In my effort to find truth that can be widely shared about chemtrails, I research and read, and follow labyrinths of information, then record what I find here. My “research” is admittedly biased because when I look up and see weird activity in the sky on a regular basis, my gut tells me something unnatural is going on. I don’t know what, but that doesn’t stop me from asking questions. I wish more people would look up and observe.
Here is a video of an airplane spewing a trail with rainbow colors, which then turns off. https://www.facebook.com/ElitistSecrets/videos/1266775576725299/
Eventually there will be a whistle blower, extenuating circumstance, or declassified document that reveals they have been spraying the skies all along–much like clandestine government radioactive releases out of Hanford in Washington state were finally admitted decades later. I think the chemtrail resistance should apply standard grassroots organizing practices to the Chemical Sky problem.
If you’re new to the whole geoengineering/chemtrail controversy, and don’t know why you should care about it, here is a good introductory video by Dane Wigington giving the rundown. https://youtu.be/uv0Ko2OU4Ec
3/28/17 – An article posted on Digital Trends August 12, 2016, says: The U.S. Air Force wants to detonate plasma bombs in the sky. “The US Navy plans to detonate plasma bombs in the upper atmosphere in order to create more ions in the ionosphere. This is necessary for several reasons: to block enemy communications and protect the Earth from damaging solar winds that can knock out communications systems, damage GPS systems, and take down power grids.” These all seem to be very logical rationalizations for detonating plasma bombs, but what’s in them and what’s the fallout?
“The plasma bombs consist of tiny satellites, about 4″ square, stuffed with ionized gas that is vaporized when heated, thus exploding into plasma.” It doesn’t say what kind of gas. In fact, the Navy does not know how the plasma will disperse once it is released, but the overarching cause of national defense trumps any such concerns.”
3/10/17 – This post about the history of weather modification is based on an article in the Saturday Evening Post of Nov., 29, 1958. The link at the end of the post leads to a more extensive history. http://wp.me/p2lWt3-A7
Here is a more complete history of weather modification people, patents, and programs, compiled by Jim Lee on Weather Modification History.
1/8/17 – Here is a write up about chemtrails and electromagnetic manipulation, i.e. HAARP-type projects, that I was just made aware of: http://www.activistpost.com/2015/02/chemtrails-exposed-history-of-new.html.
In winter of 2016 I witnessed what looked to me like weather modification through chem-trailing. On Dec 29th, I was in the Wallowa Mountain region of Northeastern Oregon, planning to drive about 150 miles north so was checking the weather on my phone. It showed a clear day followed by a snowy day. I headed north on the clear day. As I drove north to Idaho, numerous planes left skinny so-called contrails across the sky — especially in the vicinity of the sun — and the lines spread out gradually. Within a few hours the sky was covered with clouds that had vibratory striations that I thought looked like “perturbations” (See below). There was a beautiful fiery sunset that night, and it snowed the next day. Here is what the formerly clear sky looked like as I was driving.
Chemical Winter Sky Over Northeast Oregon
9/27/2015 – Scientist Publishes Study in Peer-Reviewed Journal that Coal Fly Ash is Most Likely Being Sprayed From Tankers. J. Marvin Herndon, PhD, of San Diego, CA, published a chemtrail study this summer in a peer reviewed publication: The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. The hypothesis he sets out to prove is that tankers are spraying coal fly ash, a hazardous waste product. His paper was redacted shortly after it went live. Here’s the story: http://wp.me/p2lWt3-vV.
1/2/2016 – J. Marvin Herndon, PhD has published a groundbreaking paper in the peer-reviewed journal Current Science (Indian Academy of Sciences) titled “Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth’s biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: implications for India,” according to humansarefree.com
The same article also notes Dr. Rose Cairns, PhD., from the University of Leeds School of Earth and Environment, published a paper in the peer-reviewed Geophysical Journal titled “Climates of suspicion: ‘chemtrail’ conspiracy narratives and the international politics of geoengineering.” She is undertaking research into the Governance of Geoengineering as part of a multi-disciplinary collaborative project between Sussex University, UCL, and Oxford University (http://geoengineering-governance-research.org/). The project examines the social, ethical, and political implications of climate geoengineering proposals. (source)
“This analysis suggests a number of ways in which the chemtrail narrative may contain important insights and implications for the emerging politics of geoengineering that cannot be dismissed out of hand as ‘paranoid’ or ‘pathological’.” (source)
The US government-funded Smithsonian now admits sun blocking trails in the sky are not ice crystals, which has been the party line since the 1990s.
Smithsonian magazine recently noted the comments of geophysicist Charles Long of NOAA:
“Airplane contrails may be creating accidental geoengineering: Dissipating haze from plane exhaust alters how sunlight reaches the Earth and may be unintentionally affecting our climate.”
“This haze is caused by airplanes, and it is gradually whitening blue skies,” says Charles Long of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, who made the comments at a press conference in December’s American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in San Francisco.
This isn’t the first time the Geophysical Union has noted our darkening skies. Back in 2004, Veerabhadran Ramanathan, an atmospheric scientist at the University of California at San Diego and others presented data on the solar-dimming problem, saying it was caused by pollution. They said the proliferation of tiny, airborne particles called aerosols were competing for water molecules to wrap themselves around and fall to earth as rain. Cloud droplets that did form were too small and light to fall to the ground, which essentially causes drought.
“Although scientists have done a lot of thinking about global warming, they are just beginning to grapple with the problem of how global warming and solar dimming interact. As Ramanathan puts it, “It’s like we have a new gorilla sitting down at the table,” according to his statement in a Time magazine article.
The year before, Jim Hansen, a climate scientist with Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Science in New York observed that the “global dimming” effect could have implications for everything from the effectiveness of solar power to the growth of plants and trees. “Over the past couple of years it’s become clear that the solar irradiance at the Earth’s surface has decreased,” he said. At that time experts were saying global dimming was probably caused by tiny particles such as soot, and chemical compounds such as sulphates accumulating in the atmosphere. “Data from 100 stations around the world show that the amount of black carbon in the atmosphere is twice as big as we assumed,” Dr Hansen said.
9/27/2015 – Here is a new interview on Infowars with Dane Wigington with lots of references to documentation about geoengineering: https://youtu.be/MhLBW3b5WSM
5/22/2015 – Here is a post I found interesting because of the level of observation of when spraying occurred over this person’s living space: http://globalskywatch.com/…/chemtrai…/scheduling.html
5/18/2015 – On the May 18 edition of the Alex Jones Show, Alex Jones’ guest, author and radio host Steve Quayle, discusses geoengineering and chemtrails. Quayle was instrumental in bringing the chemtrail controversy to light several decades ago. Of course people said he was crazy. http://www.infowars.com/watch-alex-jones-show/
An Excellent and Informative Article I discovered on Patriot News Two 4/30/3015: https://patriotnewstwo.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/las-vegas-tribune-links-mass-illness-to-chemtrails/
Here is a Whistleblower in Germany
4/24/15 – Today, I came across this video statement by a former German civilian aerospace worker who says he installed spraying equipment for a firm under contract with the military, https://youtu.be/RnCaE_3hImY. His testimony was later debunked on Metabunk.org. What do you think?
There is also a link to more information (mostly auf Deutsch) http://quer-denken.tv/index.php/505-luft-und-raumfahrttechniker-berichtet-ueber-chemtrails.
Why might this be happening, you ask?
We’re just putting together clues and here is a poignant one: There is an unclassified military report filed by Air Command And Staff College Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama in 2009: Operational Defenses through Weather Control in 2030. It was approved for public release and distribution. The abstract says:
“The United States needs to incorporate the defense against directed energy weapons with the same intensity used developing anti-ballistic missile defenses. One of the major drawbacks to optical or directed energy systems is the inability to penetrate clouds or dense fog. Advances in technology are beginning to bring weather phenomena under our control. Greatly increased computing power and micronized delivery systems will allow us to create specific perturbations in local atmospheric conditions. These perturbations allow for the immediate and lasting ability to create localized fog or stratus cloud formations shielding critical assets against attack from energy based weapons.
The future of nanotechnology will enable creation of stratus cloud formations to defeat DEW and optically targeted attacks on united States assets. The solution of the weather control problem involves networked miniature balloons feeding and receiving data from a four-dimensional variation 94d-Var) computer model through a sensor and actor network. A network of diamond-walled balloons enters the area to be changed and then both measures and affects localized temperature and vapor content. This system effectively shortens the control loop of an atmospheric system to the point it can be managed. The capabilities in the diamond-walled balloons are based on the future of nanotechnology.” (For more on nanotechnology and the military see: http://wp.me/p2lWt3-qG)
Questions for those in denial: You say all those lines that obscure the sun are normal contrails. Doesn’t that worry you at all? So, when the government officially rolls out it’s Solar Management Spraying for the public good, will you be for or against it? It can be easily proven via public government documents that such programs are in the works. Furthermore, “Do you find it comforting that the military’s goal is to dominate earth’s electromagnetic spectrum? ”
Talk of Solar Radiation Management Heats Up
1/5/15 – BBC: Geoengineering Climate Fixes Could Harm Billions. Mainstream networks are stepping up the campaign to make Solar Radiation Management (SRM) a household word among the masses. SRM seems to be the favorite of various geoengineering techniques that have been bantered around to save the planet. Basically, SRM requires spraying tiny metal particles into the sky to block the sun. The Powers-That-Be still don’t admit aerosols are already blanketing the sky on a regular basis–even though scientists admitted it more than a decade ago. So, the chemtrail psyop war is on.
What Exactly are they Spraying?
12/31/14 – Anybody who can’t look up and see something very wrong in the sky is blind or willfully ignorant. Chemtrails, contrails, geoengineering, persistent aerosols — no matter what you call it, stuff is spreading out and turning into clouds. I never hear the anti-chemtrail people deny there are lines and patterns spreading out all over the sky. We are told it’s because there are so many more planes these days. Naysayers think everything is fine. But aren’t they a bit alarmed at the ecological ramifications of “airplane exhaust” obscuring the sun and blue sky around the world on so many days by more than 20% in some places?
When anti-chemers call anybody in the mainstream to inquire about the strange skies–like news channels, politicians, or government agencies–they are ridiculed and told everything is fine. So, they go online and try to find some documentation. This becomes a problem because a lot of the “evidence” on chemtrail sites falls into the category of alarmism, and “grasping at straws.” When I follow the links and research them, I find much of the so-called “information” is misleading.
Chemtrails – Where’s the Documentation?
All too often I see alarming headlines or assertions that chemtrails have been proven, or somebody has spoken out, or has been killed for speaking out, but in 99% of the cases, when I do a little background research, these allegations are just hot air. The anti-chemtrail community finds some comfort in sharing and blaring these bits of misinformation, but it is counterproductive because it looks ridiculous to people who are not in the anti-chemtrail community, and it hinders the cause of trying to get more people informed and on board to stop chemtrail spraying.
One reliable source of information proving that it could happen is the US Patent Office. Geoengineeringwatch.org provides a list of relevant weather manipulation and airplane apparatus patents. Of course, the patent office does not publish patents that have military applications or national security implications.
The biggest need I see in the chemtrail activist community is reliable proof that it is happening now. Easier said than done because the mission is likely military and covert, yet supposedly being carried in our best interests. I’m not the first person to come to that conclusion.
Military exercise lays chemtrails over Vancouver Island
In 2002, the environmentalist Earth Island Journal published an article called Stolen Skies: The Chemtrail Mystery, by William Thomas. It recounts a comment by Terry Stewart, the Manager for Planning and Environment at the Victoria International Airport in December of 2000, that he left in a voicemail, saying chemtrails observed were “a military exercise, [a] US and Canadian Air Force exercise that’s going on. They wouldn’t give me any specifics on it.” This was in response to a caller’s complaint about the strange patterns of circles and grids being woven over the British Columbia capitol, and Stewart’s message was later shared with more than 15 million radio listeners.
Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Comox on Vancouver Island is Canada’s biggest radar installation. When asked for a response to Stewart’s statement, the base information officer at CFB Comox replied tersely that: “No military operation is taking place.” Stewart later told the Vancouver Courier that his information had come directly from Comox.
The call was one of many made by people who called Air Traffic Controllers inquiring about the chemtrails. All the ATCs stated nothing was going on, except for one ATC manager who said his radars showed nine commercial jets during the same 45-minute span. The ATC official later confided to WMWV news that he had been ordered “by higher civil authority” to re-route inbound European airliners away from an airborne “military exercise” in the area. “They wouldn’t give me any of the particulars and I didn’t ask,” he explained. Richard Dean, WMWV’s assistant news director and the WMWV news staff counted 370 lines of persistent contrails in skies that are usually devoid of aerial activity that day.
Geoengineering watch files lawsuit
In an attempt to bring the chemtrailing problem to the light of day, Geoengineeringwatch.org announced recently that a team of seven attorneys will be filing a lawsuit to stop the spraying. Two of them, William Blackwell and Joseph Marman, spoke to an audience of some thousand people at an anti- climate engineering event in Redding, CA, on August 14th, 2015. In addition to the lawyers, numerous experts spoke at the event including former government scientists, a former defense industry technician, former military personnel, a Northern California Neurologist, and a CEO for one of the largest environmental and engineering consulting firms in the world. Dane Wigington also presented a slide show featuring the salient points of geoengineering, including why it is so dangerous for whistleblowers to come forward.
The government says geoengineering is still in the planning stages
Sure geoengineering for climate change is being promoted by industry. And yes, there is plenty of good documentation on Solar Radiation Management–the idea of spraying a chemical haze into the sky to block the sun (which is exactly what we see when we look up)–but every mainstream discussion I have found claims programs have not moved beyond the modeling phase. For a primer on the government’s involvement in SRM and other geo-engineering practices, see the 12/27 entry below, based on studies by the US Government Accountability Office.
Spraying us Like Cockroaches?
One assertion the anti-chemtrail community uses to prove the existence of chemtrails is that there is a law that allows the government to “spray us like cockroaches.”
An often repeated assertion, complete with blaring captions, is that Public Law 105-85 proves the government is spraying us with chemtrails because America allows chemical and biological testing on civilians.
The reference is to the 450-page military appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998, that specifically states it prohibits unauthorized human testing, unless it is authorized under certain conditions such as riots, and informed consent (see page 287). Chemtrail activists point to the law as positive proof of chemtrail spraying because publication of a law is enough to provide the required informed consent, they say. Debunkers assert informed consent must be explicit, not just implied by publication, and that, in fact, the law says Congress must be notified before any such experiments start. One thing for sure is that the law reveals the kind of ugly biological stuff the government can use on people in certain circumstances.
Chemtrail debunkers say this law protects the public from human experimentation, case closed. However, there are still assertions by various members of the public, that they are/have been the victims of unauthorized human experimentation. For example if the Public Law 105-85 appropriation really protects people from human experimentation, why was there a need for the 2011 Presidential Commission to look into the problem of uninformed human experimentation?
After reading PL 105-85, I had more questions than answers: like why was this important policy statement slipped into a military appropriations bill? I’m sure there is an interesting back story to that.
I thought I’d also check the 935-page Public Law No: 113-291, which is the military appropriations bill for 2015, to see if there were any smoking guns about chemtrail spraying — like budget allocations — but I got sidetracked. One click led to another and here is some interesting information I found.
The Stated Goal of USSTRATCOM is Complete Dominance of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.
The United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) says it needs to dominate the entire electromagnetic spectrum, because it is where wars are fought these days and such wars can arrive at our doorstep within seconds. (See this Dr. Nick Begich video for a short explanation).
USSTRATCOM is “focusing its enduring electronic warfare and electromagnetic spectrum responsibilities by establishing the Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Control Center (JEMSCC).” GAO had recommended establishment of such a center in a 2012 report, but I have not found a budget appropriation for it in the law. I’m not sure whether to feel comforted or not that the US military is engaged in “enduring electronic warfare.” How about you?
The idea of a Joint Electromagnetic Technology Program has been around for a while. In 2003 the DoD asked for $11 million under that line item to fund the HIPAS (HIgh Power Auroral Stimulation), a facility in Alaska near Clear AFB and Poker Flats Rocket Range. HIPAS is similar to HAARP (both of which are now purported to be closed). HIPAS could “radiate 70 MW ERP and send a pulse of RF up from it and excite the electrons in the ionosphere, somewhat like waves on the ocean.” The blog linked here from June 2014 has a list of more than twenty HAARP-like installations around the world, including the “the mother of all HAARP antennae groups, called SuperDARN (Super Dual Auroral Radar Network).
Look at this to strip away the veil over your perception and leaarn what’s happening
Jim Lee has created the engaging ClimateViewer 3D, an open-source geophysical monitoring map with live intel streaming onto an interactive 3D globe. Click on the blue + sign at right to explore the various layers on the map, including:
Missile Defense Radars (Star Wars)
High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Project
Super Dual Auroral Radar Network (SuperDARN)
DIGISONDE® Ionosonde Network
Lasers and Directed-Energy
Geoengineering SRM Field Experiments
Weather Modification Inc. Projects (Worldwide)
Wyoming Weather Modification Pilot Program (Generators)
Central Colorado Rocky Mountain Program (Generators)
Humboldt River Basin Cloud-Seeding (Generators)
NOAA Reported Weather Modification Activities (2012)
…and much, much more.
Those lines in the sky point to the strategy of multi-dimensional warfare
General C.R. Kehler, Commander United States Strategic Command explains to the US Senate in 2012, the multi-demensional nature of warfare today and the need for JEMSCCC:
“To improve joint approaches to the electromagnetic spectrum, USSTRATCOM is focusing its enduring electronic warfare and electromagnetic spectrum responsibilities by establishing the Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Control Center (JEMSCC). The JEMSCC will expand previous joint electromagnetic spectrum operations efforts, effectively organizing a single warfighter organization to advocate for and support joint electronic warfare capability strategy, doctrine, planning, requirements, resources, test, training, and operational support…”
The fact is, electromagnetic manipulations by the military are real and officially documented. Is the military domination of the electromagnetic spectrum related to the mysterious daily lines and haze in the sky? The government admits it’s screwing around with the ionosphere and we the taxpayers are paying billions of dollars through the years to fund their programs. But nobody is admitting that the artificial clouds we see around the world–which often have vibratory patterns resembling electromagnetic frequency lines–are part of a military chemtrail spraying program. No, we are told they are normal airplane exhaust. Well, maybe they are connected, and maybe not. Perhaps it’s just a case of us being able to observe the military’s electromagnetic manipulations occurring (which are admitted in government documents) because the so-called normal “contrails” happen to be everywhere and spreading into clouds these days, due to so many more planes in the sky, as we are told.
If we believe what is officially overt and asserted we can conclude that:
- Chemtrails/contrails are NOT caused by geoengineering.
- The military is manipulating the electromagnetic spectrum.
- The military does release aerosolized nanoparticles over the earth.
The average person does not look up. Even if they do, they may not question what they see. If they do have questions, they believe everything the authorities tell them. When they find out the military is dominating the electromagnetic spectrum from deep inside earth and out to the ionosphere, they will be okay with it because it’s all in the name of national security, freedom, and the American way. When they finally understand the latest revolutionary trends in nanotechnology, they will support without question the military products and programs being developed to control life at the molecular level as well, for military purposes, never really considering that they may be breathing in these nano-particles.
I was finally able to find a couple of documents about releases of some materials people are finding in water, snow, and soils under heavy chemtrail spraying, specifically barium and lithium. But in these cases, the materials are apparently let out in the ionosphere, which starts at about 53 miles up.
These are media releases from the culprits about releasing payloads of metals over the earth and engaging in weather modification experiments.
The first list shows materials and dates released from Poker Flats Rocket Range, the second by NASA.
Here is a Democracy Now interview of Vandana Shiva and Gwen Dyer (columnist and author of Climate Wars), discussing the pros and cons of Geo-Engineering to control global warming.
12/27/14 – GAO report on Geo-engineering.
In July 2011, the Government Accountability Office Center for Science, Technology, and Engineering issued a 135-page Technology Assessment called Climate Engineering: Technical Status, Future Directions, and Potential Responses.
The report points out the idea of climate manipulation is not new, and illustrates the fact with Table #1, a chronology of various geoengineering ideas since 1877. It contains this little piece of geoengineering trivia:
1977 – Cesare Marchetti, Italian industrial physicist coined the term “geoengineering” and proposed sequestering CO2 in the deep ocean.
The GAO had released a previous geoengineering report in 2009, which pointed out that:
“Federal agencies have funded some research and small demonstration projects of certain technologies related to proposed geoengineering approaches; but these efforts have been limited, fragmented, and not coordinated as part of a federal geoengineering strategy. Officials from interagency bodies coordinating the federal response to climate change stated that their offices (1) have not developed a coordinated research strategy, (2) do not have a position on geoengineering, and (3) do not believe is it necessary to coordinate efforts due to the limited federal investment to date. “
GAO still concludes, two years later, that “Climate engineering technologies are not now an option for addressing global climate change, given our assessment of their maturity, potential effectiveness, cost factors, and potential consequences.”
Meanwhile, thousands of people see manipulation of some kind happening on a grand scale in the skies above them all around the globe. Could it be all those streaks, haze, and weird vibrational cloud formations have nothing to do with trying to fix global warming, as the government contends? If that’s the case, then why are they there? Well, the GAO report won’t tell you that.
What the report does provide is a corroboration and in-depth overview of the party line facts many of us have been piecing together about geo-engineering. You know, the stuff about mitigating CO2 (CDR) and deflecting the sun from earth via Solar Radiation Management (SRM). It explains who is behind it, the ethical issues, the legal hassles; notes conferences at the Royal Society, in the US, and in the UN, etc. It’s all there, nicely summarized in the GAO report.
If you want to introduce somebody gently to the fact that people are out to hack the planet, there is no better source than this Geo-engineering 101 produced by the US Government Accountability Office. And, their materials are not copyrighted, so you can spread them around as much as you like.
Your friends and family, who think you’re a conspiracy nut, will be able to read from a trusted source, about technologies for spraying stratospheric aerosols, brightening the clouds, and scattering reflectors into space. Who knows, maybe it will cause them to start glancing skyward and asking questions.
The report utilizes a technology readiness level scale (TRL) to assess the current maturity of climate engineering technology. TRL, it says, is a standard tool for assessing the current state of emerging technologies before their full-fledged production or incorporation into an existing system. I added the emphasis to underscore the idea that, even if they’re not doing it now–as the mainstream contends–geoengineering is coming down the pike, so get ready.
In 1992 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy proposed adding more dust to naturally occurring stratospheric dust to increase the net reflection of sunlight.
The assessment contains some interesting highlights, such as results of a survey and focus groups conducted by the GAO on behalf of the NAS, to gauge public perception about geoengineering. They reference a similar survey conducted by London’s Royal Society–which those who have been doing their homework know was orchestrated and skewed by rabid geo-engineering promoter David Keith to get government funding for the geo-engineering clique. More about Keith below.
The government report also has an overview of basic global warming theory, complete with formulas and citations.
I found section (3.2.1) on Stratospheric Aerosols particularly interesting. It cites several studies and says it could cost $35 billion to $65 billion in the first year and $13 billion to $25 billion in each subsequent year to inject the sky with 1 million tons of a sulfur gas (that will become sulfate aerosols) per year. Several potential aerosol injection systems were considered in this cost, including KC-135 aircraft-refueling tankers and F-15 aircraft. “They found that the total cost of using the aircraft-refueling tankers would be lower than the total cost of the alternatives, but the tankers do not fly high enough (Robock et al. 2009).
“Using the F-15s was the least expensive among the alternatives. Robock and colleagues’ estimated operating cost for the F-15s would be lower because they use less fuel and fewer pilots than the tankers. However, because the F-15s are smaller than the tankers, they would require more than ten times the number of trips that the tankers would require to inject the same quantity of aerosols. Other alternatives considered by the authors, including injection systems based on artillery or balloons, would be significantly more expensive than the fighter aircraft. The scaled estimates do not include system design, fabricating aerosol dispersal equipment, or infrastructure.”
While the published research has focused on sulfate aerosols (Royal Society 2009), other aerosols such as alumina (Teller et al. 1997) and self-levitated nanoparticles (Keith 2010) have also been considered.
There are explanations about various geoengineering modeling studies, and 16 pages of geoengineering scientists and references, for further research at the end. Enjoy!
GAO contact for the technology assessment is:
Timothy M. Persons,
Ph.D., Chief Scientist, at (202) 512-6412 or
American Geophysical Union (AGU) SF, CA, Dec 15 – 19. http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2014/welcome/
When you spot a plane flying overhead and it’s leaving a chemtrail, see if you can find it on the Airplane Flight Radar Map. You can zoom it in to your area. This map only shows commercial airliners, and perhaps some private jets. Military aircraft do not have to file flight plans.
When I compared chemtrails overhead in my locale with the commercial airliners on the map, not one showed up. In other words, none of the commercial airplanes was leaving chemtrails. So, I concluded the spraying is being done by the military. Then, more than a year later, I heard an interview on CanadianSpartacus with a retired pilot living in NE Oregon, who has made somewhat of a hobby out of tracking the chemtrail planes. He sees quite a few commercial jets spraying chemtrails and deduces most are coming out of Portland, Seattle, and Boeing. Speaking from experience, he says pilots are not aware their planes are spraying the persistent aerosols; that they are not turning switches on and off, as some people believe, but that the stuff must be being mixed in with their fuel without them knowing it.
I sent a friend this geo-engineering weather report. His response, below, instigated a long day of searching the Net for whistleblowers who have actually been involved with creating chemtrails.
“I find it hard to believe that the amount of aerosol spraying he says is going on can occur without the public seeing it. They are talking about a truly massive amount of chemicals. Unless we can get proof from people actually involved in the manufacture of the chemicals, the transportation, the installing in the planes and the pilots who are flying and spraying and, more importantly, the people approving and directing and funding the activities, I don’t think we can say for certain this is happening,” he wrote.
I agree that those are reasonable questions. Problem is, I can see it happening. Can’t everybody? Or do you need the special glasses (lol). Nobody’s talking because 1) It’s illegal to spray poisons on people and land, so what agency or business would admit it? 2) And, if it is a military operation, then it’s national security and can’t be discussed.
CHEMTRAIL WHISTLEBLOWERS & Other PROFESSIONALS
Kristin Meghan: Few people want to talk about the elephant in the room. The stellar whistle blower on the chemtrail front is Kristin Meghan, formerly a US Air Force Industrial Hygienist and Environmental Specialist. She stumbled on chemtrail ingredients on base while doing her job. She urges people to collect rain and snow samples and email her at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Scott Stevens, former Meteorologist and Weatherman turned chemtrail crusader. He’d like some whistleblowers to come forward. He is well spoken and his site weatherwars.info has pictures and an interview archive. But a major link from his site is the Blue Water Academy, which seems a bit out there and might turn some people off. To Wit: “Ormus is the Event Horizon opening the Quantum Connection to your Light Body via trillions of microtubules.”
Ted Gunderson, Former FBI Chief, LA, Dallas, and Memphis, talks about the existence of chemtrails, along with a lot of other conspiracy theories, then he dies mysteriously. On this video Gunderson asserts chemtrails are poison and murder that must be stopped. He thinks they are being sprayed from unmarked airplanes based at Air National Guard in Lincoln Nebraka, and Fort Sill Oklahoma. His doctor, Dr. Edward Lucidi, said Gunderson had signs of arsenic poisoning. He agrees the things Gunderson spoke of were true.
Rosalind Peterson, former USDA claims adjuster noticed chemtrails as part of her job. She is now an activist. See www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org. She testified about chemtrails at the United Nations.
KSLA News in Arkansas, uploaded in ’07. Bill Nichols collected water and KSLA had it tested. It was very high in barium. Proving the source of it is another matter. The news reports discusses hundreds of government atmospheric tests conducted on the US public and military troops. Mark Ryan, director of poison control center says he has checked into chemtrails but is still sceptical.
NASA scientist at Jet Propulsion Laboratories discusses stratospheric aerosol spraying pros and cons.
Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD neurosurgeon. What Chemtrails are doing to your brain. Chemtrails, Nanoaluminum and Neurodegenerative and Neurodevelopmental Effects.
Anonymous Whistle Blower Mechanic: Airline Mechanic allegedly discovers chemtrail equipment. Conjectures waste disposal trucks are used to fill plane tanks with chemicals.
Pilots, Doctors, Scientists Tell the Truth: 2 1/2 hrs of testimony to Shasta County of Supervisors meeting is condensed to 15 minutes in this video. Witnesses include:
- Iraja Sivadas, Member Union of Concerned Scientists
- Jeff Nelson, Former Commercial Airline Pilot. “It’s not natural. It’s not normal.”
- Allan Buckmann, Former Military Meteorologist/Fish and Game Biologist. “We’ve been led astray by the military industrial complex.” Reasons he proffers for the spraying; “…hiding an electromagnetic war, the search for more oil, opening arctic shipping, environmental stock gambling, and increased resource extraction.”
- Dr. Frank Livolsi, Doctor and pilot.
- Mark McCandlish, Former Defense Ministry Technician.
- Francis Mangles, 34 yr USFS Biologist
- Dr. Hamid Rabiee, Neurologist
- Joseph Marman, Attorney
Belfort Group, Belgium Symposium Dr. Coen Vermeeren, Aerospace Engineer, Delft University of Technology was asked to reveiew the “Case Orange” report.
Mass Action Demand: Streamed Live on May 19, 2014. Interviewed Jack (not his real name) a retired commercial airline pilot who noticed chemtrails coming from other commercial airliners. He had heavy metal poisoning–probably job related. Saw a patent by Edward Teller for introducing aluminum oxide into airplane fuel. He’s convinced they’re doing it. The interviewer had put out a call a couple of years ago for pilots to tell the truth. He said 5 contacted him with the idea of going on air, one from the military, but they later all chickened out.
(Added 2/28/17) C.E. Carnicom posted testimonies of two anonymous whistleblowers in 2000. One stated he works as an airline mechanic who discovered strange tanks, pumps, pipes and a control boxes in the waste collection areas of airplanes. When discovered, he was reprimanded and suspended, then when he searched for more information online at home, he received a notice not to look at such Internet sites! Another unnamed whistleblower read the report of the mechanic and wrote in saying (s)he worked in upper management for a commercial airliner and was briefed on Project Cloverleaf in 1999, which entailed releasing chemicals from commercial aircraft on behalf of the government. When (s)he pressed for details, the response was that information was on a need to know basis, but that the program was said to be extremely important and there were not enough military aircraft available to release the chemicals in the large amounts needed. These reports are recorded at: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_chemtrails27.htm
A January 15, 2015 post on intellihub.com says a military pilot reveals they are told to fly specific routes and satellite communication links control the aerosol dispersal. He also said pilots and maintenance crews are rotated often and only spend about 18 months at any base. Each base covers a 250-mile zone and each fleet squadron of planes can cover three states or a larger swathe of ocean. Some flights are occurring from small unnamed islands where new bases are being built at a rate of eight per year. The superiors say it is a matter of national security and that hostile nations are also building the atmospheric shields. “We are shown videos in our training, of catastrophic destruction to our Homeland by very sophisticated weapons, then are told that these will be the consequences if we don’t fly,” (s)he says. “Even my own flight crew would have me arrested and court martialed if they knew of this dialogue.” The secret program is called Indigo Skyfold. Also it is stated to expect a new, extremely toxic form of chemtrail mix to be sprayed using new technology and that it will be completely invisible. There is no way to verify the veracity of these claims. It is advised to make a test with a Geiger Counter with Alpha-Beta probe by wiping ones car hood and windshield with a clean paper towel and checking it for radiation.
A story circulated in 2012 about the confessions of a drunken pilot trying to impress a woman in a McMinville, Oregon bar by bragging that his employer, Evergreen Aviation, was spraying chemtrails. Details in the article could have been gathered from other online sources. Nevertheless, the image below shows some interesting connections noted in the article.
Here are some other Geoengineering Links
Project Cloverleaf Timeline
Chemtrails: The Consequences of Toxic Metals and Chemical Aerosols on Human Health By Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri
“Effects of Navy chaff release on aluminum levels in an area of the Chesapeake Bay.” US military’s use of aluminum in its aerosols. It is used because of its electrical conductivity, durability, and light weight. The US Air Force reported in 1997 that it released “2 million, 6-7 ounce bundles of CHAFF.” These are laid by military aircraft from 15-50 miles in length”– PubMed. US National Library of Medicine. June 2002:
Dr. Marijah McCain. “Chemtrails and Barium Toxicity.” April 6, 2002:
Public and federal agencies concerned about the potentially harmful or undesirable effects of chaff on the environment.”
Dr. Hildegarde Staninger reported last year that “exposure to aerial emissions of nano composite materials resulted in cholinesterase inhibition.” Sept. 7, 2009
Dr. R. Michael Castle addresses the chemtrails toxicity issue. He is a noted polymer chemist who has been interviewed frequently and has written articles about the extreme hazards of chemtrails. Dr. Castle also wrote a ground-breaking document, the Universal Atmospheric Preservation Act [UAPA]. This document has been “bouncing around Congress since 2008.”
You can expect that anybody speaking out against chemtrails will be 1) ignored, 2) belittled, 3) threatened, and 4) disappeared.
Secret Defense Department Experiments?
Dec. 6, 2014 — With no clear answers about all the weird things going on in the sky, and falling out of the sky–we are left to guess about what’s really going on, because it is obvious that something is going on.
We know from public documents that: the military is combining nanotechnology, aerosol spraying, and electromagnetic frequency manipulation as part of its defense and homeland security programs.
The fact is, nanotechnology is all the rage and we the taxpayers have paid the military hundreds of millions to investigate various aspects of it over the past 20 years, at least. The spraying of tiny bits of metal and biological agents has many applications that are attractive to the military. And, the US doesn’t really have a choice because other governments are doing it too.
All natural and living systems are governed by atomic and molecular behavior at the nanoscale. Research is now seeking systematic approaches to create revolutionary new products and technologies by control of matter at the same scale. — M.C. Roco, National Science Foundation
“Nanotechnology holds promise for breakthroughs in health, manufacturing, agriculture, energy use and national security.” Chairman Nick Smith, Subcommittee on Basic Research of the Committee on Science — hearing on Nanotechnology: The State of Nano-Science and Its Prospects for the Next Decade , June 22, 1999.
I noticed in the National Defense Authorization Act notes for 2014 that Mary J. Miller, supreme head of the Army’s Research and Technology division, has specific expertise in these topics and published papers on:
- Spatial Light Modulators
- Three-Dimensional Color Holography Display
- Self-Pumped Phase Conjugation with Nanosecond Pulses in Strontium Barium Niobate
- Enhanced Photorefractive Beam Fanning Due to Internal and External Electric Fields
Here are some tidbits from the National Defense Authorization Act hearing notes…
- The envisioned security environment of the future will also require military aircraft to operate in highly contested environments. Manipulation of the electromagnetic spectrum can help us negate the integrated air defense of our adversaries.
- DARPA created and fielded a wide range of highly effective tools including the High Altitude LIDAR Operational Experiment (HALOE), a sensor that delivered three-dimensional view of the battle space to operational and intelligence users.
- Technically, S&T continues to improve our detection and advanced sensors, both active and passive, and novel combinations of acoustic, radio-frequency, optical, and infrared sensing that may provide definitive detection and characterization of network analysis.
- Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, where increased understanding of material properties at the nano-scale can open doors to new classes of electronics and sensors, chemical catalysts, high-strength materials and energetic properties.
Nanotechnology is a high stakes money game for the military-industrial complex. Here we have an international legal firm, Covington & Burling LLP, with a nanotechnology group who works on nanotechnology risk management, among other things. The firm’s Nanotechnology Group includes Michael Chertoff, who once served as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Some of his work is “on behalf of clients in various industries that are developing and benefiting from nanotechnologies, including the semiconductor, aviation, defense, software, telecommunications, and biotechnology, as well as university-affiliated research laboratories.”
The international scientific firm, RTI, works extensively with nanotechnologies, and conducts large-scale environmental management projects for both government and industry, helping them make critical policy and regulatory decisions. They have a group of environmental engineers, scientists, statisticians, economists, biologists, legal and regulatory experts, and risk assessors to provide innovative and cost-effective solutions to clients’ complex environmental challenges.
Links to comb through to see if you can get clues as to whether the government is responsible for mysterious nanofibers and heavy metal mists falling out of the sky.
Old School Chemtrail, Courtesy US Gov.
Government Aerosol Research Conference
In the 1970s the Edgewood Arsenal assembled a team of scientists to develop improved obscurants, especially against laser systems. They studied aerosol physics and chemistry. Starting in June 1978, Ed Stuebing brought together recognized experts to share research in aerosol physics. The first conference focused on the optical and physical properties of aerosols and aerosol characterization methods (Stuebing, 1978). Interest in the annual conference grew and soon included researchers from the government, academia, and industry, as well as international visitors.
The International Aerosol Conference
The International Aerosol Conference (IAC) is held every four years by an aerosol association on behalf of the International Aerosol Research Assembly (IARA). The 2014 International Aerosol Conference was hosted by the Korean Association for Particle and Aerosol Research (KAPAR).
Past International Aerosol Conferences:
- 1984 1st IAC, Minneapolis, USA (AAAR)
- 1986 2nd IAC, West Berlin, Germany (GAeF)
- 1990 3rd IAC, Kyoto, Japan (JAAST)
- 1994 4th IAC, Los Angeles, USA (AAAR)
- 1998 5th IAC, Edingburgh, Scotland (AS)
- 2002 6th IAC, Taipei, Taiwan (TAAR)
- 2006 7th IAC, St. Paul, USA (AAAR)
2010 8th IAC, Helsinki, Finland (FAAR)
IARA Main Page
The European Aerosol Assembly plans for hosting of European Aerosol Conferences, as well as to promote and develop of the field of aerosol science. Here are topics on the agenda for the meeting in Italy, Sept 6-11, 2015.
- Aerosol-based Nanotechnology
- Aerosol Chemistry
- Aerosol Modelling
- Atmospheric Aerosols – Aerosol Processes and Properties
- Atmospheric Aerosols – Specific Aerosol Types
- Electrical Effects
- Combustion Aerosols
- Indoor and Working Place Aerosols
- Inhalation, exposures and health (formerly Particle-Lung Interactions)
More Misc Research Materials
Embury, J. F. (2004). Optimum smoke nanoparticles that maximize attenuation at infrared and radar wavelengths. Proceedings of the 24th Army Science Conference. Orlando, FL.
Embury, J. F., Walker, D. L., & Zimmermann, C. J. (1994a). Screening smoke performance of commercially available powders II: Visible screening by titanium dioxide (ERDEC-TR-168, ADA284072). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Edgewood Chemical Biological Center.
Sunday morning chemtrail attack
Oct. 6, 2013 — I was hoping that, since the government is “shut down,” the chemtrail sprayers would be on furlough. But no such luck.
I go outside and look at the sky about 7:30 a.m. It looks like it would have been a nice sunny October day. In the past, I had noticed that blue skies remained clear on weekends. Today, I could see by the telltale chemtrail sky conditions in all directions, the spraying had begun.
So, I thought I’d do my part to contribute to the chemtrail watchers evidence.
- Chemtrails on the eastern horizon on Sunday morning, Oct. 6, 2013
What’s over there to the east? Well, there is a state park, and a few farm plots, including an enterprise that specializes in growing lavender for alternative healing and ships it around the world. There is another outfit that grows trees and collects pollen for medicinal purposes. There is also an important tributary to Lake Coeur d’Alene, where the tribe has been working hard for years to reestablish native cutthroat trout spawning habitat. I hope these people will start to look up and question whether those trails are having any negative effects on their missions.
- Chemtrails in the west on Sunday morning.
So, I looked to the west and saw at least four trails in a grid pattern. People who say these are normal contrails should ask why the flight pattern is so helter skelter.
- Chemtrail widening
I stood and watched for a while, to see where the next plane would come from. As I did so, I noticed that main bright trail leading into the eastern horizon widening. No more planes were coming right away, and I have another mission today, so don’t have time to stand around looking at the sky. But I did go out about a half hour later and saw another plane had indeed come to spread its nefarious poison. And, as you can see, the trail above had widened considerably.
- More chemtrail layers over north Idaho
The chemtrails in the picture above seem to have drifted north a bit and spread out. They are being crossed by a fresh trail.
- Chemtrails to the east are spreading out and creating clouds.
Two planes flying in opposite directions are spraying more poisons in the east/west pattern right over the house here. I could only catch one at a time. This one is heading east.
Here is a shot of the northern sky at about 9:15 a.m. How many trails can you count? I see at least eleven. I didn’t realize we were under such a busy flight path here in rural north idaho.
- Chemtrails in the northern sky spreading out to form a layer of clouds. What’s in those things?
Is this just normal contrail activity with exhaust that spews out water vapor that turns to ice crystals, along with carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfate, and soot?
Environmental Testing –
A Lake Shasta sample from Pit River Arm tributary tested at 4,610,000 ugl (ugl=ppb or parts per billion), over 4,610 times the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for aluminum in drinking water for the State of California. A pond in Shasta County, in a “filtered location”, tested “0” for aluminum when filled. After 1 ½ years exposure to the atmosphere, the pond tested at 375,000 ug/L or 375 times the MCL.
In addition, a snow pack sample taken from Mt. Shasta tested at 61,100 ug/L or 61 times the (MCL) for aluminum in drinking water for State of California.
Tree bark from dying trees has recently tested positive with aluminum, barium, strontium and titanium.
Is Geoengineering Real?
It’s official: Not only is geoengineering real, it has become a hot topic in scientific circles, with billionaire investors willing to pour lots of money into university research.
An Internet survey conducted back in 2010 (by geoengineering boosters) concluded that about half the population is familiar with the term “geoengineering” and supports further research.
So, can you provide a definition? If not, here you go:
Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract climate change. Some consider it “hacking the planet” to counteract global warming.
Geoengineering/Chemical Contrails/Stratospheric Aerosols. March 16th 2011, Commack NY (Long Island) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Survey Says: People Like Geoengineering
Seventy-two percent of the survey respondents, in a total of 3,105 from the US, UK, and Canada, said scientists should keep studying geoengineering. I suspect this positive outcome may have something to do with the fact that the survey was conducted by players with a large financial stake in geoengineering practices. Survey proponents were the same people that are lobbying governments for public money to “hack the planet.”
Of interest though, the strongest opposition in the survey did not come from the environmental community as one might expect, but from “people who self-identify as politically conservative, who are distrustful of government and other elite institutions, and who doubt the very idea that there is a climate problem,” according to climate scientist Professor David Keith, who was affiliated with the University of Calgary at the time. Keith seems to be ubiquitous in geoengineering circles.
Environmentalists and Free Thinkers Tend to Oppose Geoengineering
Despite Keith’s claims, a group of environmentalists from nearly 200 countries reportedly gathered in Nagoya, Japan in late 2010, to urge the United Nations to impose a moratorium on all geoengineering projects, such as artificial volcanoes and vast cloud-seeding schemes designed to deflect some of the sun’s rays away from earth.
“It’s absolutely inappropriate for a handful of governments in industrialized countries to make a decision to try geo-engineering without the approval of all the world’s support,” Pat Mooney, from ETC Group in Canada told Reuters. “They shouldn’t proceed with real-life, in-the-environment experimentation or the deployment of any geo-engineering until there is a consensus in the United Nations that this is okay,” Reuters reported. The U.N. climate panel said a review of geo-engineering would be part of its next major report in 2013.
What is Geoengineering?
Approaches to geoengineering fall into two broad categories: one is Solar Radiation Management (SRM), which attempts to cool down the planet by deflecting some of the sun’s incoming radiation by introducing sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere. This is also known as solar geoengineering or sun dimming, and is intended to mimic the action of volcanic ash. The idea is to constantly replenish a layer of small particles in the stratosphere that scatter sunlight back to space.
The SPICE project investigates the feasibility of one so-called geoengineering technique: the idea of simulating natural processes that release small particles into the stratosphere, which then reflect a few percent of incoming solar radiation, with the effect of cooling the Earth with relative speed. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
SPICE: The Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering
The SPICE project in the UK, is a well-documented example of SRM based on releases of sulphate-based particles into the troposphere in an attempt to reflect the light rays from the sun and reduce warming. The SPICE project was delayed for six months so researchers had time to analyze public perceptions of geoengineering.
The other form of geoengineering is Carbon Drawdown & Removal (CDR), which attempts to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and trap (sequester) it somehow.
Energy Industry Likes This “Cheap” Solution to Climate Change
The energy industry and billionaire backers of projects like SPICE have come to the conclusion that geoengineering in general is much quicker and cheaper — and therefore much more preferable — than retooling society to reduce emissions.
Some scientists prefer to envision it as a last ditch effort to save the planet during a climate emergency rather than a cheap and and easy way to carry on business as usual.
Way back in 2009, the American Meteorological Society urged a cautious response to geoengineering, noting that manipulating earth’s systems could itself trigger adverse and unpredictable consequences. For example, SRM could move global circulation patterns with potentially serious consequences such as changing storm tracks and precipitation patterns, according to the AMS as reported by ScienceDaily in July of 2009. The ability of geoengineering to change precipitation patterns was confirmed by subsequent studies mentioned later in this article.
UW-Released Geoengineering Study, Dec 2013
The University of Washington College of the Environment has been carefully turning over the pros and cons of geoengineering for the past three years and their findings were published in a special December 17, 2013 issue of the Journal of Climactic Change.
They convened an interdisciplinary and international group of experts in the field of geoengineering science, climate modeling, environmental ethics, governance, policy, and law, in response to a call put out in 2009 by England’s Royal Society, for a geoengineering research framework, according to page 428 of the Journal of Climactic Change.
The UW project promotes academic discussion about whether and how geoengineering should be approached, according to philosopher Lauren Hartzell-Nichols, a study co-editor, who said, “We hope it helps people think about this issue in a more interdisciplinary and integrated way.”
“The project consisted of two phases. The first involved a 10-week interdisciplinary research seminar series entitled ‘Geoengineering: Science, Ethics and Policy’ held at the University of Washington during January-March 2011.” The series involved public lectures and small-group discussions with leading international figures from the geoengineering debate, according to the journal.
Many of the authors spoke at the UW during a 2011 seminar series, and more attended a 2012 workshop where they developed their paper ideas. A list of speakers, seminar titles, and associated materials is at http://www.atmos.washington.edu/-robwood/Geoengineering.
The second phase produced papers on geoengineering research, which involved a workshop and public debate at UW (April 2012) between two leading figures — David Keith and Steve Rayner. The papers attempt to answer pressing questions about geoengineering, such as: the purpose and need for further research, what direction it should take, how it should be structured and governed, the need for broad public engagement, its ethical implications, and whether field testing can be a useful component.
The special issue of the Journal Climactic Change is the culmination of the project. It compiles the findings of 12 leading geoengineering thinkers for “the most detailed description yet of the proposed Oxford Principles to govern geoengineering research, as well as surveys on the technical hurdles, ethics and regulatory issues related to deliberately manipulating the planet’s climate.” (ScienceDaily, Dec. 17, 2013). The Oxford Principles are five high-level principles for geoengineering governance based on core societal values.
One co-editor of the UW study, Rob Wood, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, says geoengineering has moved from the realm of quackery to the subject of scientific research. “We wanted to contribute to a serious intellectual discourse.”
Remotely Controlled Ship Seeds Clouds Over the Ocean
Wood studies the interaction between air pollution, clouds and climate. (Has anybody asked him if he notices the profusion of chemtrails/contrails)? He and Tom Ackerman, another UW atmospheric sciences professor, are working on a wind-powered, remotely controlled ship that could seed clouds over the ocean to deflect sunlight. Seeded with what?
Reflective Particles are Sprayed into the Stratosphere
Another idea addressed in the journal is the practice of Solar Radiation Managmenet — the practice of injecting reflective particles into the stratosphere, a concept first reported by the Climatic Change journal back in 2006, by Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen. The tactic is central to Seattle entrepreneur Nathan Myhrvold’s proposed StratoShield, a ScienceDaily article says.
The University of Michigan Department of Environmental Health Sciences weighed in more recently on the impacts of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) via stratospheric aerosol injection. Their study called: “Assessing The Direct Occupational And Public Health Impacts Of Solar Radiation Management With Stratospheric Aerosols”, was reported in Environ Health 2016; 15: 7 and published online published January 19, 2016,.
The report focuses on the potential health dangers of SRM, but they don’t admit this form of geoengineering is already happening. Instead, this is part of the program to get the blind members of the public to eventually accept breathing in toxic nano-particles without question. University scientists have studied the impacts, everyone who matters has hashed out the pros and cons, mitigations have been agreed on, and off we go because we have no choice.
The Michigan study admits “much is being done to unravel the scientific and technical challenges around geoengineering.” But in their haste to block the sun and cool the earth, scientists have overlooked impacts to human health, until now. This publication addresses potential ecological and health impacts of exposure to nano particle aerosols that are currently favored for solar radiation management including: sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, black carbon, and specially engineered discs of metallic aluminum, aluminum oxide, and the “promising SRM material,” barium titanate. The scientists are not issuing a warning to ban the practice and nip it in the bud because no creature should be forced to breathe these things. No. This report discusses “exposure limits.” Is it going to be like the exposure limits the EPA set for radiation, which were conveniently increased when the Fukushima reactor was compromised? Or will it be like carbon taxes, which are sold to the highest bidding polluter and traded on secondary markets? As my mother used to say when I was a teenager: “What kind of a fool do you take me for?”
In addition to breathing in the nanoparticles, we can look forward to eating them on our food, drinking them in our water, even absorbing them through our skin, the report says. But unlike occupational exposure to nanotoxins, there has been “virtually no research done to estimate ground-level personal exposures to SRM materials…and no models appear to have estimated the potential global burden of environmental aluminum, alumina or barium titanate that might result from SRM.”
Nevertheless, the scientists predict that exposure to these toxins will be continuous and prolonged resulting in chronic health failure, including not being able to breathe, pulmonary fibrosis, dilation and hypertrophy of the right side of the heart, decreased red blood cell hemoglobin, finger clubbing, and other general respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, metabolic and neurologic problems.
The study says there are currently no limits set by EPA, the European Environmental Agency (EEA), or the World Health Organization for most SRM nano-aerosols, and suggests they are needed to protect workers and the public from SRM deployment. How about we just say no to SRM?
The scientists admit the aerosols will be sprayed all over the globe, therefore everybody should be sprayed equally — oh, they say “exposure limits must be harmonized to ensure that individuals around the world are given equal protection” and that harmonization of standards is a big bureaucratic challenge, but an important step towards establishing a formal governance framework for the geoengineering that they predict will happen. They certainly express no doubts about the inevitable implementation of this “emerging disruptive technology.”
Following the Money
Geoengineering research at universities is funded by corporate backers who see big profits from geoengineering. If you want a glimpse at how this geoengineering research gets funded by industry, read Joyce Nelson’s article called “Geoengineering” in the Watershed Sentinel, Summer 2012. She follows the money trail and shows how a handful of billionaires such as Bill Gates, Sir Richard Branson, N. Murray Edwards, and Edgar Bronfman Jr. are bankrolling a small group of climate scientists to come up with climate manipulation on a global scale while allowing consumption and fossil fuel reliance to proceed as usual.
Fortune (Oct. 17, 2011) called Gates “the world’s leading funder of research into geoengineering” having invested at least $400 million in geoengineering projects and patents by 2011.
The “geo-clique” invests in techno-interventions to global warming, conducts public opinion manipulation about geoengineering, and lobbies governments for a massive infusion of public funds into geoengineering research, according to an article Dec. 2011, in the Guardian by Clive Hamilton, professor of Public Ethics at the Australian National University.
The clique invests in projects with lovely sounding names. Back in 2007, Sir Richard Branson, the billionaire Chairman of the Virgin Group, and Al Gore, teamed up to spearhead a competition called the Virgin Earth Challenge (VEC), which offered $25 million to those winners who could provide “commercially viable designs to permanently remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.”
Branson, whose “carbon war room” is backing a variety of projects, also contributed to the UKs Royal Society for geoengineering research. He is interested in finding a technological solution to global warming so life can go on as usual with him flying his planes and driving his cars as much as he wants to.
A landmark study conducted by the Royal Society in 2009 concluded that, “geoengineering is likely to be technically feasible, and could substantially reduce the costs and risks of climate change, but not all proposed geoengineering schemes would be equally effective and a great deal of further research was necessary.
How Much Aerosol Spraying is Necessary?
The task of further research was taken up by a team of climate researchers including Pete Irvine (lead author on the paper) and Dan Lunt, at the University of Bristol in 2010. They used a comprehensive climate model developed by the UK Met Office, to assess just how much stratospheric spraying — from “full strength” to none — would be ideal for all the aspects of the climate system around the world. They found that some regions may be better off without any geoengineering while others may do better with a large amount.
Their analysis revealed that with increasing spray strength, most regions become drier while others buck the trend and become increasingly wet. For example, the USA became drier with heavier aerosol spraying, and returned to normal conditions under half-strength geoengineering, whereas Australia became wetter, returning to normal conditions only for full strength geoengineering, according to information released by the university and reported in Geophysical Research Letters.
“Our simulations indicate that it might be possible to identify a strength of geoengineering capable of meeting multiple targets, such as maintaining a stable mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet and cooling global climate, but without reducing global precipitation below normal amounts or exposing significant fractions of the Earth to unusual climate conditions,” according to Lunt.
Other geoengineering research in the UK has been bankrolled by Shell Oil at the University of Oxford, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, and University College London.
A new study released in 2013 by a team of scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and 14 other international organizations say geoengineering could result in a 5 to 7 percent decrease in monsoonal rains in North America, East Asia, and other regions compared to pre-industrial conditions and that average precipitation worldwide could decrease by approximately 4.5 percent. The scientists used the NCAR-based Community Earth System Model, among other tools to make their determinations.
CESM is sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Administration of the CESM is maintained by the Climate and Global Dynamics Division (CGD) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
They have (secure) access to the Earth System Grid, a data distribution portal funded mostly by the Dept. of Energy and National Science Foundation.
“The U.S. Earth System Grid Center for Enabling Technologies (ESG-CET) project is a primary contributor of cyber infrastructure for the ESGF effort, especially the gateways and nodes…The Gateway effort, led by the The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), reflects important contributions from several sponsors. In addition to ESG-CET, the U.S. NSF contributed substantially to its development through NCAR’s core program, the Cooperative Arctic Data and Information Service (CADIS), and the NSF TeraGrid Science Gateways program.
“The Earth System Curator project has led an effort to radically advance the richness of model metadata and the integration of simulations and data in the gateway. Currently sponsored by NOAA’s Global Interoperability Program (GIP), Curator has also been generously supported by NSF and NASA.
“The Curator team collaborated closely with the EU METAFOR (Common Metadata for Climate Modelling Digital Repositories) project, which developed the Common Information Model (CIM) and related technologies. METAFOR is sponsored by the EU Framework Programme 7 (FP7).”
The Community Earth System Model people from the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (take a look at their working groups), and their cohorts in all these government agencies, are all about observing the earth and climate. Has anybody asked them if they notice the proliferation of chemtrails/contrails, and if they think the vibratory-looking cloud patterns are related to military domination of the electro-magnetic spectrum?
The Virgin Earth Finalists
Eleven finalists of the Virgin Earth Challenge were announced at the Global Clean Energy Congress meeting in Calgary on Nov 2, 2011. The VEC will help all 11 find partners to “bridge the gap between these pioneering ventures and commercially viable businesses.” In other words, the energy extraction industry is bent on putting geoengineering in action.
Speakers at the three-day congress included:
- Corporate reps from natural gas giant EnCana
- Canadian Oil Sands, Ltd.
- Cenovus Energy, a tar sands developer
- Canadian Nuclear Association
- Geoengineering researchers and advocates
Calgary-based Carbon Engineering was one of the VEC finalists. Its president and majority owner is climate scientist David Keith, who pops up often in this story. At the time, he was adjunct professor of physics and fellow in the University of Calgary’s Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy (ISEEE) — funded by Bill Gates.
Keith is a faithful and tireless mouthpiece for controlling earth’s climate through massive global interventions. Here is a list of research published just in 2013:
- Carr, Wylie A., Christopher J. Preston, Laurie Yung, Bronislaw Szerszynski, David W. Keith, and Ashley M. Mercer. “Public Engagement on Solar Radiation Management and Why it Needs to Happen Now.” Climatic Change 121.3 (December 2013): 567-577.
- Moreno-Cruz, Juan B., and David W. Keith. “Climate Policy Under Uncertainty: A Case for Solar Geoengineering.” Climatic Change 121.3 (December 2013): 431-444.
- Keith, David. “End the Deadlock on Governance of Geoengineering Research.” Science 339.6125 (March 2013): 1278-1279.
- Safaei, Hossein, David W. Keith, and Ronald J. Hugoc. “Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) with Compressors Distributed at Heat Loads to Enable Waste Heat Utilization.” Applied Energy 103 (March 2013): 165–179.
- Keith, David, and Andy Parker. “The Fate of an Engineered Planet.” Scientific American 308.1 (January 2013): 34-36.
- Books – Keith, David. A Case for Climate Engineering. MIT Press, 2013.
Here is what Keith’s Carbon Engineering company was proposing back in his Calgary days: “The company’s industrial scale technology is described as a “chemical-based CO2 air capture system” which traps carbon dioxide directly from the air into a water-based solvent.” An article in the Washington Post (April 5, 2012) notes the process would potentially require as much water as 53 million people use a year. That’s a lot of water in a time of predicted shortages. What else is in the solvent?
A University of Calgary press release touted the research: “Imagine being able to combat climate change by capturing global-warming emissions from thin air – anywhere on the planet. That’s exactly what a company, created from University of Calgary-affiliated scientist David Keith’s research, located on campus, is working on.”
An article in the Guardian (Feb 6, 2012) described what sounds like a different project for Carbon Engineering. It said Keith’s research primarily focused on providing earth with a reflective shield in the upper atmosphere.
“Keith’s reflective shield proposal has been described by Report on Business magazine (March 2008) as “photophoretic levitation” involving the use of a fleet of planes to launch trillions of tiny metallic disks to float above the ozone layer and deflect sunlight.”
Bill Gates and billionaire N. Murray Edwards of Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., an Alberta Tar Sands company, have provided about $6 million for Keith’s Carbon Engineering company, according to the Watershed Sentinel.
Dr. Keith and another professor, Ken Caldeira of Stanford University, “are the two world’s leading advocates of major research into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield,” according to the Feb. 6 Guardian article. The two men are largely bankrolled by personal funds of Bill Gates through the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER). As of 2012, they have spent $2.3 million (about half of what Gates has donated) on their own research, with the rest being disbursed through FICER to fund other large-scale geoengineering interventions.
Keith’s FICER website said, “Grants for research are provided to the University of Calgary from gifts made by Mr. Bill Gates from his personal funds … While Mr. Gates provides input from time to time on the fund, Drs. Keith and Caldeira make final decisions on projects.”
Caldeira partnered with George A Ban-Weiss, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford, to investigate how deliberately loading the stratosphere with aerosol can reduce surface temperatures. They became quite specific in their description of latitudinal distribution of stratospheric aerosols required to most closely achieve a low-CO2 climate despite high CO2 levels.
“Using the NCAR CAM3.1 general circulation model, we find that having a stratospheric aerosol loading in polar regions higher than that in tropical regions leads to a temperature distribution that is more similar to the low-CO2 climate than that yielded by a globally uniform loading. However, such polar weighting of stratospheric sulfate tends to degrade the degree to which the hydrological cycle is restored, and thus does not markedly contribute to improved recovery of a low-CO2 climate. In the model, the optimal latitudinally varying aerosol distributions diminished the rms zonal mean land temperature change from a doubling of CO2 by 94% and the rms zonal mean land precipitation minus evaporation change by 74%. It is important to note that this idealized study represents a first attempt at optimizing the engineering of climate using a general circulation model; uncertainties are high and not all processes that are important in reality are modeled.”
Caldeira was also involved with Carnegie’s Katharine Ricke and Juan Moreno-Cruz from the Georgia Institute of Technology, in producing a game theory model of how various stakeholders around the globe might jostle for power on the geoengineering landscape, according to information released by the Carnegie Institution. The team’s work is published by Environmental Research Letters.
Both Keith and Caldeira teamed up for a presentation to the American Meteorological Society called Geoengineering: The Risk Management Potential of Climate Engineering.
“My view, aside from any technical result, is that it should remain a central goal to maintain openness and inclusiveness in geoengineering coalitions, so that all people who want a voice in the decision-making process are able to have that voice,” Caldeira said.
Enter the Government and Climate Remediation
Both Keith and Caldeira served on the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Task Force on Climate Remediation, in Washington DC.
The Bipartisan Policy Center is funded in part by big oil, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology companies. The center’s Climate Remediation task force is comprised of “the cream of the emerging science and military-led geoengineering lobby, with a few neutrals chucked in to give it an air of political sobriety,” according to the Guardian (Oct 6, 2011).
In October 2011, the task force–made up of scientists and government policy makers–wrote a report that urged the federal government to fund systematic geoengineering studies and experiments on the potential effectiveness, feasibility and consequences of climate remediation techniques. It also recommended that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy coordinate the research.
The year before, the Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies was a conference developed by Margaret Leinen of the Climate Response Fund and chaired by Michael MacCracken of the Climate Institute. The conference took place in March 2010 and the recommendations were published in November 2010. The goal was to identify and minimize risks involved with climate engineering (geoengineering), and was based on the 1975 Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA which discussed the potential biohazards and regulation of biotechnology. A group of over 150 scientist and engineers gathered together with lawyers, environmentalists and disaster relief workers in an open meeting to avoid accusations of consipiracy during this discussion. The Asilomar Conference focused exclusively on the development of risk reduction guidelines for climate intervention experiments.
Climate intervention was likened by one participant in the Asilomar Conference to chemotherapy: it is not desirable, but it may save the patient from a worse situation.
“The Canadian government has shown interest in becoming an increasingly larger player” in geoengineering, The Dominion reported Dec. 8, 2010.
By the following year, Fortune magazine reported that Carbon Engineering had received $2.5 million in Canadian government grants. (Oct. 17, 2011).
In Feb 2012, PostMedia News said the “Harper government is adding $90.3 million in funding at Environment Canada to support what it describes as its ‘clean air agenda,’ with the money providing ‘a platform to deepen engagement with the United States on climate-change issues and enhancing Canada’s visibility as an international leader in clean-energy technology.’
“The Harper Cabinet is also rethinking its $7 billion in research and development funding, with a move to more company-focused research and more direct funding of business R&D.”
One apparent funnel for such funding is the federal government’s Canada Foundation for Innovation. The website of The GeoEngineering Centre at Queen’s University in Kingston lists “research funding opportunities involving industrial partners” and includes the Canada Foundation as a source of money.
What is the Canadian government’s agenda? It abandoned all pretense of meeting Kyoto goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and has been cutting funding for climate science and environmental regulation and protection in favor of throwing money at carbon capture and storage, and geoengineering projects of interest to globalist billionaires eager to cash in on their research investments.
Photograph of the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta, c. 1900-1930 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Connection Between Tar Sands and Geoengineering
In the Watershed Sentinel article, Nelson connects dots between the geoengineering clique and the Alberta Tar Sands project. She says some of the advocacy and financing for geoengineering is coming from tar sands backers. “Indeed, some members of the geo-clique are directly involved in the tar sands,” she wrote.
Among the list of Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy collaborators (according to The Dominion Dec 8, 2010) are major tar sands corporations such as:
- Shell Canada
- Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
- Pembina Institute — an NGO
Bill Gates is also involved in tar sands, as a major shareholder of CN Railway, whose “pipeline-on-rails” is bringing tar sands bitumen to US refineries. (See Watershed Sentinel, “Tar Sands Express” (Summer 2011).
Warren Buffet is another pipeline on rails investor. When Gates and Buffett visited the tar sands in August 2008, they were hosted by fellow billionaire N. Murray Edwards’ tar sands company Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. who gave them a tour of the $9.3 billion Horizon site north of Fort McMurray.
Edwards is also the co-owner of the Calgary Flames, President of Edco Financial Holdings, Chair and major shareholder in Ensign Energy (an oil services company), Chair of Magellan Aerospace Corp., and owner of several BC alpine ski resorts — Fernie, Kimberley, and Kicking Horse — through his Resorts of the Canadian Rockies.
Another finalist in the Virgin Earth Challenge was US based geoengineering company Global Thermostat, financed by billionaire Edgar Bronfman Jr, the former Warner Music CEO and heir to the Seagram’s fortune. He is executive chair of the company and has invested $15 million. His son Benjamin is associate managing director. The elder Bronfman, as of the writing of the Watershed article, was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and on the advisory board of JP Morgan.
“One of the founders of Global Thermostat is Peter Eisenberg, a former head of research for Exxon.
Several former Exxon engineers are designing Global Thermostat’s geoengineering technology, with multinationals Corning and BASF also involved in development,” Nelson writes. President Obama’s energy chief, Steven Chu, is a former student of Peter Eisenberg of Global Thermostat. Another founder of Global Thermostat is Graciela Chichilnisky, who, according to Fortune, wrote the plan for the EU carbon market that came out of the Kyoto climate talks.
Climate Profiteering on the Carbon Market
The potential for climate-profiteering in carbon markets is obvious to Professor Keith, who wrote:
“Apparently, most of the geoengineering companies intend to profit by selling carbon credits on such markets,” he wrote on one of the Carbon Engineering Ltd. websites. “One of the “near-term opportunities for profit is extracting value for the ‘negative emissions’ achieved … under a carbon market such as the European Union Emissions Trade Scheme (EU-ETS).”
Can you see why geoengineering is gaining traction? It’s a promising way for governments to avoid imposing deep emissions cuts while their corporate cohorts rake in carbon credits. They will have the best of all worlds: incentives to keep extracting fossil fuels and producing carbon that they profit from managing and trading as a commodity.
The Risk Management Monitor carried an article called “Geoengineering the Climate” by Emily Holbrook on September 27, 2010.
Holbrook had attended a lecture at Columbia University that featured Eli Kinitsch (author of Hack the Planet–Science’s Best Hope–or Worst Nightmare–for Averting Climate Catastrophe; and Scott Barrett, Lenfest-Earth Institute Professor of Natural Resource Economics, School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University.
Kintisch talked about the different types of geoengineering methods being considered:
Carbon removal: Which calls for the mixing of iron into the ocean to encourage algae growth. As algae blooms, dies or is eaten, it uses up carbon dioxide.
Air capture machines: would capture air inside cylinders lined with a special substance to absorb carbon dioxide.
Aerosol spraying: entails the spraying of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface.
“Fertilizing” the ocean with iron microbes is not as promising as proponents first thought, according to a Dec. 17, 2013 article in Science Digest called “Hacking the Planet.”
Air capture technology has progressed to the next step of piping captured carbon to underground storage chambers, where it is “sequestered,” and serves as a type of collateral that can be traded on public markets.
By the looks of skies around the world, it seems aerosol spraying is becoming the most lucrative climate manipulation approach.
The Politics of Geoengineering: Who gets to decide who should be sprayed like cockroaches?
Scott Barrett stressed the key issue in geoengineering is governance — the question of who gets to decide if and when geoengineering should be tried.” He criticized the lack of rules governing geoengineering experimentation and practice. Of course, the approach of calling for rules legitimizes the practice by implying regulations make it okay.
Since then, the US Harvard Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs announced that it had begun accepting applications for “geoengineering policy research fellows” in order “to improve understanding of the options for governance of geoengineering.” (February 2012) These fellows, Nelson says, will be working directly under the supervision of Professor David Keith of Carbon Engineering Ltd.
The Richard Branson-funded UK Royal Society was also reported to be organizing discussions on geoengineering governance in 2012.
This year, a paper by UK researchers, addressing how geoengineering could be regulated as a global public good, was included in the University of Washington study cited in the Journal of Climactic Change. The paper describes the Oxford Principles concerning research, publication, assessment and deployment of geoengineering techniques.
Critics of geoengineering see problems beyond governance including: unanticipated weather effects, potential use as a weapon, and the fact that the practice involves the same “paradigm of controlling Nature that created climate change in the first place.” Then of course, there are health issues associated with inhaling whatever is being sprayed, and the potential for it to ruin soil and plants.
The environmental group, Friends of Earth, has called geoengineering “mad, bad and dangerous”
The ETC Group, based in Ottawa, says geoengineering is “climate profiteering” and “geopiracy,” that “shifts the discussion from reducing emissions to an end-of-pipe solution.” They released the report Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering, in Dec. 2010, calling for a moratorium on real-world geoengineering experimentation.
In June 2011, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was planning a meeting of the world’s leading geoengineering experts in Peru. When news of this leaked out, more than 125 environmental, development, and human rights organizations from 40 countries responded by issuing a joint letter to Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Panel, opposing geoengineering as a “false solution to the climate crisis.” The panel will publish a Climate Change assessment in 2014, which is expected to include several chapters on geoengineering.
The secrecy surrounding geoengineering disturbs Stephan Gardiner, a UW philosophy professor involved in the university’s three-year geoengineering research project. He questions whether something should be done for people’s supposed benefit without their permission. He also questions if geoengineering can be rationally described as a public good.
“Just spraying sulfates into the stratosphere is not the kind of thing that necessarily benefits everyone, so in that sense it seems a mistake to call it a global public good,” Gardiner said. “There are decisions about how to conduct sulfate spraying and potential tradeoffs between short-term benefits and long-term risks.”
The Guardian published a feature by its environmental editor, John Vidal, on the geo-clique, on Feb. 6, 2012. Vidal quoted ETC Group’s Diana Bronson of Canada: “What is really worrying is that the same small group working on high-risk technologies that will geoengineer the planet is also trying to engineer the discussion around international rules and regulations. We cannot put the fox in charge of the chicken coop.”
Australian professor Clive Hamilton says, “Anyone who has observed the politics of climate change knows that governments are keen to find alternatives to imposing deep emissions cuts. If geoengineering appears to be an alternative to mitigation, then governments will grab it if they can.”
Resistance against geoengineering — particularly the practice of aerosol spraying — is mostly coming from the grassroots. As people around the world look up and notice skies filled with nets of white streaks that turn to clouds, (also known as chemtrails) they say the practice of geonegineering has moved from theoretical modeling to actual practice. It’s an assertion the Powers that Be adamantly deny. This denial and government secrecy against a backdrop of strange and ominous skies, naturally results in a raft of conspiracy theories on the Internet.
However, a handful of credible grassroots investigators bubble up from the fray. Links to interviews and government documents that are being exposed can be found at GeoengineeringWatch.org, managed by Dane Wigington, a leader of the geoengineering resistance movement. He presents a good 101 summary of geoengineering here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C07EddRW2uU
Another good source is Rosalind Peterson, former certified U.S.D.A. Farm Service Agency Crop Loss Adjustor in California who started researching persistent jet contrails in 2002. She documents upper atmospheric spraying programs conducted by the US military, at agriculturedefensecoalition.org. Listen to what Rosalind has to say in this interview at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idr-Y2-bNkI and share with people you care about.
See also: What In The World Are They Spraying?
Rosalie Bertell, Grey Nun of the Sacred Heart, received her Ph. D. degree in Biometrics with minors in Biology and Biochemistry from the Catholic University of America. She is the founder of the International Concern for Public Health (IICPH), a founding member of the International Commission of Health Professionals, and the International Association of Humanitarian Medicine. Here is an interview with Sister Dr. Bertell.
Don’t take anybody’s word for it. Look up, look down, focus. Use the resources provided as a jumping off point to investigate these things for yourself. Read the government documents, the geoengineering patents, follow the money, but please don’t just sit idle.
Nelson, Joyce, Geoengineering, Watershed Sentinel, Summer-2012-Vol22-No3
University of Washington (2013, December 17). Hack the planet? Geoengineering research, ethics, governance explored. ScienceDaily. (The above story is based on materials provided by University of Washington. The original article was written by Hannah Hickey. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2013/12/131217155335.htm
Carnegie Institution (2013, February 21). Geoengineering by coalition to mitigate global warming. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2013/02/130221143940.htm
Carnegie Institution for Science, (2010, 16 September) Geoengineering as an optimization problem George A Ban-Weiss and Ken Caldeira 2010 Environ. Res. Lett. 5 034009 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/3/034009.
Retrieved Dec 21, 2013, from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034009?rel=ref&relno=1
University of Bristol (2010, September 20). Climate change: Can geoengineering satisfy everyone?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2010/09/100920123916.htm – Peter J. Irvine, Andy Ridgwell, Daniel J. Lunt. Assessing the regional disparities in geoengineering impacts. Geophysical Research Letters, 2010; 37 (18): L18702 DOI: 10.1029/2010GL044447
Institute of Physics (2011, October 25). Public support for geoengineering research, survey finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2011/10/111024084714.htm
A M Mercer, D W Keith, J D Sharp. Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environmental Research Letters, 2011; 6 (4): 044006 DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044006
Geoengineering Climate Requires More Research, Cautious Consideration And Appropriate Restrictions. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/07/090721135559.htm
Fujioka, Chisa. U.N. urged to freeze climate geo-engineering projects, Reuters. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/21/us-geoengineering-idUSTRE69K18320101021
Vital Precipitation Could Be Lost Through Climate Geoengineering. Retrieved Dec. 21, 2013 from http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112991602/geoengineering-climate-reduce-vital-precipitation-110113/#86jfbgwdcSOExQgg.99 http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112991602/geoengineering-climate-reduce-vital-precipitation-110113/
Keith, David, biographyc – Harvard Kennedy School Retrieved Dec. 22, 2013 from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/david-keith
People in countries signed up for Global March Against Geoengineering Jan 25, 2014
Last Updated Dec.31 2013. 11:40 AM By Admin | Comments
“..We must organize peacefully. PEACEFULLY is the operative word.If these many-pronged aerosol attacks by military and commercial planes can spray these horrific toxins on us, year after year with impunity –against all laws– then it is absolutely imperative that we organize peacefully. As Peter Dale Scott notes in Jason Bermas’ new DVD “Invisible Empire”: we must use the Internet and our peaceful intellectual powers to come together and shut this nightmare down. It is possible to do this.”- Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri.
More Resources for people trying to pick the pepper out of the fly shit when it comes to chemtrails
A fun game: See what planes are flying in the sky and try to figure out which ones are spraying us like cockroaches: Want To Know How Many Jets Are Above You?
Would your government purposely hurt its citizens — like by spraying aerosols with harmful minerals and some other gross ingredients n the sky? Unthinkable! Unethical Human Experimentation in the United States
Summary of the chemtrail “conspiracy theory” with lots of picturers: CHEMTRAILS A Planetary Catastrophe Created by Geoengineering
Articles and interviews about weather modification, HAARP, Chemtrails and more at Jim Lee’s Climate Viewer News.
Are SAG (stratospheric aerosol geoengineering) and SRM (solar radiation management) programs killing tress and other plants on earth? Norwegian Study: Biological Effects of Geoengineering
Plane turns chemtrails on and off, disproving the contrail theory. chemtrail skum-rainbow wingsprayer shuts off trail~blatant capture~trollbait!~
7 Action News has gone all the way to the Pentagon to get answers about the theory that’s taking over the internet (and proven chemtrails are just contrails). Contrails or Chemtrails? 7 Action News gets the truth behind the white trails in the sky