Transcript of "Un intended consequences of offensive weather modification"
RESEARCHED AND COMPILED BY:
ROBERT S. HARDT
NUTRI-EPIGENETIC BIOCHEMICAL ANALYST
“Let your food be thy medicine!”…. Hippocrates
THE KNOWN RISKS, CONSEQUENCES, SIDE EFFECTS OF WEATHER MODIFICATION,
GEOENGINEERING-FLOODS, DROUGHT, HAIL-SNOW STORMS. HURRICANES,
TORNADOES PDF - Google Search
Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification PDF - Google Search
Weather Modification, why should we be concerned?
Weather Warfare: Beware the US Military’s Experiments with Climatic Warfare | Global Research
The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use | Global Research
The US Air Force has the capability of manipulating climate either for testing purposes or for outright
military-intelligence use. These capabilities extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts
and earthquakes. In recent years, large amounts of money have been allocated by the US Department
of Defense to further developing and perfecting these capabilities.
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
technologies which can provide substantial increase in US, or degraded capability in an adversary, to
achieve global awareness, reach, and power. (US Air Force, emphasis added. Air University of the US
Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ emphasis added)
While there is no firm evidence that the US Air Force weather warfare facilities have been deliberately
applied to modify weather patterns, one would expect that if these capabilities are being developed for
military use, they would at least be the object of routine testing, much in the same way as the testing of
new conventional and strategic weapons systems.
NOVA | The Contrail Effect
Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025
Operational Defenses through Weather Control in 2030
A less hypothetical example occurred in 1972 in Rapid City, South Dakota. Project Skywatch, under
the sponsorship of the Bureau of the Interior, seeded some clouds north of the city with over 500
pounds of nucleating salt. A tremendous storm followed which caused a flash flood that burst the
Canyon Lake Dam. The result was 238 people dead and hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.?
Subsequent investigations established that the, seeding was not responsible for the specific storm that
caused the flood. Public opinion polls also showed that the majority of the town's inhabitants did not
blame the weather researchers for the disaster.'
Still, such events do raise some interesting problems. The practical result has been a severe
limitation on weather modification research where there is any likelihood of damage to property or
personal injuries; this has virtually eliminated some types of experiments, such as hurricane
Weather modification experiments can be developed in the laboratory and simulated to some extent on
computers, but, in the end, they must be attempted in the atmosphere. The problem then arises of
unintentional civil damage from weather systems which had been subject to modification experiments,
whether or not those efforts were effective. Imagine,for instance, if it was revealed that a government
agency had been experimenting with Hurricane Andrew before it struck the Florida coast in 1992. Any
government agency would have a tough time surviving a controversy of that magnitude, especially
given the possibility of billions of dollars In compensatory and punitive damage awards.
These examples of projects gone awry also raise some profound questions as to the feasibility of
offensive weather modification, for if such unforeseen consequences occur during relatively
limited experiments, there is a significant possibility that a wider use of weather modification on the
battlefield could result in significant fratricidal damage. The storm you send to strike your enemy may
instead pounce on you. Of course, weather modification is still an emerging technology; presumably,
as progress is made, such risks would diminish, but offensive weather modification will likely always
remain a high-stakes wager.
The payoffs can be enormous but so can the losses.
On the other hand, localized suppression modification-fog and cloud dissipation, hail suppression, and
other such ameliorative techniques-offers greater technological promise and less legal risk. There is
little potential for a successful lawsuit challenging the clearing of a heavy fog, or the dissipation of a
severe hailstorm. Furthermore, although suppression techniques are not as spectacular as the more
overtly hostile offensive weather modification, the results can be important for the military, especially
in an area like Western Europe which is plagued by bad weather and poor visibility.
In general, therefore, it must be concluded that the military feasibility of offensive weather
modification is limited. The present technology is uncertain, research is difficult and the results can be
unpredictable to the point where the risk outweighs the possible gain. In contrast, the more
defensively-oriented suppression techniques have a reasonably sound technological base, good
potential for further research, and a reasonably high payoff. Nevertheless, there remains a question of
ethics and morality in any use of weather modification, especially by the military. Does the military
have the right to interfere with
complex, poorly-understood weather systems in the name of national security?
THE KNOWN RISKS, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OR SIDE EFFECTS OF OF WEATHER
MODIFICATION, GEOENGINEERING PDF - Google Search
CONTINUING RISK: Some governments see geoengineering as a quick, cheap and potentially
unilateral ‘techno- fix’ that allows them to sidestep their historic mitigation and adaptation obligations
to the international community.
Computer modeling and peer-reviewed studies of geoengineering techniques to-date show,
overwhelmingly, that while the interventions may, in some cases, temporarily, lower temperatures or
appear to sequester carbon dioxide, the negative impacts on some or several parts of the tropics and
subtropics could be catastrophic. Galvanized by growing alarm over climate change and the domestic
political costs of reducing emissions and changing lifestyles in Annex I countries, some governments
are increasingly sanguine about developing these technologies.
In the absence of a fully-informed international debate in the UN General Assembly, the political trend
line is clear: one or a handful of major governments will, within the next few years, unilaterally
experiment with large-scale earth system manipulations, purportedly to forestall climate change.
Project: Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts
GLOBAL DIMMING, RAMANATHAN PDF - Google Search
Geoengineering Causing Drought And Fueling Fires » Geoengineering Causing Drought And Fueling
Fires | GeoengineeringWatch.org
GLOBAL DIMMING, JET CONTRAILS, THE 911 EFFECT PDF - Google Search
The Modern History of Global Dimming | Ingienous Designs
CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS. It becomes increasingly evident that the
detected SSR variations play an important role in various aspects of climate change. There are
indications that dimming and brightening may have respectively counteracted and added to
greenhouse warming over the past decades (Wild et al. 2007). Observed air temperatures over global
terrestrial surfaces showed a negligible increase between the 1950s and 1980s, in line with the
prevailing SSR dimming, which may have largely offset the in- creasing greenhouse gas forcing in this
period (see schematic illustration in Fig. 1, left). Since the 1980s, with the transition from dimming to
brightening, the increasing thermal forcing may have no longer been masked (Fig. 1, right), and rapid
warming was observed. For the present synthesis this argument is further developed by utilizing the
largely differ- ing air pollution and associated aerosol levels on the Northern and Southern
Hemisphere. While the NH exhibits high pollution levels with substantial temporal changes
(increasing up to the 1980s and decreasing thereafter; cf. Fig. 3), pollution levels in the SH are an
order of magnitude smaller, with only modest increases and no trend reversal (Stern 2006). This seems
to be reflected in the observed hemispheric surface temperature records, based on the HadCRUT3
dataset (Brohan et al. 2006) (Fig. 4; Table 1). Warming rates in the NH largely differ be- tween the
dimming and brightening periods, with no warming at all during dimming with strong pollution
increase (␣0.002°C decade␣1 between the 1950s and 1980s) but strong warming during brightening
while pollution levels reduced (+0.3°C decade␣1 between the 1980s and 2000) (Fig. 4a; Table 1). This
points again to a potentially substantial modulation of greenhouse warming by anthropogenic aerosol
pollution and associated dimming and brightening. In contrast, in the SH, steady warming is observed
throughout, with only slightly stronger warming rates in the 1980s–2000 (+0.15°C decade␣1) than in
the 1950s– 1980s (+0.11°C decade␣1) (Fig. 4b; Table 1). This fits well with the lack of major
anthropogenic aerosol variations and the gradually increasing greenhouse gas forcing in this
Climate models as used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment
Report (AR4; Solomon et al. 2007), on the other hand, do not reproduce these characteristic
differences in interhemispheric warming. Temperature changes simulated during the dimming and
brightening phases by 23 models in twentieth-century “all forcings” experiments are shown in Figs. 4c
and 4d for the NH and SH, respectively. In the NH, the average warming simulated by the models is
too strong during dimming (by 0.12°C decade␣1) and too weak during subsequent brightening (by
0.10°C decade␣1) (Fig. 4c; Table 1). This points to an insufficient representation of the processes
causing dimming/brightening in the models to properly dampen and enhance greenhouse warming,
respectively (Wild and Schmucki 2011). In contrast, in the SH, where aerosol pollution is much
smaller and greenhouse gas forcing dominates, the models perform very well, with warming rates
close to observed (within 0.02°C decade␣1 on aver- age over both periods) (Fig. 4d; Table 1). This
suggests that climate models simulate decadal warming trends adequately when greenhouse gases act
as the sole major anthropogenic forcing as in the SH, but may have difficulties when in addition strong
decadal aerosol variations come into play, as in the NH.
Another important issue is the potential impact of dimming/brightening on the water cycle. SSR
changes effectively alter the energy available at Earth’s surface to drive evaporation and its energy
equivalent, the latent heat flux. Since on a global level evaporation equals precipitation, any SSR-
induced change in evaporation/latent heat flux will change the intensity of the water cycle (e.g.,
Ramanathan et al. 2001; Wild and Liepert 2010). Since the decline in SSR during the 1950s– 1980s
may have overcompensated the increase in the greenhouse-induced atmospheric downwelling thermal
radiation, this implies also a concurrent decrease in the energy available at Earth’s surface for
evaporation/latent heat flux and a slowdown of the water cycle (see schematic illustration in Fig. 1,
left). This is in line with observational evidence for decreasing precipitation over the same period
shown in Fig. 5, based on NH land surface data from the Global Historic Climate Network (GHCN;
Peterson and Vose 1997). The indicated decline of precipitation on the order of 30–40 mm from the
1950s to 1980s corresponds to a latent heat energy flux equivalent of about 3 W m␣2 over this period.
This fits with the magnitudes of the radiation changes over the same period as shown in Fig. 1 (left).
In contrast, subsequent solar brightening may have added to the increasing greenhouse-induced
downwelling thermal radiation from the 1980s onward and, accordingly, enhanced the surface energy
available for evaporation and the water cycle (Liepert and Previdi 2009; Wild et al. 2008; Wild and
Liepert 2010) (Fig. 1 right). This fits with the observed intensification of the water cycle during the
1980s–2000s (Fig. 5) and underlines the importance of SSR variations for the understanding of the
changes in the water cycle. Wentz et al. (2007) estimated global precipitation changes using satellite
observations from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) for the period 1987–2006, thus
covering the brightening phase. Their estimated increase in global mean precipitation of 13.2 ± 4.8
mm yr␣1 decade␣1 over the period 1987–2006 corresponds to a latent heat flux equivalent of about 2
W m␣2 over the 20-yr period, in reasonable agreement with the estimated radiation changes given in
Fig. 1 (right).
Effect on Rainfall
Prompted by the findings of ABC, several modeling experiments were done on the issue of global
dimming. A General Circulation Model (GCM) study conducted by Ramanathan et al., (2001b)
showed that the rainfall along the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) can be 121 increased by
about 15%– 30%. Several other studies, particularly at finer scale (e.g. Mesoscale) has shown that an
overall reduction tendency of rainfall can be imparted by global dimming (e.g. Ramanathan et al,
2005, Pathirana, et al, 2006). However, Pathirana et al., (2006), using numerical simulations with high
resolution limited area (mesoscale) atmospheric models, demonstrated that while the tendency of
rainfall decrease is shown in overall quantities, the effect of this is largely limited to those rainfall
events with small intensities. The extremely large rainstorms that form the design criteria in urban
storm drain age are not significantly decreased. The modeling results indicated two important points,
namely, 1) There is no significant effect on the mean values of large rainstorms, 2) There is a fairly
large variability in the effect on single rain storms that deviate in either direction (positive and
negative) of the mean effect. As shown in the figure, while the average rainfall reduction of 20mm to
40mm rainfall intensity class due to ABC was about 10 percent, the 25%-50% quantile-spread was
about 100 percentage points!
Fig. 2. Percentage reduction of rainfall for different intensities. Box and Whiskers represent 25% and
75% quantiles, respectively. ((c) Kluwer Academic, 2006.)
It should be noted that the above results were obtained by numerical experiments that neglected the
wash - away effects of rainfall on aerosol build up. In reality, rainfall acts to reduce aerosol
concentrations due to the interactions of cloud microphysics. Therefore, in real world it could be
speculated that the sensitivity of large rainstorms to ABC could be even smaller than that indicated by
the numerical experiments.
While there have not been adequate conclusive studies, the indications to date show that the reverse
tendency of global dimming that is shown in temperature patterns can not be simply extrapolated to
hydrological events. First, the effect of global dimming on large rainfall events that are of concern of
the urban storm drainage planner is not as large as that on smaller events that largely affect the water
resources. More importantly, the level of variability quite large that the influences are almost random.
This applies to both greenhouse warming and global dimming.
Another issue that complicates the combined picture is the quite large spatial and seasonal variability
of the two phenomena. Particularly the anthropogenic aerosol build up is quite localized at a global
scale and is seasonal (Ramanathan et al, 2005). For example the ABC phenomenon in Indian Ocean
reaches its peak in the inter-monsoon period from February to April.
Another salient feature that contrasts global dimming from greenhouse warming is its relatively
small response time to forcing signals. The most important forcings on aerosol dimming are
anthropogenic (or natural) release of absorbing aerosols, wind patterns and rainfall. The impact
of these forcings is almost immediately felt and resulting changes in radiative budget are
This complicated nature of the combined effects is emphasized by a observational data analysis by
Herath and Rathnayake (2004).
Looked at from a global perspective, greenhouse warming and radiative cooling due to anthropogenic
aerosol (ABC or Global Dimming) are opposing forces in terms of energy budget: the former heats the
earth while the latter imparts a cooling tendency. However, recent research indicates that the same
could not be said about the effects on hydrological cycle.
What are the consequences of these interactions in the domain of planning urban water infrastructure
systems (e.g. Storm water, water supplies)? The investigation of means of building the ability to cope
with these anticipated changes into the designs themselves is a timely task. However, we argue that
given the nature of complex interaction of various aspects of global climate change, this in practice,
this does not translate into the simple task of focusing on one impact scenario (e.g. “extremely high
rainstorms will be increased by 20±5 percent in magnitude.”), but rather a broad -based changes
including those of the design philosophy itself, due to the massive, compounded uncertainties in the
process of translating climatic change signals into the impacts on a given locality in a future point in
time. The central principal around which the whole philosophy of dealing today, with the impacts of
climate change tomorrow, is that the science is not in a position to know with any certainty of the
exact nature and magnitude of impacts of climate change on our services in the future, while at the
same time, it is virtually certain that there will be massive impacts. Therefore, the importance of no-
regrets policies that build generic resilience to systems as opposed to optimizing for a given future
scenario cannot be overemphasized. The fact that the variability of the climatic system also has major
forcings on infrastructure in addition to change also supports this policy. Further there are many other
pressures of global and local changes like those of demography, economy, land-use, etc., that
pressurize the infrastructure systems during their lifetimes.
Aerosol Saturated Skies – The New Norm
Though rain and snow is falling in areas of North America, at times in a deluge or “blizzard”, the
droughts in the continental US ( and many other regions around the globe), are getting worse. There
are now often massive areas of drifting cloud cover spanning thousands of miles over land masses and
oceans with very little precipitation. Why is this? Why are the skies so often completely featureless as
these expansive cloud banks and upper level “haze” drift across the globe? If individual clouds can be
recognized in these “drifting masses”, they often appear “melted into” the upper story of
geoengineering “haze”. Why is the wind often diminished under these featureless canopies? Horizon
to horizon geoengineering trails are not the only sign of spraying. Clouds should be “white” and the
sky “blue”. Wispy, dingy, cob web like upper level “clouds” are are not natural and another hallmark
of spraying, as are “silvery white” skies.
The Geoengineering Connection
Atmospheric aerosol saturation diminishes wind and precipitation. The conditions described above are
known consequences of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG) and solar radiation management
(SRM) . All available science data confirms the effect of geoengineering particulates on rainfall.
Though main stream science sources are still not willing to openly admit to the fact that
geoengineering programs have been fully deployed for decades, a growing mountain of evidence
makes this fact all too clear. The ongoing stratospheric geoengineering programs are greatly reducing
overall rainfall and all but eliminating deep blue skies. Blocking the sun with reflective
geoengineering aerosols reduces evaporation. Wind is reduced significantly from atmospheric aerosol
saturation as the particles scatter solar energy and thus reduce convection from the ground that would
otherwise occur from daytime heating. The slowing of the wind reduces evaporation even more.
Further, precipitation cells that do form are often dispersed and diminished from the excessive amount
of geoengineering particulates. This causes too many “condensation nuclei” and the droplets do not
combine and fall as rain but migrate on.
It is important to remember that there are ALWAYS exceptions to the geoengineering consequences
outlined in scientific study. There are simply far too many variables in the extremely complex climate
system. Colliding air masses, strong weather fronts, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc., are all among such
variables that can still produce devastating and destructive winds and rains even with extensive
Global Dimming, The Loss Of Blue Skies
There is a mountain of scientific data to confirm the reality of “global dimming’. Most have never
even heard the term much less noticed the effect over recent decades. Though articles from main
stream publications admit to the “global dimming” issue, most understate the percentage of dimming
and all point the finger at “pollution particulates” as the sole cause. Countless jet aircraft which criss-
cross our skies daily, dispersing millions of tons of toxic metal and chemical particulates, are
completely ignored by all main stream media journalists and sources.
To date main stream media has done its best to avoid even mentioning the subject of geoengineering
much less admitting to these ongoing programs of total planetary devastation. The overall
ramifications from global dimming and geoengineering cannot be accurately quantified. Loss of photo
synthesis, destruction of the ozone layer, reduction in global rainfall, loss of blue sky, toxification of
soils and waters, these are only a few of the known consequences of the global atmospheric spraying
Greatly Diminished Atmospheric Protection From The Sun
What does this imply? As already documented above, saturating the atmosphere with particulates
shreds the protective layers of the atmosphere, namely the ozone layer. Particulate saturation in the
upper atmosphere causes a chemical reaction which does the damage. There is now a massive
Northern hemisphere ozone hole in addition to the Southern Hemisphere hole we have all heard about
for decades. Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering is in all likelihood the primary cause of the global
ozone depletion, not just “CFC’s” as we have been told. Again, this has already been cited above and
can be easily researched. Search “geoengineering damages ozone layer”. All available science makes
this point clear. Without the ozone layer, life in any form would likely not exist on our planet.
There is yet one more issue related to the destruction of our natural protection from the sun’s usual
radiation output: protection from solar flares. Coronal mass ejections or “CME’s” can and will do
horrific damage to our planet and most especially human infrastructure. If electricity grids are shut
down due to a strong CME, the potential dangers are sobering indeed. With no grid power to cool
nuclear power facilities for an extended time, we could face Fukushima x 100, or 200, or?. Without
cooling, meltdowns would eventually occur. Just one major nuclear catastrophe could exterminate life
on the planet, let alone dozens or hundreds of them. Geoengineering is destroying our natural
protection from such an event caused by a strong coronal mass ejection.
Wind Pattern Changes And Catastrophic Methane Release
Wind current pattern changes in turn trigger ocean current changes. Most are completely unaware of
the wind and ocean current changes occurring around the globe. Even fewer are aware of the
ramifications which are already unfolding from these changes.
Ocean current changes are already delivering warmer waters to regions with vast undersea methane
deposits. These deposits are known as “methane hydrate” deposits and literally hold life on earth in the
balance. Many regions around the globe are beginning to expel methane from hydrate and clathrate
deposits. The East Siberian Shelf of the Arctic is already releasing en masse. All available data
indicates that this event alone is changing our biosphere by the day. Though groups of scientists like
the “Arctic Methane Emergency Group” (AMEG) are calling for “emergency wartime scale
geoengineering to avert planetary catastrophe”, available data indicates that the very geoengineering
programs they are selling as a cure, are more likely a major causal factor in triggering the methane
catastrophe in the first place. The fully deployed planetary geoengineering programs have been
altering wind and rain patterns at an ever increasing level for decades. Again, it is these alterations that
have likely been a major factor in the triggering of mass methane release due to the altered ocean
currents and altered hydrological cycles from the ongoing geoengineering programs.
Saturation of the atmosphere with methane is equivalent to covering the planet with a sheet of glass.
The sun’s thermal energy gets in, but does not get out. Though most articles on methane release state
methane to be 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than Co2, this is over a 100 year time horizon.
Over a ten year time horizon, methane is at least 100 times more potent. In addition to the atmospheric
damage caused by the methane release, there is also ocean acidification. As the methane migrates from
the sea floor to the surface, much is dissolved into the water. Oceans are currently acidifying at an
extremely alarming rate. Again, the consequences of methane release alone threatens all life on Earth.
No “Natural” Weather
The global geoengineering/weather modification/chemtrail programs have likely been going on for
over six decades. Recently found documents from the NASA archives indicate that these programs
already had budgets into the hundreds of millions of dollars even by the mid 1960′s. These already
massive climate altering programs were radically ramped up in the last 15 years. Though most of us
alive today have perhaps known little truly “natural” weather, what we are experiencing today is
anything but natural. The climate now “swings” radically from one extreme to another. It is now
common to have spring like temperatures one day and snow (likely artificially nucleated) the next.
These “swings” or “fluctuations” are getting ever more severe.
Manipulation Of The Jet Stream And The Shredding Of The Atmosphere
Is this really possible? Available science as well as observed weather events and jet stream
“anomalies” say absolutely yes.
HAARP is the acronym for a massively powerful “ionosphere heater” facility located in Alaska. This
is a huge and extremely powerful antenna array which is capable of transmitting as much as a billion
watts of power into the ionosphere. The effect of this is to create a ‘bulge” in the atmosphere which in
turn can alter the course of the jet stream. Such alterations can in turn “steer” weather systems. By
such manipulation, storm fronts can be combined and worsened into “frankenstorms”, or broken apart
There are thought to be at least 18 of these “ionosphere heaters” around the globe, some held by China
and Russia. It has also become evident in recent years that “weather warfare” is already a lethal global
reality. The potential of these frequency transmitter facilities is enhanced by the spraying of our skies.
The saturation of the atmosphere with metal particulates makes the atmosphere more “conductive”.
This in turn increases the capabilities of the ionosphere heaters.
Dry Lightning And Out Of Control Forest Fires
An atmosphere that is more conductive from metal particulate saturation can produce more frequent
lightning. These same particulates also have the net effect of “diminishing and dispersing” rain.
Forests around the globe are now filled with dead and dying trees (referenced later in this article). In
addition, the foliage of trees are now covered with what amounts to an “incendiary” dust from the
geoengineering particulates. Add the shredded ozone layer which creates more heat, and the “weather
modified” conditions are even worse. The obvious result is more frequent and catastrophic forest fires.
This phenomenon is being played out around the globe. Summer of 2012 saw the Northern
Hemisphere burning down and now it is Australia and Tasmania in meltdown.
Artificially Nucleated Snow Storms
Yet another seemingly impossible aspect of global weather modification is geoengineered snow
Many will write this one off as impossible without any investigation. That is a mistake as the science
of chemical ice nucleation is very established and commonly practiced in many arenas though it is
hard to comprehend this process being done on such a massive scale.
There are several patents on “artificial ice nucleation for weather modification”, including one from
Artificially nucleated storms appear to be carried out under a myriad of conditions. In many cases,
storms that should have yielded only rain, can be artificially nucleated to “change over” to snow. The
term “change over” has recently been coined by The Weather Channel and other corporate/military/
industrial complex weather agencies. A geoengineered snow event is generally called “heavy wet
snow” (another recent term). This “snow” can begin to fall at temperatures far above freezing though
the ongoing chemical process eventually cools the surrounding air mass. The resulting “snow” and
“ice” can sometimes remain a surprisingly long time in spite of warmer temperatures, a result of
artificial chemical nucleation. This aspect of weather modification is covered in the following article,
“Geoengineered Snow Storms Wreaking Havoc Around the Globe”.
Temporary Cooling At The Cost Of A Worsened Overall Warming
This is the net result of geoengineering. Nature does not give something for nothing. This should seem
all too obvious, but unfortunately the “scientists” in so many cases seem to be completely blind to the
facts. In the case of cloud seeding to produce rain, if they succeed, then that moisture will not end up
where it would have otherwise gone. In the case of saturation spraying that is known to diminish rain
by scattering it into massive artificial cloud cover, where will all that moisture end up? Coming down
somewhere else in a deluge? Is this perhaps why the US is locked in record drought and England is
having record rains?
The cooling effects of geoengineering come at the cost of a much worsened overall warming of the
planet. Even NASA admits the “condensation trails” (geoengineering particulate trails) are warming
The Systemic Poisoning Of All Life On Earth
Sound like an “alarmist” statement or conspiracy theory? All available data points to this conclusion as
a hard and undeniable fact for any that do objective research.
Countless lab tests of precipitation from around the globe (cited above) have been done by concerned
individuals and groups in recent years, and the results are shocking to say the least. Our rain and snow
is quite literally packed with the very same highly toxic heavy metals named in numerous
geoengineering patents as primary elements. The air we breath is also laden with the same toxins
aluminum/alumina, barium, strontium, manganese, thorium, and now even fluoride is being reported
in recent tests from Norway. So much metal has fallen on the boreal forests of the Pacific Northwest
that soil PH changes of up to 15 times more alkaline have been noted. A recent documentary film by
filmmaker Michael Murphy, “Why In The World Are They Spraying” covers some of these changes
and the forest die off that is occurring in boreal forests. Though there are countless articles
documenting the die off of forests around the globe, putting the blame only on increasing
temperatures, drought, and beetles, none mention geoengineering. To omit geoengineering in this
equation is to omit what appears to be the greatest factor of all. The lethal effects of “bioavailable”
aluminum/alumina in rainwater and thus in the soils is well documented. Its effect on trees is also
noted in science studies.
Of course there are corporations who exist to profit from calamity. Monsanto always seems to be at the
top of this list. As geoengineered drought and aluminum sterilized soils force independent farmers to
sell, international ag corporations are there to buy up the land and put to use their “aluminum resistant
What Is Geoengineering Doing To Us?
Inhalation of microscopic particulates is highly damaging no matter what the particulate material.
Respiratory ailments and mortalities are now literally epidemic. Degenerative human diseases that are
linked to heavy metal exposure are even more lethal and are now going virtually off the charts. ADD,
Alzheimer’s, Autism, ALL, immune disfunction, and many other diseases associated with heavy
metals, have all skyrocketed in recent years. According to scientists like internationally know
neuroscientist Russell Blaylock, the heavy metal nano particles are so small that they pass right
through the lung lining into the blood stream. There they can adhere to cell receptors like a plaque,
slowly but surely shutting down bodily functions and the immune system. These metals are all but
impossible to remove once they have become lodged in the body. In addition, virtually every bite we
eat is now contaminated with these toxic nano particles as they are absorbed by plant life, which is
highly damaging to crops.
Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (AKA chemtrails) has now tainted all. Every breath we take,
every bite we eat, all is contaminated. A mountain of data, studies, and testing confirms this conclusion
beyond reasonable doubt.
We are all quite literally under assault. The threat to all life on earth from the global weather
modification programs cannot be overstated. It is up to all of us to help in the task of bringing these
programs to light, and to a halt so the planet can begin to recover. Arm yourself with copies of credible
articles, data, and DVD copies. “Why In The World Are They Spraying” by Michael Murphy is an
excellent tool for spreading the word on this most dire issue.
It is likely the vast majority of military and private sector people involved with geoengineering do not
understand the consequences.
Time is not on our side. Every day global geoengineering continues, our odds are diminished. We must
all pull together in the effort to shine the light on this greatest of all human crimes. Once the
geoengineering issue is truly out in the open, and those who physically carry out the spraying realize
what they are a part of, we have a chance to stop these lethal programs.
Sadly, we will “need” a few more catastrophes until governments will be forced to take badly needed
decisions to efficiently protect the environment and develop a slightly new strategy: adaption (Pittock,
2005). Only then will the sustainable environmental protection attain the importance it deserves.
VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS EFFECTS ON WEATHER, ALAN ROBOCK PDF - Google Search