3 November 2013
“Extreme weather and climate events” are linked to climate change while no mention is made of government programs deliberately aimed at modifying the weather and inducing earthquakes, drought, rain, and tsunamis.
The modern weather modification program, at least in the US, is over 70 years old. Public service announcements printed in newspapers back in the 1960s warned of government intention to modify the weather.
Life Magazine, back in the 50s and 60s, continually covered US weather modification programs, including Project Stormfury which redirected and reduced hurricane intensity from 1962 to 1983. The IPCC’s continuing and absolute silence on such programs is deafening.
With insider knowledge, a chapter in the 1968 book, Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons, predicts the development of technologies that will use the planet itself as a weapon. The chapter, “How to Wreck the Environment,”  was penned by geophysicist and member of President Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee, Dr. Gordon J.F. MacDonald, wherein he states:
“The key to geophysical warfare is the identification of the environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy.”
The chapter envisions four planetary weapons which MacDonald predicted would be fully developed by the 21st century, based on the then-current state of research:
The idea is carried forward in several geoengineering schemes detailed in Eli Kintisch’s Hack the Planet, in a chapter entitled “The Pursuit of Levers,” explained as “small changes in Earth’s system that can have profound global effects.” 
As LBJ’s Science Advisor, MacDonald surely knew of the military’s weather modification program known as Operation Popeye, which ran from 1967 thru 1972 in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. By seeding clouds, the US military caused torrential downpours that inhibited enemy truck and troop movements. Initially exposed by investigative journalist Jack Anderson, the existence of the project was later corroborated in The Pentagon Papers.
In 1996, world renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell, who served on the Bhopal and the Chernobyl Medical Commissions, and was a recipient of the Right Livelihood Award, published “Background on HAARP,”  describing Dr. Bernard Eastlund’s brainchild, the US High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project, as follows:
“It would be rash to assume that HAARP is an isolated experiment which would not be expanded. 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.”
In 2000, reports Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Dr Bertell told The Times of London, “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.” 
HAARP’s use of the ionosphere through radio frequencies, explains Dr. Nick Begich, co-author of Angels Don’t Play This HAARP, also triggers earthquakes and volcanoes.  Begich quotes Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, who said in 1997 at a conference on terrorism:
“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.” 
Pragmatically, the US wouldn’t be worried about such weapons unless they knew with certainty that they were feasible and had, in all likelihood, already developed them itself.
In “Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails,” which was named the 9th most censored story in 2012 by Project Censored, a brief history of known geoengineering events was published.  From that report, the IPCC’s co-founder, the World Meteorological Organization, complained six years ago, in 2007, that:
“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” 
But the IPCC remains mum on these projects, except to deny they exist, while at the same time urging in its Summary that they must continue or global warming will spike. The 2013 IPCC report states:
“Theory, model studies and observations suggest that some Solar Radiation Management (SRM) methods, if practicable, could substantially offset a global temperature rise and partially offset some other impacts of global warming, but the compensation for the climate change caused by greenhouse gases would be imprecise (high confidence).” [emphasis in original]
To claim that solar radiation management methods (which include chemtrails and HAARP-induced changes) are “unimplemented and untested” is patently absurd, and contradicts a library of evidence.
On March 26, 2013, the US Patent and Trademark Office granted a patent to Rolls-Royce PLC to prevent contrails from forming.  By using an electromagnetic wave generator, contrails would not be visible, nor would artificial clouds develop.
It’s not the first such patent. Back in 1962 the US Air Force wanted to add caustic chemicals to hide contrails and prevent unintentional cirrus cloud formation. Patent No. 3,517,505 was granted eight years later, in 1970. Patent, No. 5,005,355, granted in 1988 to Scipar, Inc., used various species of alcohol, which effectively lowered the freezing point of water to avoid contrail formation. The 2013 patent characterized both of these earlier patents as environmentally inappropriate for commercial purposes.
For a partial list of patents for stratospheric aerial spraying programs from 1917 thru mid-2003, see Lori Kramer’s “Patently Obvious: A Partial History of Aerosol and Weather Related Technologies.”  Weather Warfare by Jerry Smith also includes an appendix of HAARP-related patents. 
A Note on Persistent Contrails
What some see as chemtrails, the IPCC and others recognize as persistent contrails that are a normal effect of today’s jet exhaust.
In the 2006 book, Weather Warfare, Jerry Smith explains that persistent contrails are not necessarily chemtrails. From the 1990s on, he explains, all jet engines were modified with a “high bypass turbofan” which increased fuel efficiency and, as a side effect, left persistent contrails that hazed into cirrus clouds after several hours. This is the timeframe when chemtrail sightings begin.
The reason today’s jets now form persistent contrails, explains Marshall Smith, a former NASA-Ames aeronautical engineer, is that the sooty particulates in older jet exhaust provided a nucleus around which ice crystals would form (giving us a contrail). But because of its dark color, the sooty particulate absorbed solar energy which melted the ice crystals, dissipating the contrail. Today’s cleaner and thus clearer jet exhaust allows solar energy to pass right through it, and so contrails persist and spread into high cirrus clouds lasting 24-36 hours.
Smith admits that this development does not disprove chemical, biological or metallic dispersants from jets, and he also states that such dispersants can be sprayed without leaving a chemtrail, depending on the particulate, and on the humidity and atmospheric temperature. But, later, in 2009, he published the following:
“‘Chemtrails’ theory then, is that ‘normal’ jet aircraft contrails disappear in a few minutes, whereas ‘chemtrails’ persist for hours, and therefore are not ‘normal’ and must contain some covert element to make them persist…. Persistent jet contrails can be entirely explained by science without having to resort to a ‘conspiracy theory’ scenario. They appear to be no more than the natural result of the introduction of the hi-bypass turbo fan, improved jet fuel (JP-8) and ‘global warming.’” 
The transition to more efficient jet fuel and cold-flow additives supports this explanation, but none of that can explain the following image, taken earlier this year in Raglan, New Zealand:
The dot-dash effects seen in the sky, Smith explains, are the result of the jet exhaust passing thru sections in the atmosphere that are warmer, creating a broken line or dotted contrail. The following image makes that explanation implausible. Instead, it illustrates that as the plane passed, an on-off switch was thrown several times. It’s hardly likely the ambient temperature and humidity uniformly varied where the plane traveled.
The IPCC specifically addressed the impact of global aviation on the atmosphere in a 2000 report, noting that aircraft were then responsible for up to a half a percent of all of Earth’s cirrus cloud coverage, and that cirrus clouds tend to warm the surface of the planet. 
However, the high-bypass turbo fan and better grade fuel do not explain the grid pattern often seen which is clearly not normal air traffic lanes. Below are two images showing the grid pattern. The first, a generic one found on the web , is one of many such images uploaded by concerned citizens who reasonably fail to recognize a normal set of flight lanes.
This next image is a satellite view looking down at the Celebes Sea, showing chemtrails and their shadows. (NASA)
Finally, the fine dusting of web-like filaments referred to as chemwebs can be explained by a natural arachnid phenomenon known as Gossamer Showers or Gossamer Filaments. Spiders are known to balloon, spreading their webs over the land for miles. Referred to throughout history, naturalist Henry Christopher McCook wrote about them in his 1890 book, American Spiders and Their Spinningwork. 
Unless lab results prove otherwise, these webs are natural and should remain outside the chemtrails discussion.
Impossible to Regulate?
Weather Warfare also spends a good deal of time covering the international agreements against environmental modification (ENMOD). The first major one came in 1978, after the US was exposed for weaponizing weather during the Vietnam War. Smith points out that none of these agreements cover “national defense” which is how governments are able to avoid the ban.
That 1978 agreement specifically objected to hostile use of ENMOD. In 2010, the UN banned friendly ENMOD.  The 193-member Convention on Biodiversity agreed by consensus to a moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments, which governments promptly ignored. With no teeth to that moratorium, it’s not too surprising that such programs continue unabated.
Not two months later, in Cancun, Mexico, at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the IPCC opened the 2010 conference by promoting geoengineering options. 
On a practical level, notes the International Risk Governance Council:
“Countries and firms routinely fly various aircraft in the stratosphere, or send rockets through the stratosphere into space. These activities release significant quantities of particles and gases. A requirement for formal prior approval of small field studies, just because they are directed at learning about SRM and its limitations, is probably unenforceable because judging intent is often impossible.” 
In Hack the Planet, Kintisch opposes an outright global ban on geoengineering, fearing that governments will simply go underground with it. This is bad, he stresses, because it will “worsen perceptions that [geoengineering is] a quasi-military strategy or a technocratic means of control.” Going further, he states:
“A vibrant community of conspiracy theorists is under the belief that geoengineering is already being deployed by governments by releasing so-called chemtrails in the sky.”
But de facto moratoria already exist for such projects, as mentioned above, and Kintisch lists some others, including the London Protocol, the London Convention and a German restriction limiting iron-seeding to coastal waters only. The only element missing in Kintisch’s reasoning is his refusal to believe that governments have already gone underground with it and that geoengineering is already underway.
Kintisch, like all government propagandists, wields the “conspiracy theorist” label like a club, without once offering any logical counter-argument to explain what thousands of sky watchers have observed and documented with photographs, videos, and soil and water tests.
Conspiracies are argued and decided by the thousands in courts all over the world, every day. Most crimes are not committed by lone actors, yet condemning those who recognize a conspiracy pattern has become a simple and lazy way to crush investigation into inconsistencies in government position statements. Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and Wikileaks, along with Daniel Ellsberg, Karen Hudes and W. Mark Felt, certainly prove that governments are the most dangerous conspirators facing humanity today.
Though he offers dozens of reasons why geoengineering the planet would be a bad idea, Kintisch comes out in support of the notion, likening it to a terrarium, “an enclosed controlled garden,” leaving the reader with a sense that planet hacking is a necessary evil that should be regulated.
Modifying the Weather for Profit
In related news, the ecocidal giant, Monsanto, just dropped nearly a billion dollars to get into the weather insurance game, buying Climate Corporation. Forbes reports, “The idea is to sell more data and services to the farmers who already buy Monsanto’s seed and chemicals.” 
Already closely tied to the military, how easy would it be for Monsanto to know in advance of a geoengineered drought or deluge? Monsanto expects its climate insurance business to generate $20 billion in revenue beyond its seed and chemical business.
Likewise, how easy would it be for a nation with decades of experience in modifying the weather and in triggering geophysical events to create the problem of climate change (or exaggerate its significance) to induce the world into approving, even demanding, geoengineering? With decades of patents providing a history of capabilities, could this entire drama, including “extreme weather events” be orchestrated for the simple pursuit of profit?
Isn’t this precisely how the Hegelian Dialect works? Problem→Reaction→Solution (Thesis→Antithesis→Synthesis). In other words, those in a position of power invent a problem, anticipating the public’s reaction to it, and use that reaction to generate demand for the “solution” which was the intended program power-holders wanted to implement in the first place.
At the very least, while the veil may be lifting on geoengineering practices, there is still an apparent effort to conceal the extent to which the planet is already being engineered.
 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis,” Sept. 2013 at http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/. The following link is to the Summary, downloaded Nov. 2, 2013 (in case the original Summary is modified in the future): http://abact.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ipcc-policy-summary-2013.pdf
 Nigel Calder, Ed. Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons, Allen Lane Publishers, London, 1968. Cited chapter by Gordon J. F. MacDonald, ‘How to Wreck the Environment,’ available at http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/1968-macdonald-how-to-wreck-the-planet.pdf
 Eli Kintisch, Hack the Planet: Science’s Best Hope or Worst Nightmare for Averting Climate Catastrophe. John Wiley & Sons. 2010.
 Sister Dr. Rosalie Bertell, “Background on HAARP,” 1996. Available at http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/212/45492.html
 Michel Chossudovsky, “Washington’s New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change,” 4 Jan. 2002. Available at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html
 Nick Begich. Interview by Russell Scott, The West Coast Truth. “Angels Don’t Play This HAARP & Tesla Technology w/ Dr. Nick Begich ,” 22 Sept. 2012. Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33XGrXK6jnI
 William S. Cohen, “Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy,” Sam Nunn Policy Forum, Conference on Terrorism. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 28 April 1997. Speech. Available at http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/04/bmd970429d.htm
 Rady Ananda, “Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails,” Global Research, 30 July 2010. Available at http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmospheric-geoengineering-weather-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails/20369
 World Meteorological Organization, “Executive Summary of the WMO Statement on Weather Modification,” WMO Documents on Weather Modification Approved by the Commission for Atmospheric Sciences Management Group, Second Session, Oslo, Norway, 24-26 September 2007. CAS-MG2/Doc 4.4.1, Appendix C. Available at http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WM_statement_guidelines_approved.pdf
 Frank G Noppel, et al., (assigned to Rolls-Royce PLC). “Method and apparatus for suppressing aeroengine contrails.” Patent No. 8,402,736. 26 March 2013. Available at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8402736.PN.&OS=PN/8402736&RS=PN/8402736
 Jerry Smith, Weather Warfare: The Military’s Plan to Draft Mother Nature, Adventures Unlimited Press: 2006.
 Henry Christopher McCook, American Spiders and Their Spinningwork, Vol. II. Self-published, 1890. Available at Biodiversity Heritage Library, http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/search?searchTerm=mccook+spiders#/titles
 ETC Group, “BREAKING: UN Bans Chemtrails,” 28 Oct. 2010. Available at http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/un-votes-to-ban-chemtrails/
 Rady Ananda, “UN Climate Concern Morphs into Chemtrail Glee Club,” 6 Dec. 2010. Available at http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/un-climate-concern-morphs-into-chemtrail-glee-club/
 M. Granger Morgan and Katharine Ricke, “Cooling the Earth Through Solar Radiation Management: The need for research and an approach to its governance,” International Risk Governance Council, 2010. Available at http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/SRM_Opinion_Piece_web.pdf
 Bruce Upbin, “Monsanto Buys Climate Corp for $930 Million,” 2 Oct. 2013. Available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2013/10/02/monsanto-buys-climate-corp-for-930-million/