustainable development: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Therein, of course, lies the rub. UN officials and bureaucrats will determine what “meets the needs of the present” and what level of consumption constitutes “compromising the ability of future generations.” And they have already stated, in numerous pronouncements and publications, that U.S. consumption and lifestyles — energy, automobiles, single-family homes, food, travel, etc. — are unsustainable.

The even more extravagant lifestyles of the officials and their NGO choir that attend these profligate UN moveable feasts — such as the current Doha conference— however, are considered “sustainable.” Naturally.

The Manual declares:

“Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction seek to manage uncertainty, reduce vulnerabilities and build resilience for communities at risk (see annex 1.1). Adaptation, by definition, will need to be derived from local solutions.”

The process can be similar across the education sector, but the outcomes must be specific, emphasizing an inclusive, bottom-up approach. Adaptation and risk reduction fall within the overall framework of sustainable development and should be viewed holistically through that lens. [Emphasis in original.]

Larded with all of the usual catchphrases and banal bromides, the UNICEF publication continues:

In order to meet the rights of children and achieve sustainable development, we need systems led by young people and adults who think and act sustainably.

We need these systems to permeate all levels of policy and planning, not just the national level. For quality education to be transformative, we need to see changes embedded in district, village and school development plans.

“The scaling up and mainstreaming of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction needs to be ensured throughout the education sector,” the Manual states.  This will be done, it says, through:

• Sector planning and budgets

• Policies and legislation

• Governance and school leadership

• Learning and teaching processes

• Infrastructure and facilities

• Teacher capacity strengthening and pedagogical training.

That’s fairly all-inclusive, no? However, if the good folks at UNICEF have left anything out we can rest assured that it is covered elsewhere in the resource manuals and other materials produced by UNESCO, which we will be examining momentarily.

But, back to the UNICEF Resource Manual, which tells us:

The ultimate goal of the resource manual is to ensure that all children may equitably exercise their educational and environmental rights in totality, as described in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

This goal includes increasing the number of children who are reached by the education sector and cultivating the knowledge, skills, values and ways of thinking that contribute to more sustainable and equitable development.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child referred to above is, of course, the same controversial treaty that American parents and the U.S. Senate have been opposing for decades, pointing out that accepting the principles enshrined therein will negate parental rights and ratify the collectivization of our children as property of the global state.

There is an interesting, self-indicting paragraph in the Manual, which if accepted in any sensible reading of the text, would prohibit the very programs the Manual proposes. It states:

In a protective framework, acknowledging that since children’s capacities are still evolving, they have rights to protection on the part of both parents and the State from exposure to activities likely to cause them harm. This framework imposes obligations on States parties to protect these rights.  [Emphasis in original.]

Very clearly, climate change indoctrination of the type being advocated by UNICEF is already doing immense harm to children.

The articles we have linked to above quote a number of psychologists, psychotherapists, and counselors who attest to the unhealthy mental trauma children are experiencing as a result of global-warming propaganda overload. A much larger collection of sources, from studies and news reports worldwide can be accessed at Climate Lessons blogspot.

As the Manual states, children “have rights to protection on the part of both parents and the State from exposure to activities likely to cause them harm.”

Unless those words are emptied of all sensible meaning and twisted into something completely fraudulent, they acknowledge that children must be protected from the very activities that the Manual advocates, since said activities not only are “likely to cause them harm,” but, manifestly, already are causing great harm.

The global-warming indoctrination frenzy of the past several years not only has caused psychological harm, but it has also negatively impacted academic achievement simply by robbing students of class time and study time that should be going to real science, as well as math, reading, history, etc.

A major study last year, “Globally Challenged: Are U.S. Students Ready to Compete?” by Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance, added to the stack of reports that have been piling up for decades documenting the abysmal state of American education.

All this considered, climate change education is causing serious harm, and by the UNICEF Manual’s own words, children have a right to be protected from such abuse. But don’t expect the UN, UNICEF, or any of the other climate activists at Doha to extract any sensible meaning from the text; they are already emptying and twisting in order to fit the text around the preordained agenda.

UNICEF isn’t alone in this endeavor; as mentioned earlier, UNESCO is a senior partner on the project. And UNESCO, as the UN lead agency, oversees a vast program, which includes the Climate Change Education Clearinghouse (CCE).

The CCE is comprised of many UN agencies, including:

UN Climate Change Gateway

UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs)

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)

UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe)

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)?UN-HABITAT (The United Nations Human Settlements Programme)

UNHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights)

UNHCR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees)

UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund)

UNITAR (United Nations Institute for Training and Research)

WHO (World Health Organization)

WMO (World Meteorological Organization)

Among the U.S. agencies participating in the UNESCO’s Climate Change Education Clearinghouse (CCE) are:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Climate Literacy Network

National Oceanic and Atmopsheric Administration (NOAA)

National Science Foundation

United States Global Change Research Program

US Department of Energy/ARM Climate Research Facility

US Geological Survey (USGS)

One of UNESCO’s latest efforts is the newly released video, “Learning to Address Climate Change,” a snappy, professional production which shows in four minutes “why climate change education is important to shape sustainable development and how it works in practice.” UNESCO is also zeroing in on high-school students and the high-school curriculum with YouthXchange-Climate Change and Lifestyles Guidebook.

In addition, it has also published The Climate Change Starter’s Guidebook. “The aim of this guide,” says UNESCO, “is to serve as a starting point for mainstreaming climate change education into curricula lesson plans and programs.”

Moreover, the Guide informs us:

The impacts of global warming are already apparent today in melting glaciers, increased frequency of extreme weather events such as droughts, cyclones or heavy rainfalls, sea level rise, and changes in plant growth affecting agriculture and food production.

These and other observed changes are expected to intensify and inflict a significant impact on human societies and the environment around the world especially if no drastic efforts are undertaken to reduce the emissions of GHGs into the atmosphere. [Emphasis added.]

Yes, UNESCO, UNICEF and the other would-be saviors of the earth demand “drastic efforts” that inevitably involve the individual yielding his natural, God-given rights to self-government, while national governments yield their sovereignty and dissolve into a UN-run global government.

Of course, the UN and its agencies have been able to propagate this long-running child-abuse scandal thanks to the massive funding they receive each year from the U.S. Congress and the executive branch agencies under the direction of the White House.

Photo of representatives at UN Climate Change Conference in Doha, Qatar: AP Images

Related articles:

Beware UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child

CFR Pushes End to Sovereignty at UN’s Doha Climate Summit

Climate Facts Ignored Amid Hysteria at UN Summit in Doha

UN Seeking Global Carbon Regime at Climate Summit in Doha

UNICEF Wants Your Children

UNESCO’s Rotten Track Record

The Global School Board

UN Climate Conference: A Trojan Horse for Global Government 1

Marc Morano Interview –


Selected excerpts from November 26, 2012:

By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

Morano: “Climate activists think we need more taxes & regulation to somehow stop bad weather…Mayor Bloomberg said we need to take immediate action to prevent bad weather. This has now reached the level of the Mayan Calendar and Nostradamus.

The NYT has picture of stature of liberty underwater and warming of the end times. This is not science, this is the doomsday stuff of the Mayan calendar and we have no business masquerading it as science. When I was in U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, I got to go to Bali, S. America, Africa, My r/t ticket to Kenya in 2006 was $16,000 business class. The UN likes exotic locals…

To use Hurricane Sandy as the poster child for global warming — as the UN and Gore are now doing –makes as little sense as you can possibly imagine. We have gone longest period since the Civil War without a major cat 3 or larger hurricane to hit the U.S. If anything, global warming would prevent — at least Atlantic hurricanes — from making landfall.

The World Meteorological Organization said there is no evidence of a human footprint in hurricane activity. For warmists to pick hurricanes as a poster child means they are completely devoid of science. Obama said Americans can ‘do something’ about floods, hurricanes, droughts tornadoes, as though, you can at the ballot box, you vote yourself better weather. They are implying we can legislate better weather.”




Interview with UN Climate Change Enforcer, Christiana Figueres

The top UN global warming climate change negotiator Christiana Figueres, who is in charge of arm-twisting industrialized countries to fight greenhouse gas emissions, framed her real agenda in plain language that everybody can easily understand.

These are her actual words, as reported by the Washington Examiner:

Christiana Figueres, who leads the United Nations negotiations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, described the climate change she seeks as a world-encompassing “revolution” engineered by “centralized” governments.

“We are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken,”

Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, commented in an interview published by The Guardian last week.


David Keith Promotes Aerosol Geoengineering As Fix for Warming via Covert Climate Modification 3

In this interview, David Keith continues to deny the ongoing effort to warm the planet via  advanced climate modification technologies.  There is no longer any doubt that Kieth is fully aware of the reality of “chemtrails” as a necessary part of the electromagnetic war to subdue civilizations.

Geoengineer, David Keith (Dr. Chemtrail)

This interview reveals a few interesting forecasts: (1) Kieth sees geoengineering (GE) programs to begin in no less than 10 years. (2) Sulfur has been ruled-out as a GE agent but we know he recommended Alumina at the 2010 AAAS conference but – for some reason, did not mention Alumina in this interview. (3) Kieth claims the topic of GE  has been “taboo” even though citizens have been complaining about it since the mid 1990’s. (4) Kieth boldly claims the GE operation will be “invisible”.  If aerosol GE begins in 10 to 15 years, the population will already have adapted to seeing the sky littered with aerosol clouds thus nothing will have “appeared” to change in the perception to most people looking up.  The few who continue to complain will be successfully marginalized as “conspiracy theorists” as they have been for the past 20 years. (5) Keith invokes the guilt message that CO2 is the by-product of people using too many resources and that the consumers must PAY for the sins of corporations who caused the problem in the first place. His emphasis is never on the greed aspect of the so-called “elite”.  (6) Host, Tony Jones appears clueless on the issue of covert aerosol operations.   (Note: Underlines and bold type were inserted as emphasis)


Original Article: HERE

One of the world’s leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Earlier today I spoke with geoengineering expert David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. He was in Calgary, Canada.

David Keith, thanks for joining us.


TONY JONES: Now scientists originally calculated that the major impact of global warming would happen towards the end of this century, so geoengineering was considered to be something far off in the distant and really science fiction for most people. Why the urgency now? Why has the debate changed?

DAVID KEITH: I think the debate’s changed really because the sort of taboo that we wouldn’t talk about it has been broken. So, people have actually known you could do these things for better or for worse for decades, actually since the ’60s, but people were sort of afraid to talk about them in polite company for fear that just talking about it would let people off the hook so they wouldn’t cut emissions.

And that fear was broke a few years ago and so now kind of all the research is pouring out really because effectively had been suppressed, not by some terrible suppressor, but by a fear of talking about it.

TONY JONES: So what do you think would actually drive the world’s superpowers or a collective of nations to decide to actually do this, to go ahead and begin the process of planning and preparing for a geoengineering project?

DAVID KEITH: Very, very hard to guess. I mean, essential thing to say about this is that technology is the easy part; the hard part is the politics. Really deeply hard and almost unguessable. At this point we have no regulatory structure whatsoever and no treaty structure, so it’s really unclear what would – how such a thing would be controlled.

TONY JONES: Do you have any sort of idea at all what kind of timescale there might be before governments are forced to seriously consider this? Is it 10, 20, 30, 50 years?

DAVID KEITH: Well, forced is a very fuzzy word, so a popular thing to say in this business is to say that we would do it in the case of a climate emergency. But that’s kind of easy to say. In a case of emergency we should do all sorts of wild things, but it’s not clear what an emergency is. So I’m a little sticky with the word forced. But I think it could happen any time from a decade from now to many, many decades hence.

The big question right now really is: should we do research in the open atmosphere? Should we go outside of the laboratory and begin to actually tinker with the system and learn more about whether this will work or not. And I’m somebody who advocates that we do do such research.

And one thing that research may show is that this doesn’t work as well as we think. And my view is: whether you’re somebody who hopes this will work or hopes it doesn’t, more knowledge is a good thing.

TONY JONES: So if you were given the go-ahead to do research and the funds to do it, because I imagine it would be very expensive, what would you actually do?

DAVID KEITH: It’s not very expensive actually to begin to do little in-situ experiments. So I am working on one and many other people are. So what we would do – the experiment that I’m most involved with would look at a certain aspect of stratospheric chemistry, of the way that the ozone layer is damaged and we’d be looking at whether or not and how much increase of water vapour in the stratosphere, which may happen naturally, and also the increase of sulphate aerosols if we geoengineered might damage the ozone layer.

Basically, how much damage there would be and how we could fix it. And that experiment would be done in a very, very small amount of material; we’re talking, like, a tonne of material, so small compared to what an aircraft does travelling across the Pacific. And the cost of it would be a few millions to 5 million kind of money, which on the scale of big atmospheric research projects is actually not that much. I mean, the total climate research budget is billion class.

TONY JONES: Is it clear now or is it becoming clearer that the best strategy if you wanted to go to a global scale would be literally flooding the stratosphere with sulphate particles?

DAVID KEITH: I think the honest answer has to be that we don’t know, that you need to do the research in order to have strong opinions about what’s the right answer. I would say, you know, if you really put a gun to my head and said, “What’s the very most likely thing to work right now?” that’s probably it. And the reason is because it mimics what nature has done.

So we have big volcanoes that put sulphur in the stratosphere and we know something about the bad impacts of that and we know something about what it does to cool the planet. And so it seems pretty likely that since we’d be putting in much less than nature puts in, at least for the first half century or more, that we could actually do something and control the risks.

TONY JONES: Yes, I guess you mentioned volcanic activity and that’s what scientists are basing, I suppose, their knowledge on now. What we’ve seen from volcanic activity is – and you can go back to ’91 and Mount Pinatubo, which actually caused a fairly sudden drop in global temperatures because it blanketed the atmosphere in that way, but it also had, evidently, climate change effects itself, so there are clearly dangers here.

DAVID KEITH: For sure. There are a bunch of dangers. There are both the dangers of kind of side effects like ozone loss or interfering with atmospheric chemistry in other ways. There’s the basic fact that this is not a perfect compensation for CO2.

So for example, carbon dioxide makes the ocean more acidic and doing these things to cool the planet will do nothing to correct that. So in the end we will have to cut emissions no matter what, but the fact that we have to cut emissions in the long run doesn’t mean that we might not want to do things in the short run that actually provide real protection, if in fact they do, protecting people from heat stress or protecting the Arctic from melting.

So I think we need to get out of the kind of extreme either/or that says you only do this if you can’t cut emissions. That’s nonsense. Cutting emissions we need to do in order to reduce the risks over the next century or two, but we still might want to do some of this in order to reduce the risks over the next half century and those are really quite distinct things.

TONY JONES: Let’s talk about the risks of actually doing it on a global scale because you’ve been pretty frank about that. You’ve actually said you could easily imagine a chain of events that would extinguish life on Earth. Now what would be that potential chain of events from using this kind of technology?

DAVID KEITH: Yes, I probably got quoted a little out of context there. I think there are sort of theoretically possible ways that could happen, but I don’t think there’s socially plausible way it could happen. So, you might in principle be able to put up enough reflective aerosols – probably not sulphates, actually; I think it won’t work with sulphates – but some other engineered aerosol.

And if you did that for 100 years and reflected away sort of 8 per cent of the sunlight, whereas the amount people are talking about doing is more like 1 per cent, then in principle you could actually freeze the oceans over, as happened some good chunk of a billion years ago, and that would be devastating. But I think that the chance of people doing that would sort of be a global suicide is so remote as not to be a serious worry.

I think the reason I’ve occasionally said that is that it illustrates the kind of power that this technology grants us. And I think for better, for worse, what this technology gives us is this enormous kind of leverage and power to alter the climate and to do it with a very small amount of money or material and that power should frighten us, I think, and it presents real deep problems for governance.

So unlike the problem of CO2 emissions, which is changing the climate, but which is a product of human actions all over the planet. Every individual person flying or driving a car or using electricity around the planet contributes to carbon dioxide.

If you talk about putting sulphates or some other engineered particle in the stratosphere, the issue is that a very small number of people in principle could do it and have this kind of huge leverage to affect the whole climate in this profound way. And that’s what raises the very hard challenge of governance.

TONY JONES: Yes, is there a fear raised by what you’re saying that some country, a superpower, China, for example, has been suggested, could actually do something like this unilaterally and thereby create conflict over the whole idea of geo-engineering?

DAVID KEITH: Yes, it’s certainly possible. So, there’s no question it’s technically possible to do it unilaterally. So, the actual materials you need, the aircraft and engineering you need to do this are something that would be in reach easily of any of the G20 states. It’s not hard to do. You could buy the equipment from many aeronautical contractors.

So in that sense it could be done unilaterally. I think that there are scenarios under which it would happen in the real world unilaterally, but I don’t think we should – I mean, I think you can exaggerate that possibility.

But, you know – so, for example, I think if nothing was done to manage emissions and if climate impacts really fell strongly on, say, India – which might actually happen from heat stress on crops – you could imagine India doing it unilaterally. But there’s a kind of a hard and an easy unilateralism.

So if a country in a really kind of wanton way just starts it with no consultation, that would be clearly ugly, bad, could create conflict, but I think there are also kinds of unilateralism where you’re not formally doing it in a legal multinational way, but where you do it with lots of consultation. And in that situation what might happen is a small number of countries might do it and many other countries might publicly say, “We wish we were involved in the decision,” and privately say, “We’re pretty happy somebody’s doing this because actually it will reduce climate risk and then this other group will take the liability.”

TONY JONES: And final question, because you probably – if someone decided to do this, even if a group of nations decided to do this, there’d be tremendous scepticism in the public and you would, I imagine, get widespread protests, particularly when people realise that with sulphate particles in the atmosphere you’d actually change the colour of the sky, which has a really big psychological effect on people, you would imagine.

How serious first of all would that change of colour be if you really were able to do it on a global scale and would you expect protests?

DAVID KEITH: I think the change of colour would probably be invisible. I think it wouldn’t happen. So people have published papers where they get that, but only where they assume a quite large amount of geoengineering. They assume that geoengineering compensates all of the effect of climate change, which I think is a kind of nonsense policy.

So in a more plausible policy where you gradually wrap this up, compensating only part of the global warming (inaudible), to kind of balance risks and benefits and where you gradually use more advanced particles, maybe starting in 50 years, I think you never see a change in colour.

So I think that’s a bit of a unlikely circumstance. But I do think it’s clear that people will protest because there are going to be winners and losers, just as there are under climate change. So it’s important to say that putting CO2 in the atmosphere, which we’re doing, creates winners and losers and this will again.

TONY JONES: David Keith, we’ll have to leave you there. Fascinating to hear from you. We thank you very much for taking the time to come and talk to us.

DAVID KEITH: Thanks very much.
Copyright 2012 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
All Rights Reserved

HAARP and Geoengineering Aerosols Used to Modify Hurricanes, Weather and Climate Change 2

The Military’s Pandora’s Box by Dr. Nick Begich and Jeane Manning
Original article at

How does HAARP work with geoengineering aerosols to Modify Hurricanes and Weather?

“Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device.”

How could HAARP and geoengineering aerosols cause climate change and artificial increases in levels of carbon dioxide ?

“… molecular modifications of the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be achieved. Besides actually changing the molecular composition of an atmospheric region, a particular molecule or molecules can be chosen for increased presence. For example, ozone, nitrogen, etc., concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased.” 

This article was prepared to provide a summary of the contents of a book written in 1995 which describes an entirely new class of weapons. The weapons and their effects are described in the following pages. The United States Navy and Air Force have joined with the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, to build a prototype for a ground based “Star Wars” weapon system located in the remote bush country of Alaska.

The individuals who are demanding answers about HAARP are scattered around the planet. As well as bush dwellers in Alaska, they include: a physician in Finland; a scientist in Holland; an anti-nuclear protester in Australia; independent physicists in the United States; a grandmother in Canada, and countless others.

Unlike the protests of the 1960s the objections to HAARP have been registered using the tools of the 1990s. From the Internet, fax machines, syndicated talk radio and a number of alternative print mediums the word is getting out and people are waking up to this new intrusion by an over zealous United States government.

The research team put together to gather the materials which eventually found their way into the book never held a formal meeting, never formed a formal organization. Each person acted like a node on a planetary info-spirit-net with one goal held by all — to keep this controversial new science in the public eye. The result of the team’s effort was a book which describes the science and the political ramifications of this technology.

That book, Angels Don’t Play this HAARP: Advances in Tesla Technology, has 230 pages. This article will only give the highlights. Despite the amount of research (350 footnoted sources), at its heart it is a story about ordinary people who took on an extraordinary challenge in bringing their research forward.

HAARP Boils the Upper Atmosphere

HAARP will zap the upper atmosphere with a focused and steerable electromagnetic beam. It is an advanced model of an “ionospheric heater.” (The ionosphere is the electrically-charged sphere surrounding Earth’s upper atmosphere. It ranges between 40 to 60 miles above the surface of the Earth.)

Put simply, the apparatus for HAARP is a reversal of a radio telescope; antenna send out signals instead of receiving. HAARP is the test run for a super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything — living and dead.

HAARP publicity gives the impression that the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program is mainly an academic project with the goal of changing the ionosphere to improve communications for our own good. However, other U.S. military documents put it more clearly — HAARP aims to learn how to “exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes.” Communicating with submarines is only one of those purposes.

Press releases and other information from the military on HAARP continually downplay what it could do. Publicity documents insist that the HAARP project is no different than other ionospheric heaters operating safely throughout the world in places such as Arecibo, Puerto Rico, Tromso, Norway, and the former Soviet Union. However, a 1990 government document indicates that the radio-frequency (RF) power zap will drive the ionosphere to unnatural activities.

” … at the highest HF powers available in the West, the instabilities commonly studied are approaching their maximum RF energy dissipative capability, beyond which the plasma processes will ‘runaway’ until the next limiting factor is reached.”

If the military, in cooperation with the University of Alaska Fairbanks, can show that this new ground-based “Star Wars” technology is sound, they both win. The military has a relatively-inexpensive defense shield and the University can brag about the most dramatic geophysical manipulation since atmospheric explosions of nuclear bombs. After successful testing, they would have the military megaprojects of the future and huge markets for Alaska’s North Slope natural gas.

Looking at the other patents which built on the work of a Texas’ physicist named Bernard Eastlund, it becomes clearer how the military intends to use the HAARP transmitter. It also makes governmental denials less believable. The military knows how it intends to use this technology, and has made it clear in their documents. The military has deliberately misled the public, through sophisticated word games, deceit and outright disinformation.

The military says the HAARP system could:

  • Give the military a tool to replace the electromagnetic pulse effect of atmospheric thermonuclear devices (still considered a viable option by the military through at least 1986)
  • Replace the huge Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) submarine communication system operating in Michigan and Wisconsin with a new and more compact technology
  • Be used to replace the over-the-horizon radar system that was once planned for the current location of HAARP, with a more flexible and accurate system
  • Provide a way to wipe out communications over an extremely large area, while keeping the military’s own communications systems working
  • Provide a wide area earth-penetrating tomography which, if combined with the computing abilities of EMASS and Cray computers, would make it possible to verify many parts of nuclear nonproliferation and peace agreements
  • Be a tool for geophysical probing to find oil, gas and mineral deposits over a large area
  • Be used to detect incoming low-level planes and cruise missiles, making other technologies obsolete
The above abilities seem like a good idea to all who believe in sound national defense, and to those concerned about cost-cutting. However, the possible uses which the HAARP records do not explain, and which can only be found in Air Force, Army, Navy and other federal agency records, are alarming. Moreover, effects from the reckless use of these power levels in our natural shield — the ionosphere — could be cataclysmic according to some scientists.

Two Alaskans put it bluntly. A founder of the NO HAARP movement, Clare Zickuhr, says “The military is going to give the ionosphere a big kick and see what happens.”

The military failed to tell the public that they do not know what exactly will happen, but a Penn State science article brags about that uncertainty. Macho science? The HAARP project uses the largest energy levels yet played with by what Begich and Manning call “the big boys with their new toys.” HAARP is an experiment in the sky, and experiments are done to find out something not already known. Independent scientists told Begich and Manning that a HAARP-type “skybuster” with its unforeseen effects could be an act of global vandalism.

HAARP History

The patents described below were the package of ideas which were originally controlled by ARCO Power Technologies Incorporated (APTI), a subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Company, one of the biggest oil companies in the world. APTI was the contractor that built the HAARP facility. ARCO sold this subsidiary, the patents and the second phase construction contract to E-Systems in June 1994.

E-Systems is one of the biggest intelligence contractors in the world — doing work for the CIA, defense intelligence organizations and others. $1.8 billion of their annual sales are to these organizations, with $800 million for black projects — projects so secret that even the United States Congress isn’t told how the money is being spent.
E-Systems was bought out by Raytheon, which is one of the largest defense contractors in the world. In 1994 Raytheon was listed as number forty-two on the Fortune 500 list of companies. Raytheon has thousands of patents, some of which will be valuable in the HAARP project. The twelve patents below are the backbone of the HAARP project, and are now buried among the thousands of others held in the name of Raytheon. Bernard J. Eastlund’s U.S. Patent # 4,686,605, “Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth’s Atmosphere, Ionosphere; and/or Magnetosphere,” was sealed for a year under a government Secrecy Order.

The Eastlund ionospheric heater was different; the radio frequency (RF) radiation was concentrated and focused to a point in the ionosphere. This difference throws an unprecedented amount of energy into the ionosphere. The Eastlund device would allow a concentration of one watt per cubic centimeter, compared to others only able to deliver about one millionth of one watt.

This huge difference could lift and change the ionosphere in the ways necessary to create futuristic effects described in the patent. According to the patent, the work of Nikola Tesla in the early 1900’s formed the basis of the research.

What would this technology be worth to ARCO, the owner of the patents? They could make enormous profits by beaming electrical power from a powerhouse in the gas fields to the consumer without wires.

For a time, HAARP researchers could not prove that this was one of the intended uses for HAARP. In April, 1995, however, Begich found other patents, connected with a “key personnel” list for APTI. Some of these new APTI patents were indeed a wireless system for sending electrical power. Eastlund’s patent said the technology can confuse or completely disrupt airplanes’ and missiles’ sophisticated guidance systems. Further, this ability to spray large areas of Earth with electromagnetic waves of varying frequencies, and to control changes in those waves, makes it possible to knock out communications on land or sea as well as in the air.

The patent said:

“Thus, this invention provides the ability to put unprecedented amounts of power in the Earth’s atmosphere at strategic locations and to maintain the power injection level particularly if random pulsing is employed, in a manner far more precise and better controlled than heretofore accomplished by the prior art, particularly by detonation of nuclear devices of various yields at various altitudes… ”

“…it is possible not only to interfere with third party communications but to take advantage of one or more such beams to carry out a communications network even though the rest of the world’s communications are disrupted. Put another way, what is used to disrupt another’s communications can be employed by one knowledgeable of this invention as a communication network at the same time.”

“… large regions of the atmosphere could be lifted to an unexpectedly high altitude so that missiles encounter unexpected and unplanned drag forces with resultant destruction.”

“Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device.

… molecular modifications of the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be achieved. Besides actually changing the molecular composition of an atmospheric region, a particular molecule or molecules can be chosen for increased presence. For example, ozone, nitrogen, etc., concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased.” (CO2?)

Begich found eleven other APTI Patents. They told how to make “Nuclear-sized Explosions without Radiation,” Power-beaming systems, over-the-horizon radar, detection systems for missiles carrying nuclear warheads, electromagnetic pulses previously produced by thermonuclear weapons and other Star-Wars tricks. This cluster of patents underlay the HAARP weapon system.

Related research by Begich and Manning uncovered bizarre schemes. For example, Air Force documents revealed that a system had been developed for manipulating and disturbing human mental processes through pulsed radio-frequency radiation (the stuff of HAARP) over large geographical areas. The most telling material about this technology came from writings of Zbigniew Brzezinski (former National Security Advisory to U.S. President Carter) and J.F. MacDonald (science advisor to U.S. President Johnson and a professor of Geophysics at UCLA), as they wrote about use of power-beaming transmitters for geophysical and environmental warfare. The documents showed how these effects might be caused, and the negative effects on human heath and thinking.

The mental-disruption possibilities for HAARP are the most disturbing. More than 40 pages of the book, with dozens of footnotes, chronicle the work of Harvard professors, military planners and scientists as they plan and test this use of the electromagnetic technology. For example, one of the papers describing this use was from the International Red Cross in Geneva. It even gave the frequency ranges where these effects could occur — the same ranges which HAARP is capable of broadcasting.

The following statement was made more than twenty-five years ago in a book by Brzezinski which he wrote while a professor at Columbia University:

“Political strategists are tempted to exploit research on the brain and human behavior. Geophysicist Gordon J.F. MacDonald, a specialist in problems of warfare, says accurately-timed, artificially-excited electronic strokes could lead to a pattern of oscillations that produce relatively high power levels over certain regions of the earth … in this way one could develop a system that would seriously impair the brain performance of very large populations in selected regions over an extended period”

” … no matter how deeply disturbing the thought of using the environment to manipulate behavior for national advantages, to some, the technology permitting such use will very probably develop within the next few decades.”

In 1966, MacDonald was a member of the President’s Science Advisory Committee and later a member of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality. He published papers on the use of environmental control technologies for military purposes. The most profound comment he made as a geophysicist was, “the key to geophysical warfare is the identification of environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy.” While yesterday’s geophysicists predicted today’s advances, are HAARP program managers delivering on the vision?

The geophysicists recognized that adding energy to the environmental soup could have large effects. However, humankind has already added substantial amounts of electromagnetic energy into our environment without understanding what might constitute critical mass. The book by Begich and Manning raises questions:

  • Have these additions been without effect, or is there a cumulative amount beyond which irreparable damage can be done?
  • Is HAARP another step in a journey from which we cannot turn back?
  • Are we about to embark on another energy experiment which unleashes another set of demons from Pandora’s box?

As early as 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinski predicted a “more controlled and directed society” would gradually appear, linked to technology. This society would be dominated by an elite group which impresses voters by allegedly superior scientific know-how. Angels Don’t Play This HAARP further quotes Brzezinski:

“Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Technical and scientific momentum would then feed on the situation it exploits,” Brzezinski predicted.

His forecasts proved accurate. Today, a number of new tools for the “elite” are emerging, and the temptation to use them increases steadily. The policies to permit the tools to be used are already in place. How could the United States be changed, bit by bit, into the predicted highly-controlled technosociety? Among the “steppingstones” Brzezinski expected were persisting social crises and use of the mass media to gain the public’s confidence.

In another document prepared by the government, the U.S. Air Force claims: “The potential applications of artificial electromagnetic fields are wide-ranging and can be used in many military or quasi-military situations… Some of these potential uses include dealing with terrorist groups, crowd control, controlling breaches of security at military installations, and antipersonnel techniques in tactical warfare. In all of these cases the EM (electromagnetic) systems would be used to produce mild to severe physiological disruption or perceptual distortion or disorientation. In addition, the ability of individuals to function could be degraded to such a point that they would be combat ineffective. Another advantage of electromagnetic systems is that they can provide coverage over large areas with a single system. They are silent and countermeasures to them may be difficult to develop… One last area where electromagnetic radiation may prove of some value is in enhancing abilities of individuals for anomalous phenomena.”

Do these comments point to uses already somewhat developed? The author of the government report refers to an earlier Air Force document about the uses of radio frequency radiation in combat situations. (Here Begich and Manning note that HAARP is the most versatile and the largest radio-frequency-radiation transmitter in the world.)

The United States Congressional record deals with the use of HAARP for penetrating the earth with signals bounced off of the ionosphere. These signals are used to look inside the planet to a depth of many kilometers in order to locate underground munitions, minerals and tunnels. The U.S. Senate set aside $15 million dollars in 1996 to develop this ability alone — earth-penetrating-tomography. The problem is that the frequency needed for earth-penetrating radiation is within the frequency range most cited for disruption of human mental functions. It may also have profound effects on migration patterns of fish and wild animals which rely on an undisturbed energy field to find their routes.

As if electromagnetic pulses in the sky and mental disruption were not enough, T. Eastlund bragged that the super-powerful ionospheric heater could control weather.

Begich and Manning brought to light government documents indicating that the military has weather-control technology. When HAARP is eventually built to its full power level, it could create weather effects over entire hemispheres. If one government experiments with the world’s weather patterns, what is done in one place will impact everyone else on the planet. Angels Don’t Play This HAARP explains a principle behind some of Nikola Tesla’s inventions — resonance — which affect planetary systems.

Bubble of Electric Particles

Angels Don’t Play This HAARP includes interviews with independent scientists such as Elizabeth Rauscher. She has a Ph.D., a long and impressive career in high-energy physics, and has been published in prestigious science journals and books. Rauscher commented on HAARP. “You’re pumping tremendous energy into an extremely delicate molecular configuration that comprises these multi-layers we call the ionosphere.”
“The ionosphere is prone to catalytic reactions,” she explained, “if a small part is changed, a major change in the ionosphere can happen.”

In describing the ionosphere as a delicately balanced system, Dr. Rauscher shared her mental picture of it — a soap-bubble-like sphere surrounding Earth’s atmosphere, with movements swirling over the surface of the bubble. If a big enough hole is punched through it, she predicts, it could pop.

Slicing the Ionosphere

Physicist Daniel Winter, Ph.D., of Waynesville, North Carolina, says, “HAARP high-frequency emissions can couple with longwave (extremely-low-frequency, or ELF) pulses the Earth grid uses to distribute information as vibrations to synchronize dances of life in the biosphere.” Dan terms this geomagnetic action ‘Earth’s information bloodstream,’ and says it is likely that coupling of HAARP HF (high-frequency) with natural ELF can cause unplanned, unsuspected side effects.

David Yarrow of Albany, New York, is a researcher with a background in electronics. He described possible interactions of HAARP radiation with the ionosphere and Earth’s magnetic grid: “HAARP will not burn holes in the ionosphere. That is a dangerous understatement of what HAARP’s giant gigawatt beam will do. Earth is spinning relative to thin electric shells of the multilayer membrane of ion-o-speres that absorb and shield Earth’s surface from intense solar radiation, including charged particle storms in solar winds erupting from the sun. Earth’s axial spin means that HAARP — in a burst lasting more than a few minutes — will slice through the ionosphere like a microwave knife. This produces not a hole but a long tear — an incision.”

Crudely Plucking the Strings

Second concept: As Earth rotates, HAARP will slice across the geomagnetic flux, a donut-shaped spool of magnetic strings — like longitude meridians on maps.
HAARP may not ‘cut’ these strings in Gaia’s magnetic mantle, but will pulse each thread with harsh, out-of-harmony high frequencies. These noisy impulses will vibrate geomagnetic flux lines, sending vibrations all through the geomagnetic web. ”

“The image comes to mind of a spider on its web. An insect lands, and the web’s vibrations alert the spider to possible prey. HAARP will be a man-made microwave finger poking at the web, sending out confusing signals, if not tearing holes in the threads. ”
“Effects of this interference with symphonies of Gaia’s geomagnetic harp are unknown, and I suspect barely thought of. Even if thought of, the intent (of HAARP) is to learn to exploit any effects, not to play in tune to global symphonies. ”

Among other researchers quoted is Paul Schaefer of Kansas City. His degree is in electrical engineering and he spent four years building nuclear weapons. “But most of the theories that we have been taught by scientists to believe in seem to be falling apart,” he says. He talks about imbalances already caused by the industrial and atomic age, especially by radiation of large numbers of tiny, high-velocity particles “like very small spinning tops” into our environment. The unnatural level of motion of highly-energetic particles in the atmosphere and in radiation belts surrounding Earth is the villain in the weather disruptions, according to this model, which describes an Earth discharging its buildup of heat, relieving stress and regaining a balanced condition through earthquakes and volcanic action.

Feverish Earth

“One might compare the abnormal energetic state of the Earth and its atmosphere to a car battery which has become overcharged with the normal flow of energy jammed up, resulting in hot spots, electrical arcing, physical cracks and general turbulence as the pent-up energy tries to find some place to go.”

In a second analogy, Schaefer says “Unless we desire the death of our planet, we must end the production of unstable particles which are generating the earth’s fever. A first priority to prevent this disaster would be to shut down all nuclear power plants and end the testing of atomic weapons, electronic warfare and ‘Star Wars’.” Meanwhile, the military builds its biggest ionospheric heater yet, to deliberately create more instabilities in a huge plasma layer — the ionosphere — and to rev up the energy level of charged particles.

Electronic Rain From The Sky

They have published papers about electron precipitation from the magnetosphere (the outer belts of charged particles which stream toward Earth’s magnetic poles) caused by man-made very low frequency electromagnetic waves. “These precipitated particles can produce secondary ionization, emit X-rays, and cause significant perturbation in the lower ionosphere.”

Two Stanford University radio scientists offer evidence of what technology can do to affect the sky by making waves on earth; they showed that very low frequency radio waves can vibrate the magnetosphere and cause high-energy particles to cascade into Earth’s atmosphere. By turning the signal on or off, they could stop the flow of energetic particles.

Weather Control

Avalanches of energy dislodged by such radio waves could hit us hard. Their work suggests that technicians could control global weather by sending relatively small ‘signals’ into the Van Allen belts (radiation belts around Earth). Thus Tesla’s resonance effects can control enormous energies by tiny triggering signals.
The Begich/ Manning book asks whether that knowledge will be used by war-oriented or biosphere-oriented scientists.

The military has had about twenty years to work on weather warfare methods, which it euphemistically calls weather modification. For example, rainmaking technology was taken for a few test rides in Vietnam. The U.S. Department of Defense sampled lightning and hurricane manipulation studies in Project Skyfire and Project Stormfury. And they looked at some complicated technologies that would give big effects. Angels Don’t Play This HAARP cites an expert who says the military studied both lasers and chemicals which they figured could damage the ozone layer over an enemy. Looking at ways to cause earthquakes, as well as to detect them, was part of the project named Prime Argus, decades ago. The money for that came from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA, now under the acronym ARPA.) In 1994 the Air Force revealed its Spacecast 2020 master plan which includes weather control. Scientists have experimented with weather control since the 1940’s, but Spacecast 2020 noted that “using environmental modification techniques to destroy, damage or injure another state are prohibited.” Having said that, the Air Force claimed that advances in technology “compels a reexamination of this sensitive and potentially risky topic.”

40 Years of Zapping the Sky?

As far back as 1958, the chief White House advisor on weather modification, Captain Howard T. Orville, said the U.S. defense department was studying “ways to manipulate the charges of the earth and sky and so affect the weather” by using an electronic beam to ionize or de-ionize the atmosphere over a given area.

In 1966, Professor Gordon J. F. MacDonald was associate director of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the University of California, Los Angeles, was a member of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, and later a member of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality.

He published papers on the use of environmental-control technologies for military purposes. MacDonald made a revealing comment: “The key to geophysical warfare is the identification of environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy. ” World-recognized scientist MacDonald had a number of ideas for using the environment as a weapon system and he contributed to what was, at the time, the dream of a futurist. When he wrote his chapter, “How To Wreck The Environment,” for the book Unless Peace Comes, he was not kidding around. In it he describes the use of weather manipulation, climate modification, polar ice cap melting or destabilization, ozone depletion techniques, earthquake engineering, ocean wave control and brain wave manipulation using the planet’s energy fields.

He also said that these types of weapons would be developed and, when used, would be virtually undetectable by their victims. Is HAARP that weapon? The military’s intention to do environmental engineering is well documented, U.S. Congress’ subcommittee hearings on Oceans and International Environment looked into military weather and climate modification conducted in the early 1970’s. “What emerged was an awesome picture of far-ranging research and experimentation by the Department of Defense into ways environmental tampering could be used as a weapon,” said another author cited in Angles Don’t Play This HAARP.

The revealed secrets surprised legislators. Would an inquiry into the state of the art of electromagnetic manipulation surprise lawmakers today? They may find out that technologies developed out of the HAARP experiments in Alaska could deliver on Gordon MacDonald’s vision because leading-edge scientists are describing global weather as not only air pressure and thermal systems, but also as an electrical system.

Small Input – Big Effect

HAARP zaps the ionosphere where it is relatively unstable. A point to remember is that the ionosphere is an active electrical shield protecting the planet from the constant bombardment of high-energy particles from space. This conducting plasma, along with Earth’s magnetic field, traps the electrical plasma of space and holds it back from going directly to the earth’s surface, says Charles Yost of Dynamic Systems, Leicester, North Carolina. “If the ionosphere is greatly disturbed, the atmosphere below is subsequently disturbed.”

Another scientist interviewed said there is a super-powerful electrical connection between the ionosphere and the part of the atmosphere where our weather comes onstage, the lower atmosphere.

One man-made electrical effect — power line harmonic resonance — causes fallout of charged particles from the Van Allen (radiation) belts, and the falling ions cause ice crystals (which precipitate rain clouds). What about HAARP? Energy blasted upward from an ionospheric heater is not much compared to the total in the ionosphere, but HAARP documents admit that thousandfold-greater amounts of energy can be released in the ionosphere than injected. As with MacDonald’s “key to geophysical warfare,” “nonlinear” effects (described in the literature about the ionospheric heater) mean small input and large output. Astrophysicist Adam Trombly told Manning that an acupuncture model is one way to look at the possible effect of multi-gigawatt pulsing of the ionosphere. If HAARP hits certain points, those parts of the ionosphere could react in surprising ways.

Smaller ionospheric heaters such as the one at Arecibo are underneath relatively placid regions of the ionosphere, compared to the dynamic movements nearer Earth’s magnetic poles. That adds another uncertainty to HAARP — the unpredictable and lively upper atmosphere near the North Pole.

HAARP experimenters do not impress commonsense Alaskans such as Barbara Zickuhr, who says “They’re like boys playing with a sharp stick, finding a sleeping bear and poking it in the butt to see what’s going to happen.”

Could They Short-Circuit Earth?

Earth as a spherical electrical system is a fairly well-accepted model. However, those experimenters who want to make unnatural power connections between parts of this system might not be thinking of possible consequences. Electrical motors and generators can be caused to wobble when their circuits are affected. Could human activities cause a significant change in a planet’s electrical circuit or electrical field? A paper in the respected journal Science deals with manmade ionization from radioactive material, but perhaps it could also be studied with HAARP-type skybusters in mind:

“For example, while changes in the earth’s electric field resulting from a solar flare modulating conductivity may have only a barely detectable effect on meteorology, the situation may be different in regard to electric field changes caused by manmade ionization… ” Meteorology, of course, is the study of the atmosphere and weather. ionization is what happens when a higher level of power is zapped into atoms and knocks electrons off the atoms. The resulting charged particles are the stuff of HAARP. “One look at the weather should tell us that we are on the wrong path,” says Paul Schaefer, commenting on HAARP-type technologies.

Angels Don’t Play This HAARP: Advances in Tesla Technology is about the military’s plan to manipulate that which belongs to the world — the ionosphere. The arrogance of the United States government in this is not without precedent.

Atmospheric nuclear tests had similar goals. More recently, China and France put their people’s money to destructive use in underground nuclear tests. It was recently reported that the US government spent $3 trillion dollars on its nuclear program since its beginnings in the 1940’s. What new breakthroughs in life science could have been made with all the money spent on death?

Begich, Manning, Roderick and others believe that democracies need to be founded on openness, rather than the secrecy which surrounds so much military science. Knowledge used in developing revolutionary weapons could be used for healing and helping mankind. Because they are used in new weapons, discoveries are classified and suppressed. When they do appear in the work of other independent scientists, the new ideas are often frustrated or ridiculed, while military research laboratories continue to build their new machines for the killing fields.

However, the book by Manning and Begich gives hope that the military industrial academic bureaucratic Goliath can be affected by the combined power of determined individuals and the alternative press.

Becoming informed is the first step to empowerment.

GeoEngineering the Planet: THE FIX IS IN 4

Science News

Controlling the Controllers: A Timeline of Geoengineering Rules and Regulations Worldwide

When it comes to attempts to actively steer the environment toward a desired outcome via geoengineering, there are some international treaties and national regulations—but most have no teeth

By Mollie Bloudoff-Indelicato  | October 25, 2012

When American businessman Russ George dumped iron sulfate into the Pacific Ocean last July as part of an elaborate geoengineering plan, environmental organizations around the world cried foul. But did he really do anything illegal? The body of legislation that governs geoengineering on a global scale is sparse and full of loopholes.


Related Article:

Has the Time Come to Try Geoengineering?

By David Biello | August 15, 2012

Earth’s average temperature has warmed by 0.8 degree Celsius over the last 100 years or so. The reason is increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 has now reached 394 parts-per-million in the air we breathe—and would be even higher, roughly 450 ppm, if the oceans weren’t absorbing a good deal of the CO2 we create by burning fossil fuels, clearing forests and the like.

Ken Caldeira article How Far Can Climate Change Go?   How far can we push the planet?



Geoengineering and Climate Change Experiments Altering Natural Weather Patterns 1

Susanne Posel (Source)
Occupy Corporatism
September 7, 2012

According to a report published in Nature, biodiversity thrives in periods of warming; however alarmists do not want this fact to be misconstrued with the dangerous conditions man-made global warming is creating across the planet.

Bálint Miklós, researcher at the Biodiversity and Climate Research Center in Germany believes that there is an underestimation of biodiversity loss when it comes to purveyors of the man-made global warming myth. By using genetics to identify a species, Miklós asserts that climate change disrupts a species natural ebb and flow which is directly tied to global warming.

The myth of biodiversity suffering because of man-made climate change stems from a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) blog that claimed the polar bear population was suffering due to man-made climate change. The claim of the drowning polar bears goes back to a federal study that was obviously doctored. The 2006 paper from the journal Polar Biology lacked any supporting evidence for its claims that “drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open-water periods continues.”


New Plank’s Law Research Has Implications to Understanding Earth’s Changing Climate Reply

Planck’s law violated at the nanoscale

The science on Global Warming is still not settled, Mr. Gore

Sep 14, 2012 Source

Probing Planck’s Law for an Object Thinner than the Thermal Wavelength C. Wuttke, A. Rauschenbeutel
We investigate the thermalization via heat radiation of a silica fiber with a diameter smaller than the thermal wavelength. The temperature change of the subwavelength-diameter fiber is determined through a measurement of its optical path length in conjunction with an ab initio thermodynamic model of the fiber structure. The results differ significantly from the predictions of Planck’s law based on the spectral emissivity of silica. Excellent agreement is obtained with a theoretical model that considers heat radiation as a volumetric effect and that that takes the emitter shape and size relative to the emission wavelength into account. These results are of fundamental interest, may lead to technical applications, and can contribute to improved models of the earth’s climate system. source

In a new experiment, a silica fibre just 500 nm across has been shown not to obey Planck’s law of radiation. Instead, say the Austrian physicists who carried out the work, the fibre heats and cools according to a more general theory that considers thermal radiation as a fundamentally bulk phenomenon. The work might lead to more efficient incandescent lamps and could improve our understanding of the Earth’s changing climate, argue the researchers.