Chemtrails: The Realities of Geoengineering and Weather Modification

Chemtrails: The Realities of Geoengineering and Weather Modification



Over the past decade evidence has increasingly emerged
indicating how geoengineering and weather modification programs designed
to inflict major impacts on the atmosphere and environment are fully
operational.

Despite such developments the CO2-specific anthropogenic theory
of global warming touted by foundation-funded environmental groups and
public relations dominates much of popular discourse and the prevailing
worldview of intellectuals.

By drawing attention away from actually existing efforts of
atmospheric experimentation and manipulation, such coordinated efforts
are complicit in the impending environmental catastrophe they profess to
be rallying against. The repeated claim of CO2-driven climate change
without acknowledgment of geoengineering-related environmental
intervention is a severe perversion of both meaningful scientific
inquiry and public opinion with overwhelming implications for all life
on earth.



Sea Level Awareness Program Pole, Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, Boca Raton, Florida.
Photo © James Tracy, 2012.

“While scientists continue research into
any global climatic effects of greenhouse gases, we ought to study ways
to offset any possible ill effects. Injecting sunlight-scattering
particles into the stratosphere appears to be a promising approach. Why
not do that?”—Edward Teller[1]

“To accept opinions in their terms is to
gain the good solid feeling of being correct without having to think.
“—C. Wright Mills[2]

For anyone who looks up in the sky every so often while fostering
some recollection of what a sunny day used to resemble, the reality of
geoengineering—what are often referred to as “chemtrails”—can no longer
be easily dismissed. For over a decade military and private jet aircraft
have been spraying our skies with what numerous independent
researchers, journalists, and activists observe to be an admixture of
aluminum, barium, strontium, and other dangerous heavy metals. Such
substances distributed into the atmosphere as microscopic
subparticulates eventually descend to earth where they are breathed by
living things and absorbed by the soil and plant life.

“A glimpse into new death technologies” intended to modify weather
and the environment “is in legislation introduced by Ohio Congressman
Dennis Kucinich,” investigative writer Amy Worthington wrote almost a
decade ago. Kucinich’s

<blockquote>unsuccessful Space Preservation Act of 2001 was intended to ban space deployment of:

*electronic, psychotronic and information weaponry
*high altitude ultra low frequency weapons
*plasma, electromagnetic, sonic and ultrasonic weapons
*laser weapons
*strategic, theater, tactical or extraterrestrial weapons
*chemical biological, environmental climate or tectonic weapons
*chemtrails (this term was stricken from a later version, suggesting duress)

In their quest to remain top dog in the kill chain, the purveyors of
perpetual war have deliberately dimmed earth’s life-giving sunlight, and
reduced atmospheric visibility with lung-clogging particulates and
polymers. This ecological terrorism has severely compromised public
health, according to thousands of testimonials.[3]
</blockquote>
A recently discovered NASA document from 1966 indicates that weather
modification efforts have been underway since the 1940s. “There is …
great motivation to develop effective countermeasures against the
destructive measures of weather,” the paper observes,

<blockquote>and, conversely, enhance the beneficial aspects. The
financial and other benefits to human welfare of being able to modify
weather to augment water supplies, reduce lightening, suppress hail,
mitigate tornados, and inhibit the full development of hurricanes would
be very great.[4]
</blockquote>
According to the report, in 1964 the National Science Foundation
formed a Special Commission on Weather Modification. Thereafter, weather
weapons in the form of cloud seeding were used to flood North
Vietnamese supply lines during the Vietnam War.[5] More recent
documentation points to private and government bodies’ active pursuit of
weather modification, including the US Department of Homeland
Security’s Hurricane Aerosol and Microphysics Program.[6] And in
mid-2012 scientists proposed a $5 billion geoengineering plan to
potentially unleash one million tons of particulates in the upper
atmosphere each year to “cut world greenhouse gas emissions.”[7]

Since this is such an open program—taking place in plain sight
directly over our heads—why is there almost complete silence about it in
academic circles as well as mainstream and “alternative” progressive
media outlets, particularly if one is to conclude that academe and the
press are where disinterested inquiry and the dissemination of
information and ideas in the public interest are allegedly anticipated
and guaranteed? Indeed, geoengineering and weather manipulation are “a
scientific taboo,” Michel Chossudovsky points out.

<blockquote>The possibility of climatic or environmental
manipulations as part of a military and intelligence agenda, while
tacitly acknowledged, is never considered as relevant. Military analysts
are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the
matter, and environmentalists are strung on global warming and the Kyoto
protocol.[8]
</blockquote>
In this way such a condition is also attributable to the deleterious
effect of intellectual disengagement and naivete originating within
scholarly and journalistic communities that, combined with well-funded
public relations efforts promoting the CO2-specific theory of global
warming, eventually compromises the reasoning and communicative
capacities of the broader public sphere.

The Trouble with Normal

When individuals share certain understandings and rationalities about
themselves, their profession, and the broader society and culture, as
is the overwhelming case in academe or journalism, they possess a
binding ideology, and thereby a basis where certain perceptions and
beliefs may become readily embraced or dismissed. Concepts inimical to
such firm convictions are verboten. Moreover, the heavy reliance on
foundation funding combined with rigid hiring and peer review processes
ensure that ideas and research challenge this institutional matrix and
the broader order of things in only playful and generally
non-threatening ways.

Speaking as someone who works in the academy, the fear of being
rejected as a crackpot also plays a large role in self-censorship. I
never wholly dismissed the chemtrail phenomenon or the reports of
chemtrail activists. Yet the very idea of such a nefarious program was
so disturbing and surreal that several years ago I half-heartedly sought
out a variety of what appeared to be conflicting information of both
chemtrail activists and skeptics via online sources to placate and
thereby suppress my concerns. After all, I thought, if there was
anything to such claims they would be interrogated and ferreted out by
university research itself and the independent progressive-left news
media and intelligentsia that I relied on so heavily to form my
worldview. The real problem, clearly articulated by United Nations
agencies, Noble laureates and from seemingly every corner of our
mediated environments is the abundance of carbon dioxide and the threat
it poses in the form of melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and severe
weather events.

Not until 2010, when I happened across the documentary What in the World Are They Spraying?
(WITWATS) did I become more fully convinced that coordinated
geoengineering programs not only exist, but that they are far-reaching
in scope and have major implications for life on earth. Perhaps
alongside the alleged scourge of CO2-induced global warming,
geoengineering programs that are purportedly in place to “curb” such
processes actually pose the greatest threat to humanity and the
environment. Like Monsanto, which seeks to control all facets of
agriculture and thus our physiological makeup, the US military’s
self-admitted objective is to “control the weather” through atmospheric
manipulation by 2025.[9]

Living in a tropical climate and spending much of the time outdoors I
eventually became something of a novel “skywatcher.” Upon closer
observance it has become increasingly difficult to ignore the activity
of numerous high altitude aircraft leaving plumes that over the course
of several hours expand and coalesce to make massive cloudlike
formations that could be easily mistaken for overcast above sometimes
naturally-occurring cumulus clouds. I recognized how throughout most of
the year this was an almost daily phenomenon initiated by planes with
sometimes bizarre and inconsistent flight paths.

When I contacted to Federal Aviation Administration in Fort
Lauderdale on a day with high aerial activity of this nature, I was
consoled by an overly polite FAA agent that the trails were merely
“water vapor,” and that dispersal of any substances several miles
overhead would have but negligible effects at ground level. While it is
true that jet engines can briefly produce plumes akin to cirrus clouds
resulting from the exhaust process, the prevalence of this activity once
I became aware of it struck me as highly unusual, and geoengineering
activists contend that the inexplicable and often dangerous admixture of
microscopic heavy metal particulates now common in our air—particularly
aluminum—originate in the persistent contrails. A variety of air
samples, most recently by activists at losangelesskywatch.com, confirm
this phenomenon.[10]

In late 2011 my six year old daughter had a long-running respiratory
ailment which prompted me to send off a small sample of her hair for lab
analysis. The results indicated a high level of aluminum.[11] This was
disturbing especially given that she had received an abbreviated vaccine
regimen, drank water run from a state-of-the-art reverse osmosis
filter, and ate only organic food. Her pediatrician expressed some
astonishment, asking whether we use aluminum cookware. Apart from this
he could offer no explanations and merely prescribed a popular
antibiotic for the cough. While there may have been no correlation
between the symptoms, it seemed as if the often obscure and bizarre
government projects pointed to by “conspiracy theorists” had now struck
home in a most intimate way.

It was around this time that I proposed to my department chair we
invite WITWATS co-director Michael Murphy to screen his film and give a
public talk on campus. Earlier that year a colleague hosted De Franklin
Lopez, the director of EndCiv, a provocative documentary
profiling the ideas of radical environmental activist and writer Erick
Jensen that compares CO2-producing activities with the severest forms of
colonial exploitation and Nazi war crimes while advocating violence and
vandalism to save the earth. The screening was well-attended by faculty
and graduate students.

At the time our department also included on faculty a talented
documentary filmmaker whose work has become a platform for proselytizing
on anthropogenic global warming and the many lifestyle changes
necessary to thwart it. I took for granted that the university was a
place where a variety of ideas, however controversial, could be
presented, scrutinized, and pondered. However, after emailing the
WITWATS YouTube link to my superior I was told in no uncertain terms,
“That’s far right propaganda.”

Following a lengthy and good-natured exchange (which included an
apology) there was no moral or monetary support forthcoming, which
prevented me from approaching other university-related funding sources.
Aided by Murphy’s honest willingness to forego an honorarium, I helped
to support his campus visit to speak to one of my classes and present
the film to the broader public. The screenings and question and answer
sessions were very well-received by the students especially, all of whom
can detect baloney a mile or two away. Yet despite publicity for the
screening and personal invitations to colleagues I found it instructive
that none were in attendance.

The story provides a microcosmic demonstration of the limited
parameters for the exchange of information and ideas, that are at least
as constrictive in the academy—which asserts a license on what
constitutes truth and knowledge—as they are in the broader public sphere
that is typically policed by ideas and assumptions that have legitimacy
and rootedness in academic circles. Along these lines, within
mainstream and specifically progressive media the hypothesized
ecological dangers of CO2 have become the default line of reasoning for
environmental issues. And, as public discourse in the aftermath of
Hurricane Sandy suggests, such notions overwhelmingly constitute the
precognitive conditions and informational frames through which “extreme
weather” events are interpreted.

The CO2 Noise Machine

A significant portion of the underlying research and public relations
maneuvers of conventional environmental groups alleging CO2’s baneful
and poisonous nature are funded almost entirely by major philanthropic
foundations, and this goes a long way in drowning out other arguably
more clear-cut and well-documented explanations of weather events, above
all geoengineering and weather modification programs.

A foremost reason for the CO2 climate change theory’s endurance is
the perceived legitimacy of its proponents, a widescale uncritical
acceptance of its assumptions by mainstream and purportedly
“alternative/progressive” media figures and outlets, and a limited
understanding of the dubious science often based on drastically tortured
and opaquely-constructed measurements and data. That a minority of
climate scientists and seemingly impartial United Nations entities such
as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have
apparently managed to convince a wide swath of opinion leaders and
policy makers that the atmosphere is heating up because of genuinely
miniscule increases in carbon dioxide is a feat that takes substantial
resources and coordination.[12]

A passage from “economic hitman” John Perkins’ second
semiautobiographical book provides an illustrative example how the CO2
theory of climate change becomes a deep-seated component of an
ostensibly well-informed individual’s outlook and belief system.

<blockquote>I checked the clock on the bookcase and, aware that I had
dallied too long, headed for the shower. As I passed the radio I
flicked it on the local NPR station … Then suddenly the words of the
radio announcer caught my attention.

“Within less than a hundred years,” she said, “all the maple
trees—and the fall foliage—will be gone from Massachusetts. According to
a recent scientific study, global warming will make our climate here
similar to North Carolina’s. So” she sighed, “enjoy this year’s display.
We may not have many more like it.” I stood there for a moment staring
through the bathroom window. Outside, the old red maple next to the
house bowed in the wind, its branches scrapping against the wall. The
familiar sound now seemed foreboding, a death rattle. I felt absolutely
devastated.[13]
</blockquote>
Scratching the veneer of some of the major climate change movers and
shakers one finds a very well-financed assemblage of entities with major
philanthropic foundation ties. Indeed, the Rockefeller Foundations
alone are major players behind the anthropogenic global warming
“activism” and propaganda. For example, in 2009 the Rockefeller Family
Foundation gave $3,500,000 to Grace Communications Fund, an organization
that “builds partnerships and develops innovative media strategies that
increase public awareness of the relationships among food, water, and
energy systems.” Also in 2009 Rockefeller gave $775,000 to the Natural
Resource Defense Council, whose foremost agenda is “curbing global
warming” and “creating a clean energy future.” Another $650,000 was
channeled to the World Wildlife Federation, $350,000 to the Center for
Climate Strategies, and $200,000 to the Sierra Club.[14]

As bizarre as it may seem, such organizations are funded to such a
degree because of their express intent on austerity and even
depopulation programs. Toward this end they speak in one powerful voice
that climate change is caused by the CO2-specific consumptive practices
of human beings. Curiously, however, these extremely well-funded groups
completely ignore actually existing or impending environmental upheavals
brought about by geoengineering, dangerously designed nuclear power
plants, the wanton disbursal of depleted uranium, and the proliferation
of genetically modified organisms throughout the food supply.

A leading mouthpiece of the CO2 global warming hysteria is science
author and journalist Bill McKibben, who oversees the popular 350.org
publicity outlet. Through this effort McKibben has succeeded in
convincing young and old alike to draw attention to the “scientific”
assertion that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are advancing from the
low 300s to 400 parts per million of overall atmospheric gases—an
ominous .01 percent—by sending in money, buying 350.org paraphernalia,
partaking in civil disobedience and even hiking across the United
States. This is an impressive public relations accomplishment. More
importantly, however, such antics cleverly lend themselves toward
authenticating the notion that most every extreme weather event is
attributable to dangerous CO2 levels. This conjecture has become as
central part a part of the powerful liberal and progressive opinion
generating apparatus as the declarations of eugenicists seeking to build
a master Nordic race a century ago—an assemblage of scientists and
publicists who were, uncoincidentally, funded by some of the same
interests.

McKibben’s 350.org project is the public face of his 501(c)(3) 1Sky
Education Fund, which between its founding in 2007 and 2009 took in
close to $5,000,000 in foundation money and “public contributions.” In
2010 the Rockefeller Brothers Fund gave 1Sky $200,000. The key
“scientific” paper McKibben points to as support for his dire warnings
on climate change, “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim,”
coauthored by NASA scientist James Hansen, was partially funded through
Rockefeller Foundation money.[15]

The piece is not so much a scientific report as it is a set of
mandates calling for drastic social and political action to avert
continued CO2 “buildup.” “Preservation of a climate resembling that
which humanity is accustomed,” the authors assert, “requires that most
remaining fossil fuel carbon is never emitted to the atmosphere.”
Independent researchers and journalists assert that such proposed
policies based on tying carbon emissions to atmospheric decay, many of
which are already underway in some US states at the local level, will
inevitably curtail further industrial development (and consequently
economic growth) of almost every type and circumvent existing property
rights while ushering in a new age of near-feudal hardship.[16]

McKibben and 350.org are an especially proficient example of the many
foundation-supported promotional outlets that, in the tradition of
Edward Bernays, have since the late 1990s fundamentally altered public
perception and discourse on weather and the climate. This is
particularly the case among members of the intelligentsia who
disturbingly accept the pronouncements of calculating figures such as
McKibben and Vice President Al Gore—individuals that routinely
demonstrate their contempt for science and the public interest by
trumpeting the assumed inevitability of an uncertain theory. As a result
the CO2 explanatory phantom dominates center stage and wholly removes
from consideration far more probable causes of unusual and extreme
weather.

Piece of Mind through Conformity

The established intellectual communities’ uncritical acceptance of
the CO2-specific description of climate change has far less to do with
its plausibility or scientific soundness—the “science” is too opaque for
pedestrian comprehension and its accompanying shortcomings and
qualifications are routinely and fraudulently downplayed—than it does
with the overall ubiquity of the notion and an especially naïve faith in
the fair and equitable production and dissemination of scientific
knowledge.

The reasoning goes something like this. If non-CO2-related
explanations of unusual weather patterns existed, the benevolent and
impartial foundations would recognize their significance and fund such
countervailing scientific research. As the histories of modern medicine,
psychiatry, eugenics, and public education suggest, however, the
reality is that the dominant paradigm is not the one that is ultimately
the most valid and principled, but rather the one that is best funded.
In this regard the foundations’ wealthy benefactors call the tune and
run the show.

The overall effort has been a public relations coup of immense
proportions not because it has seized the hearts and minds of the
general public, many of which remain skeptical of the theory, but rather
among educated opinion leaders who through personal mystification with
their own credentials and titles are the most steadfast in the beliefs
they are inured to accept. Even the few who have misgivings about the
prevalent explanation of climate change and less examined yet entirely
conceivable causes will seldom speak their minds for fear of incurring
the wrath of their colleagues and peers, thus perpetuating a
professional sphere that more closely resembles a Stalinist inquisition
than one where free and open debate are fostered.

In order to preserve ones sanity, reputation and specialized status
one need recognize the importance of alignment with an unexamined belief
in what one has been told by the “experts” and their spokespersons
while simultaneously assuming excessive skepticism toward the readily
apparent phenomena of everyday life, however well-documented and
alarming they may be. We may seldom have any more clear, sunny days,
storms may be of mainly synthetic derivation and direction, and in less
than a generation children could be developing Alzheimer’s by their late
teens, but are these sufficient reasons to jeopardize one’s
professional and social standing?

To broach the topic of weather control and geoengineering programs
not only indicates an unhealthy lack of faith in overwhelmingly powerful
yet poorly understood institutions and their guiding rationales. It
also runs counter to that “good solid feeling of being correct without
having to think.” Such dialogue suggests bad taste, especially when one
can discuss Paul Krugman’s latest column or where to buy the best
arugula. For these reasons I’ve tentatively resigned myself to a fate
befitting a well-educated and properly conditioned member of the
intellectual class. Realizing that my destiny and that of my loved ones
can no longer be considered exclusively our own, I’ve finally learned to
stop worrying and love chemtrails.


Source:-
http://www.globalresearch.ca/chemtrails-the-realities-of-geoengineering-and-weather-modification/5311079