Plan V-TV/71: How Flowers Can Transform Vermont’s 21st Century Farm Economy, with Walt Krukowski
June 12, 2019Stop 5G: An International Appeal
June 14, 2019Publisher’s Note: Deep thanks to fellow Vermonter Jacqueline Brook for her research and writing here – a powerful expansion of “Our Geoengineering Age” series.
Let’s Warm The Arctic!
Back in the late 50s, scientists were tossing out ideas for how to warm the Arctic (1), because it was thought to be such a good idea. Dr. Harry Wexler, for instance, proposed detonating 10 H-bombs in the Arctic Ocean to increase global temps by 1.7 C (2). Did Wexler and his ilk stop their exploration? Or did it just go ‘black’? Because, nowadays it’s not at all difficult to pull up articles like Grete Mautner’s “Today’s Arctic is Nothing but the Desired Treasure Land” (3) and to discover that numerous entities are absolutely drooling over the prospect of a melted Arctic region.
But, maybe nothing really goes ‘black’ anymore. Maybe everything is hidden in plain sight as it was before 9/11, when the document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” wished for “a new Pearl Harbor.” Maybe our politicians, military leaders, and intelligence agents spend the better part of their days laughing their heads off at us peons. After all, Americans will buy just about anything. Especially if it’s wrapped in a flag.
Climate Change & Increased Conflict—That Business The Pentagon Is In
A report for the Department of ‘Defense’ has concluded that climate change will “contribute to increased instability and conflict” around the world (4). How grand for the Pentagon. It is—after all—in the business of conflict. We fabricated the Global war OF Terror—or endless, global war—as the Gift that keeps on Giving in response to 9/11, did we not? Although it is getting a little tired and old for some of us. Time for some new marketing? Keep in mind that wars and conflicts often take many years to plan. But, increased conflict as a result of increased migration (bombing numerous countries for 18 years apparently hasn’t achieved the goals; gotta get those numbers up!), plus the opening up of polar shipping lanes and a whole new region to fight over… Well, ‘climate change’ is just totally Win-Win for the Pentagon and the Military-Industrial Complex, isn’t it? Crank up all the ionospheric heaters! Blast the atmosphere with microwaves!
Another publication entitled “A Responsibility to Prepare: Strengthening National and Homeland Security in the Face of a Changing Climate,” by the Climate and Security Advisory Group (dated February 26, 2018), declares on page 15: “Arctic ice is receding, opening previously inaccessible natural resources, shipping lanes, and tourism opportunities, with many countries eager to compete for claims and influence.” Eager! More drooling.
From page 19: “Climate change is accelerating instability around the world and posing threats to regions that the U.S. views as key geostrategic environments. … Though seemingly dire, this dynamic also presents the United States with an opportunity to expand its influence in these key geostrategic environments…”
From page 20: “The Secretary of Defense should … encourage all Commanders of the Geographic Combatant Commands (GCCs) to increase engagement with partner nation militaries on military capacity building programs…”
No need to comment on any of that. Carpe diem.
A Storm That Benefited Our Military
I don’t know if we had the wherewithal to pump energy into Typhoon Haiyan and direct it through the Philippines in such a way as to cause the immense devastation that it did back in 2013, but I do know that it benefited our military immensely. Prior to the Typhoon hitting, we had been having a huge amount of trouble renegotiating our military footprint on the islands. After the typhoon hit, we were welcomed with opened arms.
Typhoon Haiyan may’ve set a new world record for lowest barometric pressure at 860 mb, possibly surpassing the record set by Typhoon Tip back in ’79.
Although storms that experience a sudden decrease in barometric pressure are not that rare, our perception of them is likely to be different when the terms “bomb cyclone,” “weather bomb,” and “bombogenesis” are used.
Meteorologists John Gyakum and Frederick Sanders dropped the first weather bomb in a 1980 paper. Although Gyakum insists that bombs had been casually connected with weather in the corridors of MIT years before that (5)—the same time period as the discovery of our use of weather modification in Vietnam, which led to the Environment Modification Convention (ENMOD) in the late 70s.
Father Gherzi Gauges The Ionosphere
Ernesto Gherzi was a Jesuit priest who, by all accounts, was an amazing weather forecaster. He was the director of the Zi Ka Wei Observatory in Shanghai, China, from 1930 to 1949, where his typhoon forecasts could be relied upon. Barometric and temperature readings were not his mainstays. Here’s his opening sentence from a paper entitled “Makers of East Asia’s Weather”:
“Modern meteorology has realized for many years that the world’s different types of weather are not a function of the barometrical recordings or the thermometer readings at the reporting stations, but that they depend on the type of “air mass” which, at the contemplated place and time, causes such pressure and temperature figures.”
Instead of relying on barometers and thermometers, Gherzi pulsed radio signals off the ionosphere during daylight hours. The return echo indicated the level of the ionosphere and the nature of the air mass beneath it.
From a paper entitled “Ionosphere and Surface Weather”:
“Anytime the reflection obtained is from the E or Es layer the air-mass covering the surface will be found to be the Maritime air-mass.
“If the reflection is from a low-level F layer (200-300 km of virtual height) the air-mass present will be the Polar air-mass (Arctic or Continental).
“If the echo received is from a high-level F layer (above 300 km of virtual height) the air-mass on the surface will be found to be the Tropical air-mass.”
According to Gherzi in the former paper, it is the mixing of various air masses that is responsible for “bad” weather. If the air mass above is homogenous, the weather will be “fine” and have “the temperature and other characteristics of that type of air mass.” The type of clouds that form when air masses mix were another big weather indicator for him.
From a short article entitled “Ionosphere and Weather”: “When a typhoon had been located, on the weather map, at about 200 miles distance, an E-echo would show that the maritime air mass would bring the cyclone dangerously close to us. An F-echo would show that no danger was threatening the Shanghai area, since the typhoon would recurve.” He goes on to list the rather ordinary radio equipment required for such forecasting.
Interestingly, Gherzi is said to have been a prolific writer. My internet searches for his writings, however, have produced very little.
Plasma Density Caverns, Artificial Ducts, Ionospheric Troughs, & Tropical Cyclones
While I don’t know if we could’ve suddenly lifted the ceiling over Typhoon Haiyan, I do know that deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force David Walker testified before Congress, saying that the Air Force no longer needed the use of the High Frequency Auroral Research Program (HAARP) installation in Alaska. “We’re moving on to other ways of managing the ionosphere, which the HAARP was really designed to do, to inject energy into the ionosphere to be able to actually control it. But that work has been completed” (6).
These days, if you google “ionosphere” and “cyclone” or “typhoon,” lots of papers will pop up. Besides Gherzi, Siegfried Bauer, in 1957, noted a relationship between frontal passages in the troposphere and “F2-layer characteristics” (7). The troposphere—where our weather happens—and the ionosphere are said to be “coupled.”
So, what happens to the weather beneath an area where, for instance, an ionospheric heater is pointed and the plasma or ion density of the ionosphere is modified? According to a Russian paper published in 2015: “…plasma density caverns extending over several hundreds of kilometers are observed in the nighttime upper ionosphere a day before the formation of a tropical storm or even a category-I hurricane. The second stage, typical of TCs [tropical cyclones] with intensities reaching categories I and II, is the displacement of a wide plasma density maximum in the upper ionosphere from the geomagnetic equator into the region…” (8).
I wonder if a “plasma density cavern” in the ionosphere is the same as an “ionospheric trough”? Because the DEMETER satellite has observed an “ionospheric trough over HAARP in relation to HF [high-frequency] heating experiments,” according to the title of another paper (9). And HF-heating of the ionosphere can generate “strong heat transport” and drive “ion outflows, displacing the ambient plasma and leading to the formation of density ducts that stretch along the magnetic field line to the conjugate point,” according to a paper entitled “Formation of artificial ionospheric ducts.”
And then there’s the enigmatic paper “Observation of Plasma Oscillating Structures in External Ionosphere over Cyclones” (G. Beyaev et al) and its problematic English. For instance: “Fig.5. The development of bubbles in the upper ionosphere above tropical cyclone Cynthia at work heating facility Sura.” This paragraph might help you, but it doesn’t help me (my italics, at the end): “An example of the strong influence of the evening terminator at the electron density in the upper ionosphere perturbed by Hurricane Cynthia 18/02/1991 is shown. The observing dynamics of the ionosphere on three consecutive orbits can be explained by the transport of the neutral component above typhoon and its drift to the west. Development of the Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities depends strongly on the neutral component. At high solar activity it leads to the formation of structures such as ‘bubbles.’ In this case, the dynamics of the upper ionosphere in this sector is influenced by the work of heating facility Sura [Kostin et al., 1993].”
Researchgate.net delivers a 1993 paper with Kostin as the lead author (“Satellite studies of disturbances of the topside ionosphere resulting from the effect of high-power short-wave transmissions in the ionospheric F-region”) entirely redacted.
Caverns, troughs, ducts… It all sounds the same to me. However, according to those evil Russkies, the displacement of plasma is part of the tropical cyclone process. And Gherzi just needed to ‘feel’ the ionosphere with his radio waves to know what the weather was going to do. Depending on its height, he knew if typhoons were headed towards Shanghai or away from the city.
Weather As A Weapon
That’s the title of an article in the June 1958 issue of Popular Science, by Capt. Howard T. Orville, as told to John Kord Lagemann. Four paragraphs describe how “electricity plays a part in determining our weather,” and “of particular interest is the ionosphere.”
“We might find other ways to manipulate the charges of earth and sky and so affect the weather. One means might be an electronic beam to ionize or de-ionize the atmosphere over a given area.”
Those evil Russkies take over the end of the article. They’ve put tremendous effort into “finding a sea outlet through ice-locked northern harbors.” And melting the polar ice cap would result in “the sinking of our East Coast cities beneath the Atlantic, and the transformation of the Mississippi Valley into a huge inland sea.”
Finally: By no means can the Russians be allowed to gain control of the weather first!
An article in the March 1965 issue of the same magazine describes the orgasmic prospect of controlling the weather (“The Weather: Now We Can Do Something About It”). This article drools that “large-scale control of weather would give a nation a mightier weapon than the ICBM”; mentions the use of electrical charge, as well; and asserts that “this weather control of the future will take international teamwork…”
Ionospheric heaters had already started springing up around the globe. Professor William E. Gordon, whose interest was the study of the ionosphere, pushed for construction of the Arecibo Observatory on Puerto Rico, and the work began in 1960. Ionospheric heating experiments were up and running by 1971 (10).
Both the 2nd article above and Volume 1 of “Legislative History: Saline Water Conversion Act” (p. 90; digitized by Google) mention the Gulf of Alaska as “the great storm generator that affects our continent.” It is there that “three air systems, the polar system, the moist warmer oceanic system and the cold dryer Asiatic system from the Gobi desert come together and generate the storms that come in various tracks across the continent.” That harkens back to Father Gherzi.
The HAARP installation, by which the Air Force learned how to control the ionosphere, was built just north of the Gulf of Alaska, in Gakona, AK.
New & Improved! From The Perfect Weapon To Fixing Our Broken Planet
The numerous schemes described in the March ’65 Popular Science article now come under the heading of “geoengineering,” with proponents like Harvard’s David Keith, who has explored the prospect of using aircraft to fill the atmosphere with sulfates that would ‘whiten’ the sky (11). Although this would likely make us all depressed, decrease the output from the world’s solar panels, and send millions running to refill their oil tanks (12). Sounds like a great idea, doesn’t it? It would definitely kill my investment in solar panels. And excuse me, but where has the word “pollution” gone?
Shift to an April 28, 1975 Newsweek article entitled “The Cooling World,” wherein “melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot” is put forth as a solution (let that sink in for a minute) to “climatic change”—albeit with some possibly undesirable side effects. But, a solution worth considering, since: “Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action…(13)”
A Perfect Cover
I cannot believe that our Military-Industrial Complex would not do everything it could to test out something like the idea put forth in Bernard Eastlund’s patent entitled “Cosmic particle ignition of artificially ionized plasma patterns in the atmosphere” (14). It describes a mobile system that can be built into the backs of trucks or atop ocean buoys, with off-the-shelf microwave equipment, that could have all kinds of telecommunication applications and also be used for “modification of the steering winds that influence weather phenomena.”
The climate change conversation provides the perfect cover for the testing of such things, does it not? Produce a nasty consequence… Oops! Must be ‘climate change.’
It’s my belief that if the Powers-That-Be can get us screaming “Save us from the terrible weather! Save us from the terrible weather!” then they can do all manner of development and testing of weather modification devices and techniques and have them ready to use when we have a president that walks away from treaties right and left.
Oh, sh-t! We’re there now…
From a 1976 article “Weather Warfare Forecast: Partly Cloudy—U.N. [ENMOD] Treaty Would Permit “Peaceful” Environmental Research by Military,” by Lowell Ponte (15):
“The Pentagon, for example, contends that its Climate Dynamics program is essentially peaceful, because it is defensive in nature. Researchers in this program use elaborate computer models to study means of melting polar icecaps, generating hurricanes or otherwise utilizing ‘key environmental instabilities’ to release vast amounts of destructive energy. (These researchers have already discovered subtle ways that this country could, secretly from space, disrupt weather in the Soviet Union, thereby wrecking harvests and keeping that country dependent on U.S. grain imports.)”
Hmmm… Interestingly: “One of the worst modern droughts over ER [European Russia] occurred in the summer of 1972 [just a few years before the paragraph above was penned] (Fedorov 1973; Buchinsky 1976). That drought was associated with an anticyclone that was centered over Moscow and that established in May and persisted throughout the summer. The drought appears to have started in eastern Ukraine and was at the time characterized as a 100-yr event” (16).
But, let’s go back to Eastlund’s patent. Everywhere we’re told that ionospheric research has to do with communication of all sorts, mostly military—C3 (Communications, Command, and Control)—and predicting space weather, so that we can know when our GPS signals will be out of whack. But Eastlund’s patent equates this meteor burst communications system (“such a system is the SNOTEL system”) with weather modification! Eastlund claims his invention can be used for local, short haul stand-alone, long haul, and city-wide cellular telecommunications systems, as well as weather modification! In fact, the patent isn’t classified as having to do with communications. (I’m not talking about secrecy here.) It’s classified as: A01G15/00 Devices or methods for influencing weather conditions. From the patent’s conclusions: “Two new approaches to weather modification and control are suggested. The first is for manipulation of the steering winds that control the development of mesocyclones, or the modification of the directions of the jet streams that influence development of hurricanes. The second is a method for influencing the electrical charge distribution in weather patterns such as meso-cyclones. Possible defense applications include a method of accelerating electrons to MEV energies in conjunction with the HAARP antenna.”
The HAARP antenna array. The biggest baddest high frequency heating facility, in terms of “effective radiated power,” as compared to its sibling facilities—TROMSO (Norway), SURA (Russia), HIPAS (Alaska), and ARECIBO (Puerto Rico). At least, as of the beginning of 2007 (17).
However, according to a 2010 paper, “Self-propelled drilling platforms have the deck area and electrical power necessary for an ionospheric heater the size of the current HAARP IRI [Ionospheric Research Instrument]” (18).
Then in 2012, Electronic intelligence (ELINT) experts at the U.S. Intelligence Advanced Projects Agency (IARPA) saw a need for systems that could “detect, pinpoint, and characterize high frequency (HF) signals”—because they might be hostile (19).
Overseed Those Clouds? Ooops! Drought…
Cloud seeding is a widespread and much utilized weather modification technique. T. Morris Longstreth, in “Understanding the Weather,” asserts that (pp. 83-84): “A cloud is easily over seeded. … and rain is prevented rather than produced. … an industrious enemy in time of war could overseed a nation’s clouds and sow drought at growing seasons.”
If we wanted to displace a population in Africa, for instance, to more easily gain access to natural resources, what’s the likelihood that the starving and migrating population would stop to test the environment for sodium chloride or silver iodide, the potential evidence of cloud seeding? How would anyone ever know? Modifying the weather is the perfect weapon. Besides biowarfare.
Meanwhile, in the Legislative History mentioned above, we read (p. 87): “Dr. Vonnegut of General Electric … said that the Government should control the use of silver iodide because of the possibility of its having effect at great distances and at later times, …”
Microwaving The Clouds Down To Size
The author of the web page aquariusradar.com writes: “The author of these AquariusRadar pages has years of experience with high powered pencil beam radars… Some of this operational time was spent directing the radar beam on small developing tropical showers. While the evidence is anecdotal, in almost every case, the size and altitude of the developing cloud could be observed to stop increasing once the radar beam was properly positioned at the cloud base and if manually tracked for a longer period, to begin decreasing in size. … A current study of the microwave impact by a large radar in NW Florida on local rainfall is documented monthly and illustrates the transport of water and the weather modification for this local area of NW Florida.” (Emphasis, mine.)
Modification of the weather with radar. Maybe that’s one of the reasons why most meteorologists can’t forecast weather accurately more that 24 hours out; 48 hours, max. As we point radar at it in order to be able to forecast it, perhaps we’re modifying it.
A 6-Degree Difference Between Your Head & Your Feet
The above-mentioned Mr. Longstreth (p. 58) notes that temperatures can vary as much as six degrees “between one’s feet and one’s head … the equivalent of one hundred fifty miles of travel.” However along my road in Vermont, the temperature varies that much in the space of just a few driveways—from open farmland, closer to town, to the more wooded area where I live.
Mr. Longstreth again (ibid.): “The atmosphere is a confused, ever changing welter of temperatures. It was bold of the Weather Bureau to incorporate definite minimum and maximum temperatures in local forecasts.”
Coastlines Come And Go
As far as rising sea levels goes, we live on an incredibly dynamic planet with earthquakes, volcanoes, and shifting plates. Coastlines have come and gone throughout history. If you think that coastlines should be never-changing, you are living on another planet. Here are just 2 historical examples from the book “Irresistable North” by Andrea Di Robilant (pp. 81 & 92):
“The layout and size of Kirkwall … have not changed much since medieval times except that the sea has receded and what used to be the waterfront is now well within the town.”
“Over the centuries the rising sea submerged the promontory. Only the southern tip remained above water: the holm of Leira Ness … .”
And from Dr. Tim Ball:
“…I saw the differences between my first and last visits to a place called Sloop Cove near Churchill, Manitoba… The name comes from the fact that in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Hudson’s Bay Company anchored their small sailing vessels called sloops in the inlet. Today the inlet is above water even during the highest tides. Geologic estimates are the land has risen 2 meters since they began using it (20).”
More recently, in mid-May, 2019, it was reported that a submarine volcano had risen “from zero in 6 months!” in the Mozambique Channel between Madagascar and East Africa (21). The nearby island of Mayotte sank “approximately five inches during that time and moved just over two inches to the east” (22).
I’d like to know if the heat input into the channel from the nascent volcano could’ve had anything to do with the unusual cyclones Idai and Kenneth, which devastated east Africa, one after the other. The one thing that hurricanes and cyclones are said to need is ocean water of a certain temperature.
Similar historical examples of moving land masses abound.
The North Pole Used To Be Where?
Dr. Ball has a fascinating map on the same web page from which the quote above comes, showing the extent of ice over North America during the last ice age, 20,000 years ago. “It was greater in area than the current Antarctic glacier and was thickest in the dark blue region centered on Hudson Bay.”
My response, seeing that map for the first time was: “Oh! Charlie Hapgood! Path of the Pole!” (I’ve got the book amongst the countless stacks that fill my house.)
Einstein wrote the foreword to the first edition of the former Keene State College professor’s book, which proposes that, at one time, Earth’s geographic north pole resided in the region of the Hudson Bay. Prior to that, in the Greenland Sea. Prior to that, in the Yukon region of Canada. And he provides a wonderful map showing three former locations for the south pole (as well as the current location), for which he also provides evidence in the book.
According to the book “North Pole, South Pole” by Gillian Turner (pp. 107-110), in the early 1800s, Christopher Hansteen agreed with Edward Halley, “who had suggested that there were two pairs of magnetic poles.” In North America, Hansteen argued, there was a “point of convergence” in “Hudson’s Bay.” So, earlier scientists compiled evidence for the remnants of a weak south magnetic pole (or compass north-seeking pole) in the same region that Hapgood places the geographic north pole during the last ice age.
Go to Tim Ball’s website and look at that map and have an epiphany, as I did. This planet rocks and rolls. And I highly doubt we can do anything about it. Unless we rein in our military, which loves to drop bombs anywhere and everywhere. Might anyone talk about that very lovely form of environmental modification? No. Sadly, it’s absolutely not up for question. Except by Tulsi Gabbard.
Bait & Switch
But, the rest of us could try to stop polluting the hell out of Mother Earth.
Ahhh…that old-fashioned word “pollution.” There’s so much that the abstract and highly arguable phrase “climate change” can distract our attention from: Mountains of e-waste shipped to 3rd-world countries; plastic islands in the oceans (Could they act as big solar blankets?); nuclear waste; depleted uranium; uranium- and lead-laced drinking water; drinking water contamination around 126 military installations by chemicals known as PFOS and PFOAs; burn pits; phosphorus runoff; glyphosate… Tons and tons of stuff we can see and smell and taste, disappeared by the huge bait-and-switch of ‘climate change.’ On a planet that never stops changing, as a result of huge geological and astronomical processes.
The people of Palau are going against the tide though, claiming it’s actually sunscreen from bathers that’s the culprit killing the coral reefs around their islands. And they’ve banned many kinds (23).
But, the Palauans must be wicked smart. Many of the people where I live can’t get the right things into the right recycling bins. Few people, apparently, can read the words: “Glass only. No lids. No corks. No plastic bags.” We, in southeastern Vermont, like to spend taxpayer dollars, paying people to stand beside the huge bins all day long with grabber tools, trying to remove all the junk that can prevent tons of glass from actually being recycled. This, while people gather regularly just a few miles away to stand in frigid temps with signs urging climate action. Long before anything like CO2 can do us in, I’m sure we’ll be drowning in our own waste.
Drawing Circles On A Map & Adding Goose Eggs (Or Moving Decimal Points)
I haven’t been able to find more recent stats, but in 2011, there were 32 weather modification programs reported in this country (24). And in 2012, there were 26 (25). There’s also a company in North Dakota called Weather Modification, Inc.
Take a map of the U.S. Randomly draw circles over it. Imagine that those circles represent weather modification programs. So, the weather in those areas can in no way be characterized as natural or God-given. And what about the weather in the areas in between the circles? More rain here? More drought there, perhaps?
This is where you’ll say to me that weather and climate are two different things. However, extreme weather events are increasingly being pointed to as proof of climate change. And weather is increasingly being very deliberately modified everywhere. China is building a gigantic cloud-seeding system across the Tibetan plateau, that’s hoped will increase rainfall over an area three times the size of Spain (26). And the title of a 2015 Bloomberg article will give you another tiny taste, in case you haven’t been including the word “weather” in your google searches: “Weather on Demand: Making It Rain is Now a Global Business.” Stick to googling “climate change” and “global warming” and you’ll never know how the business of weather modification might be modifying the weather in your area.
Meanwhile, the afore-mentioned T. Morris Longstreth (pp. 131-132), asserts that it is impossible to characterize climate, because extreme weather events will always throw a wrench in the works. “…a lifetime is not long enough for the merest introduction [to climate].”
And in a long and very thoughtful piece by Bernie Lewin entitled “Hubert Lamb: And the Transformation of Climate Science (27),” we read at the end (pp. 35-36):
“The science he [Lamb] found corrupted is the same science that made his research unit truly famous. In fact, it was only when Wigley led the early strategic shift into all the key fields of global warming research that CRU [Climatic Research Unit] was at last able to stabilise its funding. …
“With this explosive expansion repeating across the science, what young climatologist would dare argue with the theory that was laying the golden eggs? The new generation might not even recognise the transformation into which their careers had been born, and might well be incredulous on reading this warning issued by the old master in 1994:
“ ‘A precarious and threatening situation has developed for climatology: a tremendous effort was made to land research funds in all countries, mostly the USA, on the basis of frightening people about the possible drastic effect of Man’s activities, and so much has been said about climate warming that there will be an awkward situation if the warming doesn’t happen or not to the extent predicted.’ ” (Emphasis, mine.)
And how did the huge blowup of that golden egg-laying goose relate, timing-wise, with the push to sell us nuclear energy as clean and green, I wonder? Twenty-two commercial nuclear power plants were in operation in the U.S. in 1971. U.S. utilities ordered 41 more nuclear power plants in 1973 (28). The ENMOD Treaty (or Convention) was approved by the General Assembly of the U.N. in December of 1976. The above-mentioned Dr. Tom Wigley became the director of the CRU in 1978. And the accident at There Mile Island happened in March of ’79. A lot of things converged in the 70s.
Well, I had made a good guess, as it turns out, in that last paragraph. Just before this article was to be published, I googled science historian Bernie Lewin’s name and the word “climate” and discovered that Mr. Lewin has written a book on the history of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Several excerpts from the book can be found in a piece entitled “Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC” on judithcurry.com (29). Curry quotes from chapter 8 of Lewin’s book:
“But in the struggle between nuclear and coal, the proponents of the nuclear alternative had one significant advantage, which emerged as a result of the repositioning of the vast network of government-funded R&D laboratories within the bureaucratic machine. It would be in these ‘National Laboratories’ at this time that the Carbon Dioxide Program was born. This surge of new funding meant that research into one specific human influence on climate would become a major branch of climatic research generally. Today we might pass this over for the simple reason that the ‘carbon dioxide question’ has long since come to dominate the entire field of climatic research—with the very meaning of the term ‘climate change’ contracted accordingly. …
“[There was] a coordinated, well-funded program of research into potentially catastrophic effects before there was any particular concern within the meteorological community about these effects, and before there was any significant public or political anxiety to drive it. It began in the midst of a debate over the relative merits of coal and nuclear energy production [following the oil crisis of the 1970’s]. It was coordinated by scientists and managers with interests on the nuclear side of this debate, where funding due to energy security anxieties was channelled towards investigation of a potential problem with coal in order to win back support for the nuclear option.” (Emphasis, mine.)
Enter the CO2 Bancor (The Other Side Of The Golden Egg-Laying Goose)
CO2 as a currency, anyone?
At the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, IMF director Dominique Strauss-Kahn was pushing a plan to use carbon dioxide to back a new global currency and say goodbye to the U.S. dollar. According to Andrew McKillop in “Do We Need A New Single World Reserve Currency?”: “The only real reason, today, for promoting the concept of a new single reserve currency is to make sovereign debt piles shrink.” He calls it the equivalent of a magic trick (30).
I think most of us know what happened to Strauss-Kahn not long afterwards. Threaten the primacy of the petrodollar and you shall be targeted for destruction. Politically, environmentally, and otherwise.
Black Budgets, Classification Levels, Classified Programs
We do have ‘black’ budgets—budgets for unacknowledged and unspecified uses. Trump asked for $81.1 billion for 2019, the largest amount ever, according to a Fiscal Times headline. We have three classification levels: Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential. Under Obama’s Executive Order 13526 of 2009, weapons systems may be classified; scientific, technological, or economic matters related to national security may be classified; and the development, production, or use of weapons of mass destruction may be classified (31). (Emphasis, mine.)
Classification can last for as much as long as 50 years. I think we’ll be lucky in 50 years to find out everything our military and intelligence agencies are up to these days. I think just about every conversation on this planet is directed by our Full-Spectrum Dominance crowd.
——
References:
1. Harvesting the Clouds: Advances in Weather Modification, Louis J. Battan, 1969, pp. 127-128
2. http://www.colby.edu/sts/wexlerozone.pdf
On the Possibilities of Climate Control in 1962: Harry Wexler on Geoengineering and Ozone Destruction, by James Fleming
3. https://journal-neo.org/2018/12/29/today-s-arctic-is-the-desired-treasure-land/
4. http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/150724-congressional-report-on-national-implications-of-climate-change.pdf?source=govdelivery (p. 4)
5. https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/canadian-coined-term-weather-bomb-1.4474431
6. https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/air-force-bombshell-admits-they-can-control-weather-haarp/
7. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JZ062i003p00425
A possible troposphere‐ionosphere relationship, Siegfried J. Bauer, First published: September 1957
8. https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0016793215020127?no-access=true
Ionospheric precursors of the intensification of isolated tropical cyclones according to the IKB-1300 and Cosmos-1809 satellite data
9. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2010JA016128
DEMETER observations of the ionospheric trough over HAARP in relation to HF heating experiments
10. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JA076i031p07808
Ionospheric Heating at Arecibo: First Tests
11. https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/publications/production-sulfates-onboard-aircraft-implications-cost-and-feasibility
12. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051652/abstract%20
Geoengineering: Whiter skies?
13. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf
14. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070238252A1/en
15. Included in a 1976 hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment, entitled “Prohibiting Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,” p. 45, digitized by Google; Go here for the actual treaty: http://www.un-documents.net/enmod.htm
16. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00360.1
Northern Eurasian Heat Waves and Droughts, Schubert et al, Published online: April 23rd, 2014
17. http://nlpc.stanford.edu/nleht/Science/talks/ursi_jan06.pdf
Ionospheric modification and ELF/VLF wave generation by HAARP
Lehtinen & Inan, STAR Lab, Stanford University, January 7, 2006, p. 4
18. https://spp.astro.umd.edu/SpaceWebProj/Invited%20Talks/ICD%20at%20Low%20Frequencies-2010.pdf
Ionospheric Current Drive (ICD) at Low Frequencies
Papadopoulos & Chang, Invited Presentation,
Kaw Symposium, January 12-15, 2010, Ahmedabad, India, p. 30
19. https://www.militaryaerospace.com/computers/article/16719873/hfgeo-elint-program-to-pinpoint-hf-transmitters-extends-to-advanced-ionospheric-modeling
John Keller, 9/30/12
21. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/ship-spies-largest-underwater-eruption-ever
Ship spies largest underwater eruption ever, Roland Pease, 5/21/19
22. https://bgr.com/2019/05/23/underwater-volcano-mayotte-island-eruption/
The largest underwater eruption ever detected produced a brand new underwater volcano, Mike Wehner, 5/23/19
23. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/02/world/asia/palau-sunscreen-ban-coral.html
25. https://climateviewer.com/2018/2012-noaa-weather-modification-programs-12wxmod5-partial.pdf
26. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2138866/china-needs-more-water-so-its-building-rain-making-network-three
27. https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/02/Lamb.pdf
Hubert Lamb: And the Transformation of Climate Science
28. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/The%20History%20of%20Nuclear%20Energy_0.pdf
29. https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/03/manufacturing-consensus-the-early-history-of-the-ipcc; excerpts from “Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” Bernie Lewin, GWPF, 2017
30. http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article41320.html
31. https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html
Jacqueline Brook is an artist, painter, digital photographer, mushroomer, and an incessant reader and researcher. She writes, “There are books on shelves and piled in stacks throughout my house. I believe that consensus is easily manufactured, because too few people are willing to think for themselves. If 1,000 people say one thing and one small voice pipes up in disagreement, I will usually pay attention to and be fascinated by that lone voice.”
