Government Study: Geoengineering Too Dangerous

The potential negative consequences of geoengineering are still too unclear.

Geoengineering has been used for decades in forms known by the public as chemtrails, electromagnetic waves and laser beams.

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
September 7, 2011

2009 Moscow Halo. Case Orange cites this as evidence of cloud seeding, but others suspect it is electromagnetic in origin.

Geoengineering is in essence the artificial and deliberate manipulation of the weather by applying existent technologies to change weather and weather patterns over an area of planet Earth. The use of these technologies has been pushed by a section of the scientific community as well as influential climate change alarmists groups. But the technologies used to modify the climate go beyond climate modification and extend their function to other areas such as plate tectonics, and military weaponry. Main stream scientists do not discuss the uses cited before, but limit themselves to suggest practices such as ocean fertilization, cloud seeding and CO2 sequestration, among others.

Techniques such as ocean fertilization, and CO2 sequestration have not been, however, the most popular among those who deem these practices as life saving. The United States, mainly, and other developed countries have experimented with other, less discussed technologies that are often left outside main stream discussions. What all of these practices have in common, though, is the fact that none of them is safe and its implementation could cause more damage than the supposed catastrophe they intend to avoid. This is the conclusion of a study published last July by the United States Government accountability Office.

GAO Study comes half a century Late

You would think this and other studies would come before any of these weather modification techniques were tried out in the open, but that is not the case. If one goes back half a century or so, it is easy to find examples of how weather modification was used as a warfare practice. During the Vietnam War, the United States used cloud seeding to flood land areas where the Vietnamese armies were stationed in order to weaken their operation against the invasion. Project Stormfury consisted of planes flying inside tropical storms and seeding such storms with with silver iodide. The project was run by the United States Government from 1962 to 1983. Project Cirrus was another attempt to manipulate the weather; this time by affecting a hurricane’s behaviour. The project was headed by General Electric, the US Army Signal Corps, the Office of Naval Research, and the US Air Force. During this trial on October 13, 1974, government scientists, attempted to modify a hurricane heading west to east. Nowadays, even countries like China possess bureaucracies dedicated to the practice of weather modification. In Beijing, the Weather Modification Office coordinates the use of technologies to prevent or cause it to rain whenever it is needed. For the 2008 Olympics, China had 30 airplanes, 4,000 rocket launchers, and 7,000 anti-aircraft guns to stop rain. (1)

In its report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) begins by explaining that the reason of their study is the analysis of “climate engineering technologies, focusing on their technical status, future directions for research and potential responses.” Then it goes on to say that “GAO reviewed the scientific literature and government reports, consulted experts with a wide variety of backgrounds and viewpoints, and surveyed 1,006 adults across the United States.” (2)

Heavy use of Chemtrails for the purposes of modifying the climate. Image by NASA.

Among the conclusions found by GAO are that “Climate engineering technologies do not now offer a viable response to global climate change.” According to the report, technologies studied by GAO included Carbon Dioxide (the gas plants breathe in order to live) removal, and solar radiation management (SRM). This last technique would include blocking the life-giving sun light in order to, say some scientists and climate alarmists, prevent excessive heating of the planet. SRM technologies have been used widely in many countries this author has visited, including the United States, Brazil, Costa Rica and others like England and the rest of the western European countries. What SRM does, is spray crystals and toxic chemicals such as sulfate aerosols and barium,  into the stratosphere. “For more than a decade, first the United States and then Canada’s citizens have been subjected to a 24/7/365 day aerosol assault over our heads made of a toxic brew of poisonous heavy metals, chemicals, and other dangerous ingredients. None of this was reported by any mainstream media. The US Department of Defense [DOD] and military have been systematically blanketing all our skies with what are known as Chemtrails (also known as Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering), ” says Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri. (3)

The GAO study continues to relate its findings by saying that current geoengineering techniques are immature and that many of them could have potentially negative consequences. This confirms the health hazards cited above by Dr. Perlingieri. However, the study also incites collective thinking where regardless of the risks presented by the use of these technologies, researchers still believe it is worthwhile to practice controlled versions of weather modification. Later, it says many consulted scientists oppose research as they anticipate  “major technology risks or limited future climate change.” Most of the people consulted said they were not familiar with weather modification, but were opened to carrying out more research, says GAO. These people are obviously not only not aware of the existence of geoengineering techniques – mostly because the government and the companies involved have somehow successfully tried to hide their experiments – but are also unaware that such experiments are carried out already all over the world without their consent.

As explained before, studies like the one carried out by GAO should have been conducted before government and corporate experiments took place. However, as it happens often nowadays, governments feel they are entitled to do whatever they want without informing the public first. Although GAO’s study is pertinent because it exposes what many have called “conspiracy theories” as facts, it fails miserably to address the history of weather modification and stratospheric experimentation already being conducted all over the planet.

The study performed by GAO at the request of House Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, rated current weather modification technologies on a scale from 1 – 9 according to their “readiness”. Although this criterion is irrelevant from the point of view of the health hazard geoengineering poses to humanity, none of the available weather modification techniques scored above 3 on the study’s scale. “Both research advocates and opponents cautioned that climate engineering research carries risks either in conducting certain kinds of research or in using the results (for example, deploying potentially risky technologies that were developed on the basis of the research).”

The Government Accountability Office’s study seems to be originated on the widely debunked belief that human activity is the cause of what some scientists call Anthropogenic Global Warming (the planet has experienced global cooling in the last decade) that according to them is caused by Carbon Dioxide emissions. One can say that the study started with the left foot, because it is based on a premise that is at the very least dubious. At least one thousand re-known scientists have cast doubts about the theory of man-made warming and this belief should at least be given a second thought. (4)

The premise of the study that humans cause global warming is filled with half truths and previously exposed fallacies such as the belief that some islands will sink as a consequence of rising seas, that ice caps will uncontrollably melt and that polar bears will die because they can’t swim. (5) The study also considers other geophysical changes on the planet which would result from the supposed warming, such as changes in vegetation and precipitation which are unreasonably labeled a negative. In fact, the study says that many scientists “have proposed that rising temperatures might benefit certain geographic areas or economic sectors; for example, agricultural productivity might increase in some areas… …while global surface temperature is increasing on average, it is not increasing uniformly…” The former idea that agriculture in many parts of the world might benefit from the warming, coincides with the fact that scientific records indicate that planet Earth was once warmer and contained 10 times more CO2 than today, which resulted in greener landscapes and food abundance.

As The Real Agenda has informed before, the only concern people who defend the theory of anthropogenic global warming have, is that their beloved “ivory towers” and “premium centers of control” are saved from naturally occurring climate change. In the report, GAO cites concerns given by some scientists regarding “dangerous sea level rising that “could threaten several large ports and urban centers in the United States, such as Miami, New York, and Norfolk.” Of course these same people have no problem with preventing the Third World from developing to levels they enjoy today, or to take the planet to a post-industrial era if this is what it takes to reduce emissions to levels only seen pre-Industrial Revolution.

The CLOUD results show that a few kilometres up in the atmosphere sulphuric acid and water vapour can rapidly form clusters, and that cosmic rays enhance the formation rate by up to ten-fold or more.

More recently, a study by CERN, the CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) experiment, has once again confirmed that it is solar radiation and not human activity what drives Earth’s climate. The report describing the findings of this study were partially banned from public discussion by the head of CERN, Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer, as he thought that the results of the observations would be used to publicly, once and for all cut the ears and tail from the pink elephant in the room: There is no such a thing as man-made global warming. (6)

What GAO Does not address in the Study

As explained before, GAO’s study seems to come at least 50 years late and on top of this, it fails to present unmistakable evidence that experiments such as the ones described as “potentially dangerous” have been carried out for many decades already. Even some main stream media have made echo of scientists suggestions to employ weather modification techniques to “save us from disaster”. Just last March, USAToday advertised how trendy was to spray people with aluminum, barium and other deadly chemicals in order to save the world from human-caused destruction. (7) The article went on to present what some scientist said was an opportunity to make things right before geoengineering had to be considered as a necessity. One scientist even suggested that geoengineering was a viable option to save us from disaster. “Research into geoengineering creates another option for the public,” said David Victor of the University of California-San Diego.

Separately, National Geographic published an article suggesting the employment of nuclear weapons to reverse global warming. The magazine article echoed a government scenario where a small nuclear war among small countries could help reduce the effects of Global Warming. The article also warned that such a small war would cause the planet Earth to miss summers for several years, cause the appearance and spread of disease, but that perhaps it was a good idea to make it happen. (8)

Despite historical evidence, the GAO study does not specifically mention the dangers weather modification through geoengineering pose to human life or to the planet itself. However, there is plenty of evidence on this regard. “For decades, we have known that heavy metals and chemicals can cause grave physical harm. Going back to Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” we have known and been amply warned of the serious consequences of using or being exposed to these poisons in our daily activities. Thousands of these are well-documented carcinogens,” writes Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri.

Military and commercial planes are involved in more than 60 secret operations. Last year, when I flew across the country, I saw a United Airlines jet (flying below us at about 37,000 feet) spraying a black aerosol that went for miles and miles across the sky. This clandestine program now includes aerosol-spraying planes in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand [all NATO countries]. Hundreds (if not thousands) of people have called and written their public officials to get answers. Replies from US and Canadian officials are not forthcoming; or, if they do reply, queries are dismissed.

The U.S. military has been spraying chemical and biological weapons in open air testing over civilian populations since the 1940’s. They are called “vulnerability tests”. This is not a controversial statement. The military has admitted to this practice on many occasions and there’s plenty of documentation from the government to corroborate it. There is also documentation of intentional, experimental releases of radiation on civilian populations. Unfortunately, this information tends to surface long after it could have saved lives, or eased the suffering of victims.

The HAARP-looking Jicamarca Radio Observatory is part of the Geophysical Institute of Peru. It receives the majority of its financial support from the National Science Foundation of the United States through a cooperative agreement with Cornell University.

But Chemtrails is not the only weather modification technique used by government and government-sponsored experiments. “The existence and application of technology to modify the weather, the ionosphere and to cause plate tectonics activity is documented and not only a conspiracy theory.”  Scientists involved in the testing and use of these technologies admit to running experiments around the planet,” says Andrei Areshev, deputy director of the Strategic Culture Foundation. According to Areshev, “climate weapons may be reaching their target capacity and may be used to provoke droughts, erase crops, and induce various anomalous phenomena in certain countries.” Perhaps Mr. Areshev is talking about the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), (9) another of those weapons that main stream media and main stream scientists call a conspiracy theory, while refusing to talk about it. But weather modification was also considered a conspiracy theory, was it not? And the use of Chemtrails were also considered a conspiracy theory, was it not?

In his 1995 book Angels Don’t Play this HAARP, Dr. Nick Begich explains how HAARP zaps the upper atmosphere with an electromagnetic beam. “It is an advanced model of an ionospheric heater.” According to Begich, HAARP is a super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that affects areas of the ionosphere by directing a beam to those areas. As a consequence, electromagnetic waves bounce  onto earth and penetrate anything and everything. (10)

A third form of weaponized weather modification techniques is laser beam weapons in space. In 1998, USAF Lt Col. William H. Possel submitted a research report to the faculty of the Air War College, where he explains the current status of space-based laser beam weapons. In his report titled Laser Weapons In Space: A Critical Assessment, Possel cites how attractive laser beam weapons are for attacking and destroying ballistic missiles. He even goes into the type of laser beams that can be used for warfare purposes. Among them, Hydrogen Fluoride Laser, Deuterium Fluoride Laser and Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser. Additionally, Possel goes into detail about how advantageous Space-based Laser Weapon are. “It has the distinct advantage over ground systems of being able to cover a large theater of operations that is limited only by the platform’s orbital altitude. As the platform’s altitude increases, the size of the area it “sees” increases. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but what would happen if anyone has managed to perfect the use of Electromagnetic Wave beams (HAARP) and Space-based weapons. And, weren’t weather modification technologies intended to prevent catastrophe as supposed to create catastrophic events? In case you haven’t understood, we are talking about the use of enhanced weather modification technologies for the purpose of waging warfare anywhere on the planet. (11)

Weather Modification is no Conspiracy Theory

In an article titled Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails, writer Rady Ananda presents a review of the “Case Orange” report. According to Ananda, in May 2010, scientists confirmed that weather manipulation is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory. “It is fully operational with a solid sixty-year history.” According to the World Meteorological Organization recent history has seen a decline in support for weather modification investigation and an accelerated trend to turn existent research into what is called operational projects. (12)

As Ananda cites in his article, the Case Orange is tied to a 1996 report prepared by military personnel. The report titled Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 related existent evidence of government sponsored spraying schedules, chemical orders, nomenclature used in airline operating manuals, and calls for geoengineering by economists. “Owning the Weather in 2025 provides a specific timeline for the use of EnMod technologies in cooperation with the Weather Modification Association (WMA), a business-government group promoting the beneficial uses of environmental modification.” Well, they are not as beneficial as the Government Accountability Office has now found. Some of the steps to be taken as part of the project to “own the weather”, are: introduce ionic mirrors, with a sharp increase by 2008; the use of chemicals for atmospheric seeding by civilian (as well as military) aviation;  the creation of smart clouds thru nanotechnology, with exponential increase after 2010 and the  introduction of ‘carbon black dust’.

The Case Orange report concludes with a revealing yet familiar practice by government, military and government contractors:

Our investigation team comes to the conclusion that climate control programs, controlled by the military but approved by governments, are silently implemented in order to avoid the worst case scenarios they obviously do not want. The two basic instruments are temperature control through generation of artificial clouds and manipulation of the ionosphere through ionosphere heaters.

Both remain basically military combat systems with the option to go into the offensive if deemed necessary. However since several ionosphere heaters are installed on various places around the globe one can assume that there is wide cooperation between governments in order to reach the climate targets by 2025: controlling the weather and thus the planet.

So let’s see what we have. A clearly stated purpose to modify the climate of planet Earth as presented by government organizations, corporations and a section of the scientific community. A plan to own the weather by 2025. A report written by the military that explains how ionospheric manipulation through the use of electromagnetic beams (HAARP), whose infrastructure is spread all over the planet, is used to perform climate control programs. A report written by United States Air Force Lt Col. William H. Possel, where he explains the reality of space-based weapons derived from weather manipulation technology. A historical presentation by Dr. Nick Begich on his book Angels Don’t Play This HAARP, where he explains how electromagnetic wave technology is used to negatively affect the weather by heating up the ionosphere. A warning from Andrei Areshev, the deputy director of the Strategic Culture Foundation in Russia, who independently confirms the existence and application of technology to modify the weather, the ionosphere and to cause plate tectonics activity. Documented proof of the historical use of weather modification technology to artificially pollute planet Earth in an insane attempt to “avoid a fictitious global warming doom scenario. Suggestions by main stream media that took it upon themselves to advertise the use of weather modification technologies to affect weather, no matter how dangerous it may be. Documented medical statements that prove beyond any reasonable doubt how weather modification negatively impacts the health of us humans, who weather modification supporters ironically claim to be protecting. Lastly, but not less important, a study by the United States Accountability Office that once and for all eliminates any doubt about the dangers that artificial weather modification technologies and techniques pose to humanity and planet Earth.

Do you need further proof that weather modification in order to save us from an unexistent impending global catastrophe is a bad idea? And if global warming is real and climate change is real, either anthropogenic or otherwise, is it wise to risk our very own existence and the health of our planet to please a group of scientists and control freaks who want to militarize it all for warfare purposes? (13) Aren’t there enough weapons, enough wars and enough death? How many more of us need to die in order for the controllers to be satisfied? 6.5 billion, it seems.

How Humans Manipulate the Planet For The Sake of Anything

Corporations have been engineering the Earth’s weather with remote-controlled clouds, artificial snow, and trained monkeys — without regards for human health.

April 22, 2011

It only takes one rained-out Little League game to make a sports lover resent Mother Nature. Now some of today’s scientists and other bigwigs have taken it upon themselves to say: “no more.” Not content to stand idly by and let something as mundane as climate dictate the success of our sports games, they have instead turned to geoengineering – intentional manipulation of the Earth’s environment – to fight back.

Qatari engineers recently announced a project to develop solar-powered artificial clouds to shade the 2022 World Cup from the country’s unforgiving summer sun. One remotely steerable cloud comes with a hefty price tag – $500,000 – just to cool the field by 10 degrees.

This isn’t the first time humans have battled weather for the sake of a sporting event. Click through the gallery below to read more about Qatar’s clouds, Chinese rain-battling techniques and other ways geoengineering has been deployed for the love of the game.

Case Orange: The History of Weather Manipulation

Russian Scholar Warns Of ‘Secret’ U.S. Climate Change Weapon

Chinese Weather Manipulation Experiments To Increase

USAToday Advertises Chemtrailing as a tool to stop “global warming”

Suddenly spraying people with aluminum, barium and other deadly chemicals is a great way to end an inexistant emergency

One more main stream loud speaker concedes to the “conspiracy theories” about people being sprayed on like cockroaches

March 4, 2011

Scientists call it “geoengineering,” but in plain speak, it means things like this: blasting tons of sulfate particles into the sky to reflect sunlight away from Earth; filling the ocean with iron filings to grow plankton that will suck up carbon; even dimming sunlight with space shades.

Each brings its own set of risks, but in a world fretting about the consequences of global warming, are these ideas whose time has come?

With 2010 tying as the world’s warmest year on record and efforts to slow greenhouse gas emissions looking stymied, calls are rising for research into engineering our way out of global warming — everything from launching solar shade spacecraft to genetically engineering green deserts. An international consortium of 12 universities and research institutes on Tuesday, for example, announced plans to pioneer large-scale “ocean fertilization” experiments aimed at using the sea to pull more greenhouse gases out of the sky.

Once the domain of scientists’ off-hours schemes scrawled on cocktail napkins, such geoengineering is getting a serious look in the political realm.

“We’re moving into a different kind of world,” says environmental economist Scott Barrett of Columbia University. “Better we turn to asking if ‘geoengineering’ could work, than waiting until it becomes a necessity.”

A National Academy of Sciences‘ best estimate has global warming bumping up average temperatures by 3 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Meanwhile, greenhouse gas emissions that are largely responsible, most from burning the modern economy’s main fuels, coal and oil, look set to continue to rise for the next quarter-century, according to Energy Information Agency estimates.

“That’s where geoengineering comes in,” says international relations expert David Victor of the University of California-San Diego. “Research into geoengineering creates another option for the public.”

Geoengineering takes its cue from the natural experiment that actually had made the only dent in global warming’s rise in the last two decades — the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which blasted more than 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide 21 miles high, straight into the stratosphere. The stratosphere suspended those sulfur particles in the air worldwide, where the haze they created scattered and reflected sunlight away from the Earth and cooled global atmospheric temperatures nearly 0.7 to 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit in 1992 and 1993, before finally washing out, according to NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies estimates. Firing about half that much sulfur into the stratosphere every year for 30 years would help stabilize global warming’s rise, National Center for Atmospheric Research climate scientist Tom Wigley estimated in a much-debated 2006 Science journal report.

Humanity would effectively become addicted to sky-borne sulfates to keep the cooling on track. The tradeoff is that rain and snow patterns would likely shift, a 2008 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study found, consigning hundreds of millions of the poorest people on the planet in Africa and Asia to recurring drought. Read Full Article…

Related Articles:

Chemtrails: The Consequences of Toxic Metals

There’s a mini ice age coming

1000+ Scientists Dissent over Anthropogenic Warming

U.N. Climate Concern Morphs into Chemtrail Glee Club

Rady Ananda

In Cancun, Mexico, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is under pressure to overturn the UN ban on chemtrails. This would dissolve an agreement reached in October at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity conference in Japan. In that landmark decision, the 193-member CBD agreed by consensus to a moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments.

The US has not agreed to it.  Citing profits, the US further refuses to cut greenhouse gas emissions attributed to global warming, the purported concern of the United Nations. Instead, it seeks to expand its geoengineering projects for which hundreds of patents have already been filed. (See sampling below.)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) opened the Cancun conference last week by discussing geoengineering options that will be further explored in Peru later this year. Such environmental modification (ENMOD) programs include putting mirrors in space, iron seeding the oceans, planting genetically modified forests, and chemtrailing the skies.  Of course, all of these activities are already well underway.

The next UN climate change assessment report, AR5, is due out in November of 2014. It will include geoengineering options, said Indian businessman and economist, Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the IPCC. In his introductory comments in Cancun, he stated, “The scope of the AR5 has also been expanded over and above previous reports, and would include, for instance, focused treatment of subjects like clouds and aerosols, geo-engineering options,” and the usual climate related issues.

Shady Science and Corporate Profits
The IPCC has been condemned for inflating temperature records and exaggerating estimates of glacial retreat. IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri has also been criticized for his “extensive interests in companies that stand to benefit from carbon trading,” and for using his position “to attract major funding to his own organization, The Energy and Resources Institute2 (TERI), known previously (and concurrently by some), as the Tata Energy Research Institute,” noted the Science and Public Policy Institute in an April 2010 investigative report entitled, “Dr Rajendra Pachauri and the IPCC – No Fossil Fool.”

The Tata Group, “has a total market capitalization worldwide of some $77 billion, with major involvement in energy and energy-related industries, including carbon trading,” reports SPPI.
Tata is also linked to India’s war on tribes. Ongoing corporate ecoterrorism and land grabs led world-renowned author Arundhati Roy to agitate on behalf of indigenous peoples, demanding freedom for the people of Kashmir’s disputed territory. Last week, Delhi filed charges against her for defense of tribes characterizing it as “waging war against the state.” Corporate dominance was slowed, however, when a ‘real Avatar tribe’ won a stunning victory over mining giant, Vedanta Resources, last August. (See the 11-minute, award-winning film, “Mine: Story of a Sacred Mountain.”)

It bears repeating that the man connected to Tata, Mr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairs the IPCC which advises the UN on climate actions.

Global governance on geoengineering has a history of profiteering.  See, e.g., Chief sponsor of landmark climate manipulation conference maintains close financial ties to controversial geo-engineering company, by Joe Romm, Climate Progress, 18 Mar 2010. For a partial list of patents for stratospheric aerial spraying programs from 1917 thru mid-2003, see Lori Kramer’s Patently Obvious: A Partial History of Aerosol and Weather Related Technologies.”

In CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies,” researchers revealed that “the proposed scenario by the IPCC in 2001 is identical to the claims” in Hughes Aircraft’s 1991 patent. Hughes was acquired by Raytheon, a major defense contractor, in 1997.

Delivery systems aren’t the only types of patents related to chemtrails. Aluminum is part of the various metal-chemical cocktails sprayed and is highly toxic to plants, therefore representing a serious threat to normal agriculture. For over thirteen years, biotech scientists have researched aluminum resistant genes in plants, finally isolating one in 2007. Today, a “new generation of genetically engineered crop research” seeks to develop aluminum-resistance in commercial crops.

Environmental watchdog ETC Group* notes in its 56-page report, “Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering,” that, “there is a complex web of connections between big capital and the global technofixers, comprised of researchers, multinational corporations and small start-ups, the military establishment and respected think tanks, policy makers and politicians. The non-profit institutions that promote geoengineering are well connected with the private sector.”

On December 6th, energy and environmental ministers from around the world began meeting to discuss a “balanced package of decisions.” Louise Gray at The Telegraph advises, “It is generally agreed that a global deal to cut emissions is unlikely.”

Instead, these UN meetings on climate change appear to be more about protecting pollutive industry practices and promoting another environmentally toxic industry: geoengineering.  It would almost be laughable except for the homicidal and ecocidal affect of such plans.

*Blogger Cassandra Anderson recently noted that the ETC Group is partly funded by the Ford Foundation, “known for supporting depopulation.” So far, ETC has adamantly opposed geoengineering, as well as genetic engineering, both suspected depopulation tools. However, ETC also denies current ENMOD activities, saying “there is no actual deployment to govern.”

In “Confronting the ‘futuristic’ branding of geoengineering,” mass perception management and the ETC Group are explored in more detail.

Rady Ananda’s work has appeared in several online and print publications. She holds a B.S. in Natural Resources from The Ohio State University’s School of Agriculture. Using years of editorial experience and web publishing, Rady now promotes the ideas and work of a select group of quality writers and artists at Food Freedom and COTO Report.

Case Orange Report: The History of Weather Manipulation

Rady Ananda  

At an international symposium held in Ghent, Belgium May 28-30, 2010, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” It is “fully operational” with a solid sixty-year history. Though “hostile” environmental modification was banned by UN Convention in 1978, its “friendly” use today is being hailed as the new savior to climate change and to water and food shortages. The military-industrial complex stands poised to capitalize on controlling the world’s weather.  “In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” ~World Meteorological Organization, 2007 

 The only conspiracy surrounding geoengineering is that most governments and industry refuse to publicly admit what anyone with eyes can see. Peer-reviewed research is available to anyone willing and able to maneuver the labyrinth of scientific journals. So, while there is some disclosure on the topic, full public explanation is lacking. A brief list of confirmed cloud seeding events is produced at bottom, starting in 1915. 

  Going under a variety of names – atmospheric geoengineering, weather modification, solar radiation management, chemical buffering, cloud seeding, weather force multiplication – toxic aerial spraying is popularly known as chemtrails. However, this is merely one technique employed to modify weather. The practice of environmental modification is vast and well funded.  

  Hosted by the Belfort Group, which has been working for the last seven years to raise public awareness of toxic aerial spraying, the Symposium included chemtrail awareness groups from Greece, Germany, Holland, France and the U.S.  Belfort published five videos covering only May 29,[1] when filmmaker Michael Murphy (Environmental Deception and What in the world are they spraying)[2] and aerospace engineer Dr. Coen Vermeeren [3] gave the most dramatic presentations.  

  Dr Vermeeren, of the Delft University of Technology, presented [4] a 300-page scientific report entitled, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies.” [5]  

 Case Orange notes it was prepared for the Belfort Group by a team of scientists but presented anonymously. It was sent to embassies, news organizations and interested groups around the world “to force public debate.”  

 The report spends some time on HAARP, the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, [6] which is a military endeavor focused on ionospheric, electromagnetic, and global electrostatic field manipulation, and on other exotic weapon systems that manipulate the environment. While related, they go beyond this discussion of chemtrails.  

  In the interest of brevity, the health and environmental implications of cloud seeding is not discussed in any depth herein. Case Orange does go into it, as did most of the speakers at the Belfort Symposium. Cursory research reveals a debate among researchers as to chemtrail toxicity, but whether that’s a 50-50 or 99-1 argument is unknown. 

 Contrails Are Chemtrails

 Case Orange rejects use of the term ‘chemtrails’ because it is associated with amateur conspiracy theorists. The only credible document it could find that uses it is the Space Preservation Act of 2001 introduced by U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). [7]  H.R. 2977 sought to ban the use of exotic weapon systems that would damage climate, weather, tectonic and biological systems. “Chemtrails” are specifically listed. Though later removed, no version of the bill ever became law.  

  Instead, the writers prefer the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon since all contrails are chemtrails. ‘Persistent contrails’ distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes.  

  Case Orange also rejects misanthropic intentions behind persistent contrails. It shows that geoengineering is fully operational, but rejects it is used to sicken people on the assumptions that 1) public health agencies have the public interest at heart; and 2) the economy is consumer driven. The authors indicate no awareness of numerous reports of collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and government health agencies. This year, a significant conflict-of-interest report appeared in the prestigious British Medical Journal, which further heightened suspicions that the H1N1 flu and its vaccines were a scam.[8]  Nor do the authors consider that sick people will spur economic growth in a capitalist (for profit) health system.  

 Dr. Vermeeren gave his own introductory remarks and conclusions, but spent the bulk of the hour presenting information from Case Orange. He frankly admitted the existence of persistent contrails.  

 “We also know that chemtrails do exist because we do spraying; for crops, for example, and we know that they have been spraying for military purposes. So, chemtrails is nothing new. We know about it.”  

 “Weather manipulation through contrail formation… is in place and fully operational.”

 Case Orange cites publicly available material that shows geoengineering has been ongoing for “at least 60 years.” Used as a weapon of war in Hamburg by the UK during World War II, it was also used in the Vietnam Conflict by the US.  Controversy over its use, revealed by investigative reporter Jack Anderson, spurred Senate hearings in 1972. During those hearings, military officials denied the use of cloud seeding technology. Later, a private letter from Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird admitting that his testimony was false surfaced. He, again unbelievably, claimed he didn’t know what was happening. [9]  

  Environmental modification (EnMod) weaponry was finally banned by treaty in 1978. The UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques forced the end of such programs, overtly anyway.[10]  (Case Orange authors seem unaware of this international ban, as it is one of their recommendations.)  

 However, with widespread reporting of rising global temperatures, increasing population, and degradation of water supplies, renewed interest in EnMod is now becoming broadly supported. (See, e.g., Top economists recommend climate engineering, 4 Sep 2009 [11] and similarly, Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, 1 Sep 2009.[12]) 

 The crew in Operation Stormfury in 1963. Note the special belly on the Douglas DC6-B for cloud seeding purposes. (From Case Orange)

  Building a case for old technology finding a new market, Case Orange discusses several U.S. patents. For example, authors describe a 1975 patent, “Powder Contrail Generation,” [13] for the invention of a:  

 “specific contrail generation apparatus for producing a powder contrail having maximum radiation scattering ability for a given weight [of] material. The seeding material… consists of 85% metallic particles and 15% colloidal Silica and Silica gel in order to produce a stable contrail that has a residence period of 1 up to 2 weeks.”  

 In 2009, researchers published “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global warming,” which proposed two methods of delivery for this same proportion of metallics to silica and the same staying power of one to two weeks.[14]  

 Case Orange also reveals a 1991 patent held by Hughes Aircraft Company [15] that:  

 “contains 18 claims to reduce global warming through stratospheric seeding with aluminum oxide… thorium oxide… and refractory Welsbach material…”  

 The report notes that “the proposed scenario by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] in 2001 is identical to the claims” in Hughes Aircraft’s 1991 patent. Hughes was acquired by Raytheon, a private defense contractor, in 1997, “the same company that acquired E-systems and the HAARP contract.” 

 Case Orange presents evidence that Raytheon stands to control all weather, which the authors find repugnant given that it is a private corporation. The authors recommend suing private corporations instead of governments. But subcontracting is quite common for governments and agencies, especially the US military. The distinction between large, powerful corporations and governments is a fine line obscure to common folk. And, the effect is the same whether governments are spraying us with nano-sized metals, chemicals or biologicals, or whether corporations do. The authors’ protective posture toward governments is nonsensical.

 Case Orange suggests that geoengineering found new life in the global warming scare. Old patents are being dusted off and private interests stand to make substantial sums now that Cap and Trade has been exposed as ineffective in reducing greenhouse gases. (Although, lawmakers are still considering it since substantial sums can be made from the scheme, to wit: Al Gore reportedly achieved billionaire status from it.)  

 Since 2007, billionaire Bill Gates has spent at least $4.5 million on geoengineering research. [16]  Since reducing emissions is not popular with industry, ‘Plan B’ – geoengineering – is being touted as the answer to climate change and water shortage.  A longer description of Plan B is: Add more pollution to the sky and water to offset industrial pollution, without reducing industrial pollution. 

 Human rights and environmental watchdog, ETC Group, describes the momentum [17]: 

 The roll-out of geoengineering as Plan B is being skillfully executed: prominent high-level panels sponsored by prestigious groups, a spate of peer-reviewed articles this January in science journals, and a line-up of panicked politicians in northern countries, nodding nervously in agreement as scientists testify about the ‘need to research Plan B.’”  

 ETC reports that Gates’ top geoengineering advisor unveiled a plan to grow solar radiation management research “one-hundred-fold, from $10 million to $1 billion over ten years.”  

 Indeed, several watchdog groups recently ramped up calls to address clean water shortage. “At the end of July 2010, the United Nations General Assembly will vote on an important resolution, initiated by the Bolivian government, which would make clean water and sanitation a human right,” reports Food and Water Watch.[18] 

 Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025

 Case Orange ties a 1996 report by top military personnel in the U.S., “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” [19] to evidentiary details (like governmental spraying schedules, chemical orders, correct nomenclature used in airline operating manuals, and calls for geoengineering by economists) to support its notion of “heavy involvement of governments at top level in climate control projects.”  

Owning the Weather in 2025 provides a specific timeline for the use of EnMod technologies in cooperation with the Weather Modification Association (WMA), a business-government group promoting the beneficial uses of environmental modification [20]:  

 2000 Introduce ionic mirrors, with a sharp increase from 2008;  

 2000-2025 Use chemicals for atmospheric seeding by civilian (as well as military) aviation;  

 2004 Create smart clouds thru nanotechnology, with exponential increase after 2010;  

 2005 Introduce ‘carbon black dust’.  

 Though Case Orange decries the paucity of research into EnMod, in 2009 WMA published its position statement on the safety of seeding clouds with silver-iodide, citing three dozen research papers from 1970 through 2006. [21]  In 2007, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published a statement that included “Guidelines for the Planning of Weather Modification Activities.” Acknowledging that the modern technology of weather modification began in the 1940s, it is still “an emerging technology” today. [22] WMO indicated disappointment that research is being abandoned for operations. 

 Case Orange contains no reference to the WMA position statement citing all that research, although it cites the group. Nor does it mention the World Meteorological Organization, an agency of the United Nations, which has a link to its Weather Modification portal on its Index page.

At the end of the section, The bare necessity of geoengineering through cloud generation for survival of the planet (5.2.7), Case Orange states:  

 “[O]ur investigation team comes to the conclusion that climate control programs, controlled by the military but approved by governments, are silently implemented in order to avoid the worst case scenarios they obviously do not want. The two basic instruments are temperature control through generation of artificial clouds and manipulation of the ionosphere through ionosphere heaters.  

 “Both remain basically military combat systems with the option to go into the offensive if deemed necessary. However since several ionosphere heaters are installed on various places around the globe one can assume that there is wide cooperation between governments in order to reach the climate targets by 2025: controlling the weather and thus the planet.”  

 “The spraying schemes seem to be organized in a logical pattern so that the whole of Europe is covered in a 3-day period,” the authors write. The following images cover January 3-5, 2010:  


 Case Orange agrees that climate change needs to be addressed. Regarding Climate-Gate, the authors suggest that the University of East Anglia deliberately manipulated the climate data to gradually prepare the global population for its future on a hotter planet.   

 They also cite research that supports the notion that climate change is real. During the three-day grounding of most aircraft after 9/11, scientists noticed an increase in temperature of 1.1 °C (2 °F). [23] This is an astounding increase in such a short time frame. The incidence of cloud seeding reports by the public increases exponentially after this.   

 The 1996 military piece, Owning the Weather in 2025, gives climate change skeptics “an insight in what to expect in the 21st century:   

 ‘Current demographic, economic and environmental trends will create global stresses that provide the impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn weather modfication ability into capability. In the United States weather modification will likely become part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.’”   


 “Persistent contrails,” however, “have a devastating impact on eco-systems on this planet and quality of life in general.” Case Orange joins the call of Bill Gates’ geoengineering advisor and the WMO for new research measuring the impact on human health and the environment from EnMod programs. 

 Case Orange also recommends an immediate and full disclosure of current EnMod activities to the public; and that all civil aviation laws be abided.    

 Of note, in response to policy interest in geoengineering as a means to control climate change and enhance water supplies, on May 14, 2010, the science subcommittee of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity proposed a geoengineering moratorium. [24] This proposed ban on “friendly” EnMod programs will be heard at the Tenth Conference of Parties to UN Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan this October.  

 Case Orange reports that China and Russia openly admit to cloud-seeding, while the U.S. denies such activities. The U.S. does permit open air testing of chemical and biological weapons but not under the law the authors cited, which they paraphrased:   

 The secretary of defense may conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological agents on civilian populations.   

 Public law of the United States, Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977.    

 Codified as 50 USC 1520, under Chapter 32 Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, Public Law 85-79 was repealed in 1997 by Public Law 105-85. In its place, 15 USC 1520a provides restrictions (such as informed consent). 50 USC 1512, however, allows open air testing of chemicals and biologicals and allows presidential override of notices and of public health considerations for national security reasons. [25] Case Orange authors are thus correct in asserting that such programs are legal in the U.S.  


 Having heard enough conspiracy theories to last me a lifetime, I hesitated researching the subject of chemtrails, and maintained skepticism. That all changed in March when I personally observed two jets seeding clouds, along with about 30 other people in the parking lot at lunchtime. Someone took a picture from her cell phone. 

The trails lasted for hours, and looked distinctly different from other clouds. Since then, I’ve been watching the skies and can now tell when they’ve been seeded. We often have a white haze instead of a deep blue sky, even when persistent contrails aren’t visible. 

 A few days ago, someone sent me a link to the Belfort Symposium videos. Four hours into it, I became riveted when Dr. Vermeeren began his presentation of the Case Orange report. That’s when I decided to seriously look into the subject. As informative as Case Orange is for the newcomer, any serious research into the subject reveals that what all those “conspiracy theorists” suggest is true: they are spraying the skies, and they’re not telling us. 

 Discovering that the World Meteorological Organization has a tab on its website called Weather Modification shocked me. Reading their disappointment that governments are going ahead with operations instead of doing more research confirmed all of it for me. And that was published in 2007! 

 So, while we’re not being told, the information is publicly available to any armchair researcher. 

 Being so late to the game on all this accords me sympathy for others. Military leaders have for centuries recognized that it rains after a heavy battle, but harnessing that power in a way that doesn’t cause a deluge like in San Diego in 1915 has been a task. I came upon other stories like that in my research – misdirected hurricanes, farm wars, massive flooding and mudslides. It’s no wonder there are so many books on the subject.  It’s no wonder this turned into a 3,000-word essay. 

 Chemtrails are no hoax; I spent time going to as many original sources as I could find. The record is replete with mainstream news accounts of the early days of the modern EnMod program. If its birth can be marked by Britain’s successful use of chaff in 1943 to jam enemy radar, the program is 67 years old. That’s quite a history to keep under the radar of most people. That reflects most poorly on mainstream news sources, who are supposed to expose government shenanigans. 

 A Brief History of Cloud Seeding 

 Cloud seeding, as a US military research project, began as early as the 1830s, according to Colby College professor, James R. Fleming. [26]  Verifiably successful rainmaking attempts did not occur until 1915.   

 1915  To end a prolonged drought, San Diego hired reputed rainmaker Charles Hatfield, who claimed that the evaporation of his secret chemical brew atop wooden towers could attract clouds.  San Diego was rewarded with a 17-day deluge that totaled 28 inches. The deadly downpour washed out more than 100 bridges, made roads impassable over a huge area, destroyed communications lines, and left thousands homeless. [27]   

Charles Hatfield’s rain washes out dam 1915, San Diego. Dozens died. 

 1943 “The first operational use of chaff (aluminium strips which are precisely cut to a quarter of the radar’s wavelength) took place in July 1943, when Hamburg was subjected to a devastating bombing raid. The radar screens were cluttered with reflections from the chaff and the air defence was, in effect, completely blinded.” [28]   

 1946  General Electric’s Vincent Schaefer dropped six pounds of dry ice into a cold cloud over Greylock Peak in the Berkshires, causing an “explosive” growth of three miles in the cloud. [29]   

New York dry ice seeding 1946 (Life Magazine) 

 1947  Australian meteorologists successfully repeated the process. [30]   

 1949  Project Cirrus: Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir and General Electric researcher Vincent Schaefer fed ten ounces of silver iodide into a blowtorch apparatus and brought down 320 billion gallons of rain across half of New Mexico from a desert near Albuquerque. [31]   

 1950  Harvard meteorologist Wallace Howell seeded New York City skies with dry ice and silver iodide smoke, filling the city’s reservoirs to near capacity. [32]   

 1952  The UK’s Operation Cumulus resulted in 250 times the normal amount of rainfall, killing dozens and destroying landscapes. [33]  

 1962-1983  Operation Stormfury, a hurricane modification program, had some success in reducing winds by up to 30%. [34]   

 1966-1972  Project Intermediary Compatriot (later called Pop Eye) successfully seeded clouds in Laos. The technique became part of military actions in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos from 1967 to 1972. Initially revealed by Jack Anderson in the Washington Post, 18 Mar 1971. [35]   

 1986  The Soviet air force diverted Chernobyl fallout from reaching Moscow by seeding clouds. Belarus, instead, was hit. [36]   


 [1] Belfort Group videos of International Symposium on Chemtrails, May 29, 2010 proceedings.   

 [2] Michael Murphy website:   

 [3] Dr Coen Vermeeren, Delft University of Technology bio, n.d.

[4] Dr Coen Vermeeren Symposium speech, Afternoon Part 1 video, (starting at about 35 mins..) (29 May 2010)   

 [5] Anonymous, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies,” 10 May 2010. PDF without appendices:   

 [6] High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, Fact Sheet, 15 Jun 2007.   

 [7] Space Preservation Act of 2001, H.R.2977, 107th Congress, 1st Session. Introduced by U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich.   

 [8] Deborah Cohen and Philip Carter, “Conflicts of Interest: WHO and the pandemic ‘flu conspiracies,’” British Medical Journal 2010;340:c2912, 3 Jun 2010.   

 [9] The Sunshine Project, “The Limits of Inside Pressure: The US Congress Role in ENMOD,” n.d. Accessed July 2010.   

 [10] United Nations, “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,” Resolution 31/72, 10 Dec 1976, effective 1978. Geneva.   

 [11] Copenhagen Consensus Center, “Top economists recommend climate engineering,” 4 Sep 2009. Press release [pdf]   

 [12] Catherine Brahic, “Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, New Scientist 1 Sep 2009.   

 [13] Donald K. Werle, et al., “Powder contrail generation,” U.S. Patent 3,899,144, 12 Aug 1975. Assignee: U.S. Secretary of the Navy.,899,144.PN.&OS=PN/3,899,144&RS=PN/3,899,144   

 [14] David L Mitchell and William Finnegan, “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global warming,” Environmental Research Letters Vol. 4 No. 4, 30 Oct 2009. Available by subscription:   

 [15] David B. Chang and I-Fu Shih, “Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming,” U.S. Patent 5,003,186, 26 Mar 1991. Assignee: Hughes Aircraft Company.,003,186.PN.&OS=PN/5,003,186&RS=PN/5,003,186   

 [16] Eli Kintisch, “Bill Gates Funding Geoengineering Research,” Science Insider, 26 Jan 2010.   

 [17] ETC Group, “Top-down Planet Hackers Call for Bottom-up Governance: Geoengineers’ Bid to Establish Voluntary Testing Regime Must Be Opposed,” 11 Feb 2010.   

 [18] Food and Water Watch:  

 [19] Col Tamzy J. House, et al. “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,” Department of Defense U.S. Air Force, 17 Jun 1996. Publicly released August 1996. Reproduced at Federation of American Scientists:   

 [20] Weather Modicaton Association website:   

 [21] Weather Modification Association, “Position Statement on the Environmental Impact of Using Silver Iodides as a Cloud Seeding Agent,” July 2009. 

 [22] World Meteorological Organization, “WMO Statement on Weather Modification,” UN Commission for Atmospheric Sciences Management Group, 26 Sep 2007. 

 [23] Donald J. Travis, et al. “Contrails reduce daily temperature range,” Nature 418, 601, 8 Aug 2002. Reproduced in full by University of Washington, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences:   

 [24] Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, “In-depth Review of the Work on Biodiversity and Climate Change, Draft Recommendation,” Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environmental Programme, UNEP/CBD/SBTTA/14/L.9, 15 May 2010.   

 [25] United States Code, Title 50, Chapter 32, “Chemical and Biological Warfare Program.”   

 [26] James Rodger Fleming, “The pathological history of weather and climate modification: Three cycles of promise and hype,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2006. Available at   

 [27] Stephen Cole, “Weather on Demand,” American Heritage, 2005.   

 [28] Monsignore Pizzafunghi Bosselese, “The History of Radar,” BBC, 14 Jul 2003.   

 [29] Fleming, citing New York Times, 15 Nov 1946, 24.   

 [30] Squires, P. & Smith, E. J., “The Artificial Stimulation of Precipitation by Means of Dry Ice,” Australian Journal of Scientific Research, Series A: Physical Sciences, vol. 2, p.232, 1949AuSRA…2..232S, 1949. Republished at Harvard University:…2..232S/0000244.000.html  

 Also see: Stephen Cole, “Weather on Demand,” American Heritage, 2005.   

 [31]  Life Magazine, “Solution to Water Shortage: Rain makers’ success shows how New York could fill its reservoirs,” p. 113, 20 Feb 1950.   

 [32] Life Magazine, “U.S. Water: We can supplement our outgrown sources at a price,” 21 Aug 1950, p. 52.


 [33] John Vidal and Helen Weinstein, “RAF rainmakers ’caused 1952 flood’: Unearthed documents suggest experiment triggered torrent that killed 35 in Devon disaster,” The Guardian, 30 Aug 2001.,10821,544259,00.html  

 Also see: BBC News, “Rain-making link to killer floods,” 30 Aug 2001.  

 [34] Jerry E. Smith, “Weather Warfare: The Military’s Plan to Draft Mother Nature,” Adventures Unlimited Press, 2006. pp. 47-54.


 [35] ibid. pp. 54-60.   

 [36] Richard Gray, “How we made the Chernobyl rain,” Daily Telegraph, 22 Apr 2007.   

 [37] Ian O’Neill, “The Chinese Weather Manipulation Missile Olympics,” Universe Today, 12 Aug 2008.   

 [38] Anonymous, “Moscow Halo,” cell phone video uploaded to YouTube, 7 Oct 2009. reposted at

Togel178 Togel178 Togel178 Togel178 Togel178 Pedetogel Pedetogel Pedetogel Pedetogel Pedetogel Sabatoto Sabatoto Sabatoto Sabatoto Sabatoto Togel279 Togel279 Togel279 Togel279 Togel279 Togel279 Togel279 Togel158 Togel158 Togel158 Togel158 Togel158 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Novaslot88 Novaslot88 Novaslot88 Novaslot88 Novaslot88