SORRY FIXED THE DARK BACKGROUND
In April 1997, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen stated in a United States Department of Defense news briefing that: (Source: Department of Defense News Briefing: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen)
“Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.”
“The Importance of Understanding Clouds” (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). The document explains that clouds regulate the planets average temperature and help to spread the suns energy evenly over the earths surface.
The article also quotes:
“Even small changes in the abundance or location of clouds could change the climate more than the anticipated changes caused by greenhouse gases, human-produced aerosols, or other factors associated with global change.”
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques – United Nations Treaty (Signed in Geneva May 18, 1977)
The treaty created a list of phenomena that could result from the use of environmental modification techniques (this list is sourced from the United Nations Treaty above):
“earthquakes and tsunamis; an upset in the ecological balance of a region; changes in weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones and tornadic storms); changes in climate patterns; changes in ozone currents; changes in the state of the ozone layer and changes in the state of the ionosphere.”
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].”
Sourced: (Marc Filterman, Intelligence Newsletter, (December 16, 1999) (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html)
“Malaysia to Battle Smog With Cyclones”, by
Chen May Yee, Staff Reporter of the Wall Street Journal, The Wall Street Journal, Thursday, November 13, 1997, page A19.
“KULA LUMPUR – Malaysia’s war on smog is about to get a new twist. The government wants to create man-made cyclones to scrub away the haze that has plagued Malaysia since July. ‘We will use special technology to create an artificial cyclone to clean the air’, said Datuk Law Hieng Ding, minister for science, technology and the environment. The plan calls for the use of new Russian technology to create cyclones – the giant storms also known as typhoons and hurricanes – to cause torrential rains, washing the smoke out of the air. The Malaysian cabinet and the finance minister have approved the plan, Datuk Law said. A Malaysian company, BioCure Sdn. Bhd., will sign a memorandum of understanding soon with a government-owned Russian party to produce the cyclone. “Datuk Law declined to disclose the size of the cyclone to be generated, or the mechanism. ‘The details I don’t have’, he said. He did say, though, that the cyclone generated would be ‘quite strong’. Datuk Law also declined to disclose the price of creating the cyclone.”
Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 – (Research paper presented to the United States Air Force).
“Weather modification offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary… Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of military technologies.”
Also in chapter 2, “In 1957, the president’s advisory committee on weather control explicitly recognized the military potential of weather-modification, warning in their report that it could become a more important weapon than the atom bomb.”
Beware the US Military’s experiments with Climatic Warfare – Michel Chossudovsky (Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and editor at the Centre for Research on Globalization, www.globalreasearch.ca)
“‘Climatic warfare’ potentially threatens the future of humanity, but has casually been excluded from the reports for which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.”
John von Neumann – Mathematician (1903-1957).
“Intervention in atmospheric and climatic matters . . . will unfold on a scale difficult to imagine at present. . . . this will merge each nation’s affairs with those of every other, more thoroughly than the threat of a nuclear or any other war would have done.”
United States and Other World Powers Should Outlaw Tampering With Weather for Use as War Weapon”, Editorial by Senator Claiborne Pell, D-Rhode Island, The Providence Journal Bulletin, 1975. http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1197.cfm
“The U.S. and other world powers should sign a treaty to outlaw the tampering with weather as an instrument of war…. We need a treaty now to prevent such actions – before the military leaders of the world start directing storms, manipulating climates, and inducing earthquakes against their enemies… It may seem a great leap of imagination to … such science-fiction ideas as unleashing earthquakes, melting the polar ice cap, changing the course of warm ocean currents, or modifying the weather of an adversary’s farm belt. But, in military technology, today’s Science fiction is tomorrow’s strategic reality. Apart from the sheer horror of the prospect of unbridled environmental warfare, there is, I believe, another compelling reason to ban such action. We know, or should know, by now, that no nation can maintain for long a monopoly on new warfare technology. If we can develop weather warfare techniques, so can and will other major powers. Experience has taught us that the weapons that make us feel secure today will make us feel very insecure, indeed, when our adversaries possess the same capabilities. Now is the time to act – so we never have to worry about countries directing storms at each other.”
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
, Geneva: 18 May 1977, Entered into force: 5 October 1978. See full text of Convention in Annex.
“Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, … and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare, (…)Recognizing that military … use of such [environmental modification techniques] could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare, Desiring to prohibit effectively military … use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind. … and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective, (…) Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military … use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.”
Beware the US Military’s experiments with Climatic Warfare – Michel Chossudovsky (Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and editor at the Centre for Research on Globalization, www.globalreasearch.ca
“Weather manipulation is the pre-emptive weapon par excellence. It can be directed against enemy countries or ‘friendly nations’ without their knowledge, used to destabilize economies, ecosystems and agriculture. It can also trigger havoc in financial and commodity markets. The disruption in agriculture creates a greater dependency on food aid and imported grain staples from the US and other Western countries.”
The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use – Michel Chossudovsky (Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and editor at the Centre for Research on Globalization, www.globalreasearch.ca
“Environmental warfare is defined as the intentional modification or manipulation of the natural ecology, such as climate and weather, earth systems such as the ionosphere, magnetosphere, tectonic plate system, and/or the triggering of seismic events (earthquakes) to cause intentional physical, economic, and psycho-social, and physical destruction to an intended target geophysical or population location, as part of strategic or tactical war.” – Eco News
Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski – United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981.
“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 be developed within the next few decades.”
John F. Kennedy – 35th President of the United States. Address at the Anniversary Convocation of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9488#axzz2hoTn1hn4
“As science investigates the natural environment, it also modifies it, and that modification may have incalculable consequences for evil as well as for good.”
Also stated, “governments and scientists must work together to make sure there are no destructive effects from such large scale experiments such as weather control.”
“Science has the power for the first time in history to undertake experiments with premeditation which can irreversibly alter our biological and physical environment on a global scale”.
Senator Claiborne Pell – United States Senator for Rhode Island (1961 to 1997).
“Rainmaking as a weapon of war can only lead to the development of vastly more dangerous environmental techniques whose consequences may be unknown and may cause irreparable damage to our global environment. This is why the United States must move quickly to ban all environmental or geophysical modification techniques from the arsenals of war.”
Gilbert Gude – United States Congressman from Maryland Gilbert Gude testified the following before the Senate in 1972.
“We must also consider that the use of weather modification is potentially indiscriminate. Unlike other weapons, the winds and seas are not so direct-able that we can discriminate between one target and another. By their nature, they are area-wide weapons. We cannot flood only military targets or cause droughts in areas producing only military rations. The technology will be used against people regardless of their uniform or occupation. Weather modification will inevitably strike civilians harder than nearby military objectives.”
Also, “The issues of command and control, and the discrimination highlight another disturbing characteristic of weather modification, the difficulty of detection. Unlike other weapons, it may be possible to initiate military weather modification projects without being detected. In other words, the military results may not be visibly tied to the initiating party. This raises the possibility of clandestine use of geophysical warfare…”
THE POINT OF SENDING THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE OUT IS THAT THEY ARE FINALLY EVEN DISCLOSING THE
SPRAYING, NOT THE ACTUAL INTENT AND COMPOSITION OF WHAT THEY ARE SPRAYING
BREAKING: Disclosure at LAST –
Controversial spraying method
aims to curb global warming
– CBS News
INSIDER COMMENT: (This is a developing story)
This disclosure is in the wake of intentional worldwide weather attacks and is acover-up for intensified war crimes called Climate Change. Climate Change IS Climate Control.
We have known that geoengineering IS the deliberate large–scale manipulation of the Earth’s climate! These facts can no longer be hidden and can no longer be denied.
We have known for decades that governments and militaries have waged wars upon the global populations profiting from the on going weaponized weather attacks and profiting from all the death and destruction of the ecosystems.
We have known, and NOW we are finally being told that climate crimes WILL be committed – “for our safety – to curb global warming!”
Controversial spraying method aims to curb global warming
NEW YORK – A fleet of 100 planes making 4,000 worldwide missions per year could help save the world from climate change
. Also, it may be relatively cheap. That’s the conclusion of a new peer-reviewed study
in Environmental Research Letters.
It’s the stuff of science fiction. Planes spraying tiny sulphate particulates into the lower stratosphere, around 60,000 feet up. The idea is to help shield the Earth from just enough sunlight to help keep temperatures low.
The researchers examined how practical and costly a hypothetical solar geoengineering project would be beginning 15 years from now. The aim would be to half the temperature increase caused by heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
The second-largest volcanic eruption of this century, and by far the largest eruption to affect a densely populated area, occurred at Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines on June 15, 1991.
In total, the eruption injected 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide aerosols into the stratosphere. USGS said the Earth’s lower atmosphere temperature dropped by approximately 1-degree Fahrenheit
. The effect only lasted a couple of years because the sulfates eventually fell to Earth.
Although controversial, some think that trying to mimic the impacts of a volcano eruption is a viable way to control global warming. This proposed type of climate geoengineering is called stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). Theoretically if done at scale – and sustained – the impact can be large. The 1-degree temperature drop which accompanied Mount Pinatubo’s eruption is equal to about half of the human-caused warming Earth has experienced since the Industrial Revolution began.
In this handout photo from Climate Central, they say scientists are looking at a variety of technologies – from snatching carbon dioxide out of the air like trees do, to launching giant mirrors into space – to artificially slow global warming.
HANDOUT VIA CLIMATE CENTRAL
Dr. Gernot Wagner
from Harvard University is an author of the paper
. He said their study shows this type of geoengineering “… would be technically possible strictly from an engineering perspective. It would also be remarkably inexpensive, at an average of around $2 to 2.5 billion per year over the first 15 years.”
But to reach that point, the study said an entirely new aircraft needs to be developed. Partly because missions would need to be conducted at nearly double the cruising altitude of commercial airplanes. The study’s co-author
, Wake Smith
explained, “No existing aircraft has the combination of altitude and payload capabilities required.”
So, the team investigated what it would cost to develop an aircraft they dub the SAI Lofter (SAIL). They say its fuselage would have a stubby design and the wing area – as well as the thrust – would need to be twice as large. In total, the team estimates the development cost for the airframe to be $2 billion and $350 million to modify existing engines.
In their hypothetical plan, the fleet would start with eight planes in the first year and rise to just under 100 within 15 years. In year one, there would be 4,000 missions, increasing to just over 60,000 per year by year 15. As you can see, this would need to be a sustained and escalating effort.
As one may imagine, a concept like this comes with a lot of controversy. Like treating a fever with aspirin, this type of engineering only treats the symptoms, it does not fix the root cause of the warming: Escalating levels of heat trapping greenhouse gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels.
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) expressed concerns that the possibility of seemingly quick and inexpensive fixes will distract the public and policymakers from addressing the underlying problems and developing adaptation strategies. And if for whatever reason the aerosol missions stopped, within a few years the temperatures would shoot up at breakneck pace. A pace that would likely be too fast for humanity to adjust.
The AMS official policy statement
regarding this type of geoengineering begins with a warning, “Reflecting sunlight would likely reduce Earth’s average temperature but could also change global circulation patterns with potentially serious consequences such as changing storm tracks and precipitation patterns.”
In other words, the atmosphere is complex. Any band-aid fix is bound to have unintended consequences and possibly cause a new set of problems. The AMS goes on to say results of reflecting sunlight “would almost certainly not be the same for all nations and peoples, thus raising legal, ethical, diplomatic and national security concerns.” One region may become a desert, while others become flooded out.
And if we learn to control SAI to tailor a favorable result, there’s the concern it may be used for the disproportionate benefit of one nation over another. In a 2017 study
in the publication Nature Communications, the authors warn their work “… reemphasizes the perils of unilateral geoengineering, which might prove attractive to individual actors due to a greater controllability of local climate responses, but with inherent additional risk elsewhere.”
But perhaps the greatest reason to be skeptical of aerosol solar sunlight management is that it’s not a silver bullet. As carbon dioxide continues to increase, the oceans are becoming increasingly acidic. According to NOAA, ocean acidification
can cascade through the ocean food chain, reducing the ability of shell fish and reef-building corals to produce their skeletons. Injecting aerosols into the stratosphere simply limits sunshine, it does not tackle the underlying carbon dioxide build up. The ocean would continue to acidify.
Despite the potential drawbacks, the AMS does recognize – even with aggressive mitigation – we can’t avoid some dangerous consequences of climate change
already baked into the system. Plus, the scale of human adaptation is limited. Therefore, they urge caution and continued research.
The AMS policy statement
closes with: “Geoengineering will not substitute for either aggressive mitigation or proactive adaptation, but it could contribute to a comprehensive risk management strategy to slow climate change and alleviate some of its negative impacts. The potential to help society cope with climate change and the risks of adverse consequences imply a need for adequate research, appropriate regulation and transparent deliberation.”