Saturday, 1 December 2018

Discussing the paper “How to Wreck the Environment”: Anthropogenic Extinction of Life on Earth

This is a video made by Margo's Healing Spot discussing a recent peer-reviewed paper on geoengineering.

Here is my own initial assessement

Fifty Years after “How to Wreck the Environment”: Anthropogenic Extinction of Life on Earth
A scientific paper, Fifty Years after “How to Wreck the Environment”:
Anthropogenic Extinction of Life on Earth has been made available to me that discusses what the authors describe as a top-secret international military agreement to alter not only the weather (through cloud-seeding) but the climate (by seeding particulates in the atmosphere with aluminium, barium etc etc.

The article is published by the Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International. The authors are J. Marvin Herndo, Mark Whiteside and Ian Baldwin who do not appear to be university academics and the editors appear to come from counries such as Cameroon and Bangladesh.

It is not so much a scientific paper as areview of “the interdisciplinary, historical, scientific and medical literature” and contains a history of peer review HERE

The first objection of sceptics is that it is not a real "scientific paper" coming from an "approved" academic institution in an "approved" country (such as the United States). This raises the history of Prof. Tim Garrett's paper on civilisation as aheat engine which was refused for publication by numerous scientific journals. Of course if is not published one can say loudly, "it is not peer-reviewed” - and therefore not acceptable.

It seems to me that the journal is bona fide and the authors have followed all the right procedures.

The paper takes an essay, “How to Wreck the Environment” written by Gordon J. F. MacDonald (1929 - 2002) that appeared in a book edited by British science writer, Nigel Calder, Unless Peace Comes that was published in 1968.

It reviews his article and brings the information up-to-date.

MacDonald was the real deal - not some sort of conspiracy theorist. 

He was a American geophysicist and environmental scientist and a prominent early scientific advocate of action to address the threat of global warming from fossil-fuel combustion

He appeared in a1980 testimony to Congress where he warned that the climate changes due to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would "probably have a profound effect on agriculture, on all aspects of energy use and generation, and on water and land use." "The dilemma we face is of historic proportions,"

In his article he stated:

Our present primitive understanding of deliberate environmental change makes it difficult to imagine a world in which geophysical warfare is practised. Such a world might be one in which nuclear weapons were effectively banned and the weapons of mass destruction were those of environmental catastrophe. “

This is how the paper introduces things:

MacDonald discussed overt and covert weather warfare based upon seeding clouds to cause rainfall. Subsequently, a method was developed for inhibiting rainfall by jet-emplacing pollution particulates where clouds form. For at least two decades citizens have observed such particulate trails occurring with increasing frequency. Forensic scientific investigations implicate toxic coal fly ash as their main constituent. Around 2010, the aerial particulate spraying ramped-up to a near-daily, near-global level. Presumably, a secret international agreement mandated the aerial spraying as a ‘sunshade’ for Earth. However, aerial spraying, rather than cooling, heats the atmosphere, retards Earth’s heat loss, and causes global warming. MacDonald also discussed destroying atmospheric ozone and triggering earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, activities now possible with high-frequency ionospheric heaters.

The politically powerful geoscientist Gordon J. F. MacDonald (1929-2002) wrote an influential essay titled, “How to Wreck the Environment,” that was published in 1968 in a book called Unless Peace Comes [1]. At a time when the military’s focus centered on nuclear warfare, MacDonald prophetically suggested: “Among future means of obtaining national objectives by force, one possibility hinges on man’s ability to control and manipulate the environment of his planet.” MacDonald, a top presidential science advisor and participant in national science-policy discussions, was well qualified to address the subject of future environmental warfare possibilities.

Much of what MacDonald predicted or speculated about has come to pass, not with the technology he described, but with potentially far more effective and devastating technology developed during the succeeding fifty years.”

The paper starts of with a discussion of weather modification which they equate with cloud-seeding that was discussed by MacDonald in his essay.
They state:

Weather modification is a phenomenon limited in duration and geographical extent, whereas climate modification is necessarily global”

This6 is equivalent to a world-wide project of aerial spraying that they identify as having taken off in approximately 2010 which is when observant people started to notice an uptick in activity. The authors contend this is “presumably based on a secret international agreement

In common with others who talk about geoengineering they cotend that this is an existing program rather than a theoretical option which has not yet been put into effect:

"The U. S. military has been engaged for decades in aerial spraying of particulates into the regions where clouds form to modify weather and for other reasons, such as to enhance communication systems associated with electromagnetic radiation programs."

The authors state that if there was a secret agreement the presumption would be that it was benefiting mankind. However.its implementation is “exacerbating the problem of global warming and causing climate chaos,and adversely affecting the health of organisms, including humans”

The authors speculate that an agreement may have been sold on the grounds that geoengineering was going to cool the planet whereas they say t has done the opposite: it has further warmed the planet.

If so, they have been conned into the greatest “science-based” scam ever perpetrated : Cause global warming and climate chaos by daily aerial spraying and then blame the warming result on anthropogenic greenhouse gases to undermine the authority of nation states, and erect new world governance structures to regulate anthropogenic,transnational greenhouse gas emissions”


One of the stronger bits of evidence for “chemtrails” has been the discovery of large amounts of toxic aluminium and barium. The consituents of spraying had long been kept secret but observant people concenred by the changes of what they saw in the sky took samples of post -spraying rainwater and had
them analyzed at commercial laboratories.

Very high levels of aluminium, barium etc. were identified in the tests. It was also found that aerosolized particulates are consistent with coal fly ash that comes from the incomplate combustion of coal.

"Coal fly ash, when exposed to moisture or body fluids, releases numerous toxins, including aluminum in a chemically mobile form, which is an environmentally and biologically unnaturalstate. Chemically mobile aluminum is deadly to plants and trees as well as to amphibians. Aluminum is associated with neurological disorders , and has been found in high levels in bees"

Usually, particulates are talked about in connection with the aerosol masking effect; aerosols act as an “umbrella” which prevents heat from reaching the surface of Earth (‘global dimming’).

However, in contradiction to the conventional wisdom the authors contend that, rather than cool the Earth they warm it:

Strongly light-absorbing aerosols, such as CFA, directly heat the
atmosphereand indirectly reduce snow albedo by their warming effect As the aerosolized particulates fall to Earth, especially in far northern and far southern regions, they change the albedo of the ice/snow, which allows more solar energy to be absorbed by Earth [50]. This behavior, especially when considered in the context of near-daily, near-global aerosol spraying clearly may contribute to global warming. Consequently, the thermal state of Earth is biased toward warming, the exact opposite of official claims for geoengineering”

Ozone destruction

In common with Dane Wigington the authors of the paper contend that the ozone layer is not healing – in fact There is “new evidence for the continuous loss of ozone in the lower stratosphere”

Previously, depletion of lower stratospheric ozone has been attributed to rapidly increasing anthropogenic (and some natural) short-lived substances that contain chlorine or bromine . However, the aerosolized CFA used for climate modification, now conducted on a near-daily, near-global basis, places massive quantities of chlorine, bromine, fluorine, and iodine into the atmosphere, including highly reactive nano-particulates. These are potential destroyers of ozone

In addition to the chemical destruction of stratospheric ozone, there are indications that high-frequency ionospheric heaters (equivalent to, but not restricted to HAARP), now dispersed globally, may adversely affect stratospheric ozone

In this regard they point to Russian research that “disovered a new physical phenomenon of the decrease of the intensity of microwave emission from the mesosphere in the ozone line upon the modification of the ionosphere with high-power high-frequency (HF) radio waves”

Fifty years ago MacDonald noted: “The enhanced low-frequency electrical oscillations in the earth-ionosphere cavity relate to possible weapons systems through the little understood aspect of brain-physiology....No matter how deeply disturbing the thought of using the environment to manipulate behavior for national advantage is to some, the technology permitting such use will very probably develop within the next few decades.”

With ionospheric heater transmitters scattered throughout the world, that time might be close at hand half a century after MacDonald’s forecast.


The authors talk about the great extinctions and how the Permian extinction 250 million years ago resulted in one of the world’s largest petroleum and gas deposits
The relationship between major petroleum and natural gas production wells and the boundary of the Siberian Traps, indicated by the black line. Methane hydrate deposits currently locked in the permafrost within this extensive area upon melting pose a major catastrophe 
Herndon JM. New concept on the origin of petroleum and natural gas deposits. JPetrol Explor Prod Technol 2017;7(2):345 -52.

The authors contend that Anthropogenic “global warming, caused by the near-daily, near-global aerial particulate spraying, poses a serious risk
of massively thawing and releasing that entrapped methane to tthe atmosphere. The potential for another mass-extinction event, should this happen, cannot be dismissed”

Here is the authors’ conclusion:

"The decision to alter the natural workings of our planet, to pollute the air we breathe, to disrupt natural climate, to weaponize natural geophysical processes, to disrupt the ionosphere that protects us from the sun’s deadly electromagnetic radiation, and to mislead the public about the health risks involved was accurately forecasted in 1968 by Gordon J. F. MacDonald in his essay aptly entitled “How to Wreck the Environment.” But MacDonald’s vision was not 20/20. He imagined that a nation would be able to develop military technology for the benefit of its own natural national interests, but failed to see the evolution of a planetary“enemy” and the resultant pressures on nation states’ militaries to act in planetary concert against this so 

"MacDonald also failed to fully appreciate the negative impacts of the future environmental warfare technologies, including their impact on human and environmental health. Ninety percent (90%) of the world’s population now lives in areas with unhealthy air. Coal-combustion products are the most important single contributor to this global air pollution, with exposure to the PM2.5particles that characterize coal fly ash the leading environmental risk factor for all such deaths (4.5 million in 2015) . Air pollution disproportionately affects the young and the old and those with chronic illness. 

"War trumps all humanity’s other organized activities. It involves not only life -and-death secrecy protocols but distorts the openness of scientific discovery . The secret war on climate change is no exception to this rule. MacDonald did not realize half a century ago that the world’s militaries could be co-opted by a secret international agreement to wage a first-ever war on the planetary Earth system, on all Earth’s biota and fundamental biogeochemical processes-called enemy –climate change."


A lot of the above goes right against the grain of conventional climate science and verges on climate change denial.

That, however, has never been an arguments to me.I am deeply opposed to reductionistic thinking and that things cannot be one thing AND another. This, to me is clearly not the case.

What has pesuaded me this year to rethink my position is the appearance in our New Zealand skies of absolutely bizarre cloud-cover, not on an occasional basis but every day. Wheras previously our skies looked like a vibrant oil painting now they look more like skies all round the world – wore akin to a washed out water colouring painting.

In parallel with this just looking at the Arctic on NASA Worldview every day my friend,Margo, and I noticed some very strange phenomena and suspected that NASA were removing inconvenient data, usually the next day.

Unless one is taking screenshots of everything every step of the way it is hard to prove this.

However, proof came from this paper in the form of a NASA Worldview satellite image from February 4, 2016 showing jet-laid particulate trails blanketing the air above the Republic of Cyprus but nearly absent in surrounding regions.

I decided to check for myself the veracity of this image and went to NASA Worldview and found the data for the exact same day – all the jet-laid particulate trails had been removed and replaced by blue sky!

One’s own prejudices and belief systems will probably determine how one relates to this informaton.

If you think that 9/11 was carried out with a group of Saudis with box cutters and that prior to Donald Trump coming to power America was the policeman of the world, and that the IPCC is the fount of all knowledge on climate change you are highly unlikely to accept a single word of this.

If, however, you are open to looking at new evidence and don’t have such a rose-tinted spectacle view of the world you might just come to the conclusion that higher life forms on planet Earth are threat from human-induced climate change as well as a program to engineer both the weather and the climate.

With the unleashing of a large quantity of positive feedbacks and trigger points it beoomes somewhat of an intellectual exercise as to what the initial causes of planetary warming are – greenhouse gases released by the industrial heat engine or of geoengineering.

I am willing to wager that there are two things at play here. In addition to what we call climate change (and I call abrupt climate change) there is an ill-thought out program to filter out the sunlight and thereby cool the planet.

Whenever this happens, either through the cessation or near-cessation of industrial activity or through the cessation of spraying our skies with particulates laden with heavy metals, we are going to see rapid warming that will lead to a cascade of catastrophic events culminating in the extinction of our favourite species

The paper is available in .pdf format HERE

Here is the original 1968 paper

Unless Peace Comes
A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons

July 22, 1968 - Viking Adult - ISBN: 978 067 074 1140 edited by Nigel Calder

With its telling and dispassionate prose and with its life-or-death message, this remarkable and urgently important book should and must chill the hearts and sober the thoughts of anyone who reads it. Nigel Calder is a widely known and respected English science writer and editor. For many years he edited London's New Scientist, which achieved a reputation and influence far beyond its circulation. In this volume he has marshaled the services of sixteen eminent scientists from six countries and asked them from the vantage points of their own disciplines to set down their projections of warfare in the future. No layman who reads this will ever be likely again to characterize the whole scientific community as either oblivious or uncaring. As the French authors of the chapter on chemical warfare put it, "The question may arise: is all science damned? We must either eliminate science or eliminate war. We cannot have both." There is undeniably a chilling fascination in these glimpses into the future— at robot centipede tanks fused with H-bombs; at nerve gases; at refined missiles and submarines; at bacterial weapons; at the fatal fallacies built into atomic deterrence; at the possibilities of tampering with nature itself; at all the political, scientific, and military nightmares which mankind is striving to make real. Yet there is no danger that any reader will for a moment lose sight of the fact that Unless Peace Comes is not an extrapolative catalogue of the gadgetry of warfare but an awesome underlining of the hugest moral imperative in the history of mankind.

Chapter from 'Unless Peace Comes'


by Gordon J. F. MacDonald, U.S.A.

Professor MacDonald is associate director of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the University of California, Los Angeles. His researches have embraced a remarkable diversity of natural phenomena and his professional interests are further extended by his participation in national science policy-making. He is a member of President Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee.
Among future means of obtaining national objectives by force, one possibility hinges on man’s ability to control and manipulate the environment of his planet. When achieved, this power over his environment will provide man with a new force capable of doing great and indiscriminate damage. Our present primitive understanding of deliberate environmental change makes it difficult t o imagine a world in which geophysical warfare is practised. Such a world might be one in which nuclear weapons were effectively banned and the weapons of mass destruction were those of environmental catastrophe. 

Alternatively, I can envisage a world of nuclear stability resulting from parity in such weapons, rendered unstable by the development by one nation of an advanced technology capable of modifying the Earth’s environment. Or geophysical weapons may be part of each nation’s armoury. As I will argue, these weapons are peculiarly suited for covert or secret wars. 

Science fiction literature contains many suggestions of how wars would progress if man indeed possessed the ability to change weather, climate, or ocean currents. Many of these fictional suggestions, and other more serious discussions, fail to take into account the limitations of nature. Jules Verne gave a detailed discussion of displacing the Earth’s polar caps, thus making the world’s climatic zones more equitable (Les Voyages Extraordinaires; Sans Dessus Dessous, Metzel, 1889). Verne’s proposal was to eliminate the 23º tilt in the Earth’s axis, putting it at right angles to the Sun-Earth plane. However, as Verne correctly pointed out in a subsequent discussion, the Earth’s equatorial bulge stabilizes our planet and even the launching of a 180,000-ton projectile would produce a displacement of only 1/10 micron. Senator Estes Kefauver, Vice-Presidential candidate in the 1956 American election, rediscovered Verne’s original proposal and was seriously concerned with the tipping of the Earth’s axis. He reported that the Earth’s axis could, as the result of an H-bomb explosion, be displaced by 10º. Either Senator Kefauver or his scientific advisers neglected the stabilizing influence of the Earth’s bulge. The maximum displacement that can be expected from the explosion of a 100-megaton H-weapon is less than one micron, as Walter Munk and I pointed out in our book, Rotation of the Earth (Cambridge, 1960).

Substantial progress within the environmental sciences is slowly overcoming the gap between fact and fiction regarding manipulations of the Earth’s physical environment. As these manipulations become possible, history shows that attempts may be made to use them in support of national ambitions. To consider the consequences of environmental modification in struggles among nations, we need to consider the present state of the subject and how postulated developments in the field could lead, ten to fifty years from now, to weapons systems that would use nature in new and perhaps unexpected ways.

The key to geophysical warfare is the identification of the environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy. Environmental instability is a situation in which nature has stored energy in some part of the Earth or its surroundings far in excess of that which is usual. To trigger this instability, the required energy might be introduced violently by explosions or gently by small bits of material able to induce rapid changes by acting as catalysts or nucleating agents. The mechanism for energy storage might be the accumulation of strain over hundreds of millions of years in the solid Earth, or the super-cooling of water vapour in the atmosphere by updraughts taking place over a few tens of minutes. Effects of releasing this energy could be world-wide, as in the case of altering climate, or regional, as in the case of locally excited earthquakes or enhanced precipitation. 


The Earth’s atmosphere is an envelope of air which rotates, for the most part, at the same speed as the underlying continents and oceans. The relative motion between the atmosphere and the Earth arises from sources and sinks of energy which vary in location and strength but which have, as their ultimate source, the Sun’s radiation. The quantities of energy involved in weather systems exceed by a substantial margin the quantity of energy under man’s direct control.
For instance, the typical amount of energy expended in a single tornado funnel is equivalent to about fifty kilotons of explosives; a single thunderstorm tower exchanges about ten times this much energy during its lifetime; an Atlantic hurricane of moderate size may draw from the sea more than 1,000 megatons of energy. These vast quantities of energy make it unlikely that brute-force techniques will lead to sensible weather modification. Results could be achieved, however, by working on the instabilities in the atmosphere.

We are now beginning to understand several kinds of instabilities in the atmosphere. Supercooled water droplets in cold clouds are unstable, but they remain liquid for substantial periods of time unless supplied with nuclei on which they can freeze. Conversion of water droplets to ice through the introduction of artificial nuclei can provide a local source of energy. This released heat can cause rising air currents which in turn lead to further formation of supercooled water. This process may lead to rainfall at the ground greater than that which would have been produced without the artificial nucleation. A second instability may arise, in which water vapour condenses into water, again affecting the distribution of sensible energy. On a larger scale, there is the so-called baroclinic instability of atmospheric waves that girdle the planet. Through the imbalance of heat between equator and pole, energy in this instability is stored, to be released in the creation of large cyclonic storms in the temperate zones. There are other, less well understood instabilities capable of affecting climate; I shall return to them later.

What is the present situation with respect to weather modification and what might be reasonably expected in the future? Experiments over the past eighteen years have demonstrated unequivocally that clouds composed of supercooled water droplets can be transformed into ice-crystal clouds by seeding them with silver iodide, ‘dry ice’ (frozen carbon dioxide) and other suitable chemical agents. This discovery has been applied operationally in the clearance of airports covered by supercooled ground fog. No analogous technique has yet evolved for clearing warm fog, although several promising leads are now being investigated. In the case of warm fog, the atmospheric instability is that water vapour distributed in small drops contains more surface energy than the same water distributed in large drops. The trick for clearance of this warm fog will be to discover some way of getting the small drops to organize themselves into larger ones and then fall to the ground.

There is increasing, though inconclusive, evidence that rainfall from some types of clouds and storm systems in temperate regions can be increased by ten to fifteen per cent by seeding. Somewhat more controversial evidence indicates that precipitation can be increased from tropical cumulus by techniques similar to those employed in temperate regions. Preliminary experiments on hurricanes have the aim of dissipating the clouds surrounding the eye of the storm in order to spread the energy of the hurricane and reduce its force. The results are controversial but indicate that seeding can, in certain circumstances, lead to a marked growth in the seeded cloud. This possibility may have merit in hurricane modification, but experimentation has not yet resulted in a definitive statement.

Regarding the suppression of lightning, there is mixed but largely promising evidence that the frequency of cloud-to-ground strokes can be reduced by the introduction of ‘chaff’, strips of metallic foil of the kind used for creating spurious echoes in enemy radars.

In looking to the future, it is quite clear that substantial advances will be made in all of these areas of weather modification. Today, both military and civilian air transport benefit from progress in the clearance of ground fog. Further progress in the technology of introducing the seeding agent into the fog makes it likely that this type of fog dispersal will become routine. In a sense, fog clearing is the first military application of deliberate manipulation of weather, but it is, of course, very limited.

Large field programmes are being undertaken in the United States to explore further the possibility of enhancing precipitation, particularly in the western and north-eastern states. On the high ground of the western states, snow from winter storms provides much of the country’s moisture. Investigations are under way to see if seeding can lead to an increased snowpack and thus enhance the water resources.

Intense interest in this form of weather modification, coupled with an increased investigation of the physics of clouds, is likely to lead to effective cloud modification within the next five to fifteen years. At present, the effects are measured only statistically and too little has been done in cloud observation before and after seeding in the way of precisely pinpointing which clouds are most likely to be affected.

As far as military applications are concerned, I conjecture that precipitation enhancement would have a limited value in classical tactical situations, and then only in the future when controls are more thoroughly understood. One could, for example, imagine field commanders calling for local enhancement of precipitation to cover or impede various ground operations. An alternative use of cloud seeding might be applied strategically. We are presently uncertain about the effect of seeding on precipitation down wind from the seeded clouds. Preliminary analysis suggests that there is no effect 200-300 miles down wind, but that continued seeding over a long stretch of dry land clearly could remove sufficient moisture to prevent rain 1,000 miles down wind. This extended effect leads to the possibility of covertly removing moisture from the atmosphere so that a nation dependent on water vapour crossing a competitor country could be subjected to years of drought. The operation could be concealed by the statistical irregularity of the atmosphere. A nation possessing superior technology in environmental manipulation could damage an adversary without revealing its intent.

Modification of storms, too, could have major strategic implications. As I have mentioned, preliminary experiments have been carried out on the seeding of hurricanes. The dynamics of hurricanes and the mechanism by which energy is transferred from the ocean into the atmosphere supporting the hurricane are poorly understood. Yet various schemes for both dissipation and steering can be imagined. Although hurricanes originate in tropical regions, they can travel into temperate latitudes, as the residents of New England know only too well. A controlled hurricane could be used as a weapon to terrorize opponents over substantial parts of the populated world.

It is generally supposed that a hurricane draws most of its energy from the sea over which it passes. The necessary process of heat transfer depends on wave action which permits the air to come in contact with a volume of water. This interaction between the air and water also stirs the upper layers of the atmosphere and permits the hurricane to draw on a substantially larger reservoir of heat than just the warm surface water. There may be ways, using monomolecular films of materials like those developed for covering reservoirs to reduce evaporation, for decreasing the local interaction between sea and air and thus preventing the ocean from providing energy to the hurricane in an accelerated fashion. Such a procedure, coupled with selective seeding, might provide hurricane guidance mechanisms. At present we are a long way from having the basic data and understanding necessary to carry out such experiments; nevertheless, the long-term possibility of developing and applying such techniques under the cover of nature’s irregularities presents a disquieting prospect.


In considering whether or not climate modification is possible, it is useful to examine climate variations under natural conditions. Firm geological evidence exists of a long sequence of Ice Ages, in the relatively recent past, which shows that the world’s climate has been in a state of slow evolution. There is also good geological, archaeological and historical evidence for a pattern of smaller, more rapid fluctuations superimposed on the slow evolutionary change. For example, in Europe the climate of the early period following the last Ice Age was continental, with hot summers and cold winters. In the sixth millennium B.C., there was a change to a warm humid climate with a mean temperature of 5ºF higher than at present and a heavy rainfall that caused considerable growth of peat. This period, known as a climatic optimum, was accentuated in Scandinavia by a land subsidence which permitted a greater influx of warm Atlantic water into the large Baltic Sea.

The climatic optimum was peculiar. While on the whole there was a very gradual decrease of rainfall, the decrease was interrupted by long droughts during which the surface peat dried. This fluctuation occurred several times, the main dry periods being from 2000 to 1900, 1200 to 1000 and 700 to 500 B.C. The  last, a dry heat wave lasting approximately 200 years, was the best developed. The drought, though not sufficiently intense to interrupt the steady development of forests, did cause extensive migrations of peoples from drier to wetter regions.
A change to colder and wetter conditions occurred in Europe about 500 B.C. and was by far the greatest and most abrupt alteration in climate since the end of the last Ice Age. It had a catastrophic effect on the early civilization of Europe: large areas of forest were killed by the rapid growth of peat and the levels of the Alpine lakes rose suddenly, flooding many of the lake settlements. This climatic change did not last long; by the beginning of the Christian era, conditions did not differ greatly from current ones. Since then climatic variations have continued to occur and although none has been as dramatic as that of 500 B.C. a perturbation known as the little ice age of the seventeenth century is a recent noteworthy example. The cause of these historical changes in climate remains shrouded in mystery. The rapid changes of climate in the past suggest to many that there exist instabilities affecting the balance of solar radiation. 

Indeed, climate is primarily determined by the balance between the incoming short-wave from the Sun (principally light) and the loss of outgoing long-wave radiation (principally heat).

Three factors dominate the balance: the energy of the Sun, the surface character of terrestrial regions (water, ice, vegetation, desert, etc.), and the transparency of the Earth’s atmosphere to different forms of radiated energy. In the last connection, the effect of clouds in making cool days and relatively warm nights is a matter of familiar experience. But clouds are a manifestation rather than an original determinant of weather and climate; of more fundamental significance is the effect of gases in the atmosphere, which absorb much of the radiation in transit from the Sun to the Earth or from the Earth into space. Intense X-rays and ultra-violet from the Sun, together with high-energy atomic particles, are arrested in the upper atmosphere. Only the narrow band of visible light and some short radio waves traverse the atmosphere without serious interruption.

There has been much controversy in recent years about conjectured overall effects on the world’s climate of emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from furnaces and engines burning fossil fuels, and some about possible influences of the exhaust from large rockets on the transparency of the upper atmosphere. Carbon dioxide placed in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has produced an increase in the average temperature of the lower atmosphere of a few tenths of a degree Fahrenheit. The water vapour that may be introduced into the stratosphere by the supersonic transport may also result in a similar temperature rise. In principle it would be feasible to introduce material into the upper atmosphere that would absorb either incoming light (thereby cooling the surface) or outgoing heat (thereby warming the surface). In practice, in the rarefied and windswept upper atmosphere, the material would disperse rather quickly, so that military use of such a technique would probably rely upon global rather than local effects. Moreover, molecular material will tend to decompose, and even elemental materials will eventually be lost by diffusion into space or precipitation to the surface. At intermediate levels, in the stratosphere, materials may tend to accumulate though the mixing time for this part of the atmosphere is certainly less than ten years and may be a few months. If a nation’s meteorologists calculated that a general warming or cooling of the Earth was in their national interest, improving their climate while worsening others, the temptation to release materials from high-altitude rockets might exist. At present we know too little about the paradoxical effects of warming and cooling, however, to tell what the outcome might be.

More sudden, perhaps much briefer but nevertheless disastrous effects, are predictable if chemical or physical means were developed for attacking one of the natural constituents of the atmosphere ozone. A low concentration of ozone (O3, a rare molecular form of oxygen) in a layer between fifteen and fifty kilometres altitude has the utmost significance for life on land. It is responsible for absorbing the greater part of the ultra-violet from the Sun. In mild doses, this radiation causes sunburn; if the full force of it were experienced at the surface, it would be fatal to all life – including farm crops and herds – that could not take shelter. The ozone is replenished daily, but a temporary ‘hole’ in the ozone layer over a target area might be created by physical or chemical action. For example, ultra-violet at 250 millimicrons wavelength decomposes ozone molecules, and ozone reacts readily with a wide range of materials.

At present, we can only tentatively speculate about modifying the short-wave radiation at its source, the Sun. We have discovered major instabilities on the Sun’s surface which might be manipulated many years hence. In a solar flare, for example, 10^10 megatons of energy are stored in distorted magnetic fields. With advanced techniques of launching rockets and setting off large explosions, we may sometime in the future learn to trigger these instabilities. For the near future, however, modification will not be in the short-wave incoming radiation but in the long-wave outgoing radiation.

The usual schemes for modifying climate involve the manipulation of large ice fields. The persistence of these large ice fields is due to the cooling effects of the ice itself, both in reflecting (rather than absorbing) incoming short-wave radiation and in radiating heat at a higher rate than the usual ground cover. A commonly suggested means of climate modification involves thin layers of coloured material spread on an icy surface, thus inhibiting both the reaction and radiation processes, melting the ice, and thereby altering the climate. Such a procedure presents obvious technical and logistic difficulties. For example, if one wished to create a surface coating of as little as one micron thickness to cover a square 1,000 kilometres in size, the total material for this extremely thin coating would weigh a million tons or more, depending upon its density. So the proposals to dust from the air some of the globe’s extended ice sheets, are unrealistic and reflect a brute-force technique, taking no advantage of instabilities within the environment.

While it may be technologically difficult to change an ice cap’s surface character, and thus its thermal properties, it may be possible to move the ice, taking into account the gravitational instability of ice caps. The gravitational potential energy of water as a thick, high ice cap is much greater than it would be at sea level. This fact makes it possible, at least in principle, to devise schemes for bringing about a redistribution in the ice. Indeed, A. T. Wilson has proposed a cyclical theory for the Ice Ages based on this instability.

The main points of Wilson’s theory are as follows:

1. Antarctica is covered by an ice sheet several kilometres thick. Pressure at the bottom of the ice is great enough to keep the ice at or near its melting point; water is an unusual material in that a pressure increase lowers rather than raises its melting point. An increase in thickness of the ice sheet could result in melting at the bottom. The resulting ice-water mixture along the sole of the glacier would permit flow by a process of freezing and melting—a flow process much more effective than ordinary plastic flow.

2. If such an instability occurs, the ice sheet will flow out on to the surrounding sea and a large ice shelf will be formed between Antarctica and the ocean around it. As a consequence, short-wave solar radiation will be reflected and there will be enhanced loss of heat by radiation at the long wavelengths, causing cooling and the inducement of world-wide glaciation.

3. Once the ice shelf is in the ocean, it will begin to melt and eventually will be removed. The ice remaining on land will be much thinner than before. As the reflectivity of the southern hemisphere decreases with the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, the global climate will grow warmer again, corresponding to the start of an interglacial period. The ice cap will slowly form again.

Commenting on Wilson’s theory, J. T. Hollin has noted the possibility of a catastrophic surge or advance of the ice sheet, such as has been recorded from small glaciers on numerous occasions. The largest surge yet reported is probably that of the ice cap in Spitsbergen which advanced up to twenty-one kilometres on a front of thirty kilometres sometime between 1935 and 1938. There are also reports of glacial advances at speeds up to 100 metres per day. Hollin speculates that, once the bottom-melting phase of a gravitationally unstable ice cap is reached, it will move quickly. In addition to trapped geothermal heat melting the ice at the bottom, there are additional contributions from frictional heat generated as the glacier scrapes along the solid ground.

If the speculative theory of Wilson is correct (and there are many attractive features to it) then a mechanism does exist for catastrophically altering the Earth’s climate. The release of thermal energy, perhaps through nuclear explosions along the base of an ice sheet, could initiate outward sliding of the ice sheet which would then be sustained by gravitational energy. One megaton of energy is sufficient to melt about 100 million tons of ice. One hundred megatons of energy would convert 0.1 cm of ice into a thin layer of water covering the entire Antarctic ice cap. Lesser amounts of energy suitably placed could undoubtedly initiate the outward flow of the ice.

What would be the consequences of such an operation? The immediate effect of this vast quantity of ice surging into the water, if velocities of 100 metres per day are appropriate, would be to create massive tsunamis (tidal waves) which would completely wreck coastal regions even in the northern hemisphere. There would then follow marked changes in climate brought about by the suddenly changed reflectivity of the Earth. At a rate of 100 metres per day, the centre of the ice sheet would reach the land’s edge in forty years.

Who would stand to benefit from such application? The logical candidate, would be a landlocked equatorial country. An extended glacial period would ensure near-Arctic conditions over much of the temperate zone, but temperate climate with abundant rainfall would be the rule in the present tropical regions.


The foregoing perhaps represents a more positive view of weather and climate modification than that held by many Earth scientists. I believe this view is justified as it is based on three scientific and technological advances. First, understanding of basic meteorology has advanced to such an extent that mathematical models of the atmosphere here have been developed incorporating the most important elements. Physical processes in clouds, in turbulent exchanges at the surface, and in transmission of radiation through the atmosphere are no longer as mysterious as they once were. The volumes simulated by the models range from the size of a single cloud to the entire atmosphere; these models are no longer primitive representations.

Secondly, the advent of high-speed computers enables atmospheric models to be studied in greater detail. These computers have a peculiar importance to weather modification, since they will enable scientists to carry out extended experiments to test whether or not various schemes for manipulating the atmosphere are indeed possible and what the outcome should be.

The third advance lending support to expectations for weather and climate modification is the new array of instruments developed to observe and detect changes in the atmosphere. The most dramatic and perhaps the most powerful is the meteorological satellite which provides a platform whence the atmosphere can be observed, not only in geographically inaccessible regions, but also with entirely new physical measurements. For example, meteorological satellites of the future will permit the determination of humidity, temperature and pressure as averaged over substantial volumes of the atmosphere, providing quantities which are needed to develop the mathematical models. Sophisticated surface instrumentation, for observing detailed processes within smaller parts of the atmosphere, provides us with far more powerful tools with which to look at clouds and at the interaction of the atmosphere with its boundaries than those which were available ten or twenty years ago.


What causes earthquakes? Over geological time, the irregular distribution of heat-producing radioactive elements in the rock layers gives rise to sub-surface temperature differences between various parts of the Earth. In the continents, granites and similar rocks have concentrated radioactive elements near the surface; no similar concentration has taken place in the sub-oceanic regions, which may as a result be more than 100ºC cooler than the corresponding sub-continental regions. Such variations in temperature along a horizontal line, due to the differences in the vertical distribution of heat-producing elements, give rise to large thermal stresses, causing strain analogous to that which cracks a glass tumbler filled with hot water. The strain tends to be greatest in regions of abrupt temperature change along a horizontal line through the Earth’s crust. The strain may be partially relieved by the slow convective flow of material in the deep Earth which is thought by some geophysicists to push continents about. But the strain can also be relieved by sharp fractures or by movements along previous faults in rocks near the surface. Movement along a fault radiates energy outward, which results in an earthquake. Each year approximately 200 megatons of strain energy is released in this fashion, the largest earthquakes corresponding to energy of the order of 100 megatons. The energy released depends on the volume of material affected. The largest earthquakes take place along faults having a linear dimension of 1,000 kilometres, whereas smaller ones take place along faults of one kilometre or less.

Major earthquakes tend to be located along two main belts. One belt, along which about eighty-five per cent of the total energy is released, passes around the Pacific and affects countries whose coastlines border this ocean, for example Japan and the west coast of North America. The second belt passes through the Mediterranean regions eastwards through Asia and joins the first belt in Indonesia. Along these two belts, large earthquakes occur with varying frequencies. In California, a large earthquake might be expected once every 50 to 100 years, while Chile might expect such a disturbance once every ten to twenty years. Sometimes major earthquakes have occurred in regions ordinarily thought of as being free from risk. For example, the New Madrid earthquake of 1811-12 devastated a large area of central North America but had only slight cultural effects because of the area’s sparse population.

Today, our detailed understanding of the mechanism that causes an earthquake and of how the related instabilities can be triggered is limited. Only within the last few years have serious discussions of earthquake prediction begun, whereas moderately reliable weather forecasts have been available for about the last thirty to fifty years.

Currently, substantial effort is being made, primarily by Japan and the United States, to develop techniques for forecasting earthquakes. These techniques are based to a large extent on the determination of changing strain conditions of materials in the rocks surrounding recognized fault zones. Of possible value is the observation that, before an earthquake, the accumulating strain accelerates.
Control of earthquakes is a prospect even more distant than that of forecasting although two techniques have been suggested through recent experience.

1. In the course of the underground testing of nuclear weapons at the Nevada test site, it was observed that an explosion apparently released local strain in the Earth. The hypothesis is that the swift buildup of strain due to the sudden release of energy in an explosion discharges strain energy over a large volume of material.

2. Another method of releasing strain energy has appeared from pumping of underground water in the vicinity of Denver, Colorado, which has led to a series of small earthquakes. The hypothesis here is that underground water has provided local lubrication permitting adjacent blocks to slip by one another.

The use as a weapon system of the strain energy instability within the solid Earth requires an effective triggering mechanism. A scheme for pumping water seems clumsy and easily detectable. On the other hand, if the strain pattern in the crust can be accurately determined, the phased or timed release of energy from smaller faults, designed to trigger a large fault at some distance, could be contemplated. This timed release could be activated through small explosions and thus it might be possible to use this release of energy stored in small faults at some distance from a major fault to trigger that major fault. For example, the San Andreas fault zone, passing near Los Angeles and San Francisco, is part of the great earthquake belt surrounding the Pacific. Good knowledge of the strain within this belt might permit the setting off of the San Andreas zone by timed explosions in the China Sea and Philippine Sea. In contrast with certain meteorological operations, it would seem rather unlikely that such an attack could be carried out covertly under the guise of natural earthquakes.


We are still in the very early stages of developing the theory and techniques for predicting the state of the oceans. In the past two decades, methods have been devised for the prediction of surface waves and surface wind distribution. A warning system for the tsunamis (tidal waves) produced by earthquakes has also been developed.

Certain currents within the oceans have been identified, but we do not yet know what the variable components are; that is, what the weather within the ocean is. Thus we have not been able to identify any instabilities within the oceanic circulation that might be easily manipulated. As in the case of the solid Earth, we can only speculate tentatively about how oceanic processes might be controlled.
One instability offering potential as a future weapon system is that associated with tsunamis. These frequently originate from the slumping into the deep ocean of loosely consolidated sediments and rocks perched on the continental shelf. Movement of these sediments can trigger the release of vast quantities of gravitational energy, part of which is converted in the motion of the tsunami. For example if, along a 1,000-kilometre edge of a continental shelf, a block 100 metres deep and 10 kilometres wide were dropped a distance of 100 metres, about 100 megatons of energy would be released. This release would be catastrophic to any coastal nation. How could it be achieved? A series of phased explosions, perhaps setting off natural earthquakes, would be a most effective way. I could even speculate on planning a guided tidal wave, where guidance is achieved by correctly shaping the source which releases energy.


At heights of forty to fifty kilometres above the Earth’s surface, substantial numbers of charged particles are found which make this part of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, a good conductor of electricity. The rocks and oceans are also more conducting than the lower atmosphere. Thus, we live in an insulating atmosphere between two spherical conducting shells or, as the radio engineer would put it, in an Earth-ionosphere cavity, or waveguide. Radio waves striking either conducting shell tend to be reflected back into the cavity, and this phenomenon is what makes conventional long-distance radio communication possible. Only recently, however, has there been any interest in natural electrical resonances within the Earth-ionosphere waveguide. Like any such cavity, the Earth-ionosphere waveguide will tend to sustain radio oscillation at certain frequencies in preference to others. These resonant frequencies are primarily determined by the size of the Earth and the speed of light, but the properties of the ionosphere modify them to a certain extent. The lowest resonances begin at about eight cycles per second, far below the frequencies ordinarily used for radio communication. Because of their long wavelength and small field strength, they are difficult to detect. Moreover, they die down quickly, within 1/16 second or so; in engineering terms, the cavity has a short time constant.

The natural resonant oscillations are excited by lightning strokes, cloud-to-ground strokes being a much more efficient source than horizontal cloud-to-cloud discharges. On the average, about 100 lightning strokes occur each second (primarily concentrated in the equatorial regions) so that normally about six lightning flashes are available to introduce energy before a particular oscillation dies down. A typical oscillation’s field strength is of the order of 0.3 millivolts per metre.

The power of the oscillations varies geographically. For example, for a source located on the equator in Brazil the maximum intensity of the oscillation is near the source and at the opposite side of the Earth (around Indonesia). The intensity is lower in intermediate regions and towards the poles.

One can imagine several ways in which to increase the intensity of such electrical oscillations. The number of lightning strokes per second could be enhanced by artificially increasing their original number. Substantial progress has been made in the understanding of the physics of lightning and of how it might be controlled. The natural oscillations are excited by randomly occurring strokes. The excitation of timed strokes would enhance the efficiency with which energy is injected into an oscillation. Furthermore, the time constant of the oscillation would be doubled by a four-fold increase in the electrical conductivity of the ionosphere, so that any scheme for enhancing that conductivity (for example, by injecting readily ionized vapour) lowers the energy losses and lengthens the time constant, which would permit a greater number of phased lightaing strokes before the decay of an oscillation.

The enhanced low-frequency electrical oscillations in the Earth-ionosphere cavity relate to possible weapons systems through a little understood aspect of brain physiology. Electrical activity in the brain is concentrated at certain frequencies, some of it extremely slow, a little around five cycles per second, and very conspicuous activity (the so-called alpha rhythm) around ten cycles per second. 
Some experiments have been done in the use of a flickering light to pull the brain’s alpha rhythm into unnatural synchrony with it; the visual stimulation leads to electrical stimulation. There has also been work on direct electrical driving of the brain. In experiments discussed by Norbert Wiener, a sheet of tin is suspended from the ceiling and connected to a generator working at ten cycles per second. With large field strengths of one or two volts per centimetre oscillating at the alpha-rhythm frequency, decidedly unpleasant sensations are noted by human subjects.

The Brain Research Institute of the University of California is investigating the effect of weak oscillating fields on human behaviour. The field strengths in these experiments are of the order of a few hundredths of a volt per centimetre. Subjects show small but measurable degradation in performance when exposed to oscillating fields for periods of up to fifteen minutes.

The field strengths in these experiments are still much stronger, by a factor of about 1,000, than the observed natural oscillations in the Earth-ionosphere cavity. However, as previously noted, the intensity of the natural fluctuations could bc increased substantially and in principle could be maintained for a long time, as tropical thunder storms are always available for manipulation. The proper geographical location of the source of lightning, coupled with accurately-timed, artificially-excited strokes, could lead to a pattern of oscillations that produced relatively high power levels over certain regions of the Earth and substantially lower levels over other regions. In this way, one could develop a system that would seriously impair brain performance in very large populations in selected regions over an extended period.

The scheme I have suggested is admittedly far-fetched, but I have used it to indicate the rather subtle connections between variations in man’s environmental conditions and his behaviour. Perturbation of the environment can produce changes in behaviour patterns. Since our understanding of both behavioural and environmental manipulation is rudimentary, schemes of behavioural alteration on the surface seem unrealistic. No matter how deeply disturbing the thought of using the environment to manipulate behaviour for national advantage is to some, the technology permitting such use will very probably develop within the next few decades.


Deficiencies both in the basic understanding of the physical processes in the environment and in the technology of environmental change make it highly unlikely that environmental modification will be an attractive weapon system in any direct military confrontation in the near future. Man already possesses highly effective tools for destruction. Eventually, however, means other than open warfare may be used to secure national advantage. As economic competition among many advanced nations heightens, it may be to a country’s advantage to ensure a peaceful natural environment for itself and a disturbed environment for its competitors. Operations producing such conditions might be carried out covertly, since nature’s great irregularity permits storms, floods, droughts, earthquakes and tidal waves to be viewed as unusual but not unexpected. Such a ‘secret war’ need never be declared or even known by the affected populations. It could go on for years with only the security forces involved being aware of it. 

The years of drought and storm would be attributed to unkindly nature and only after a nation were thoroughly drained would an armed take-over be attempted.

In addition to their covert nature, a feature common to several modification schemes is their ability to affect the Earth as a whole. The environment knows no political boundaries; it is independent of the institutions based on geography and the effects of modification can be projected from any one point to any other on the Earth. 

Because environmental modification may be a dominant feature of future world decades, there is concern that this incipient technology is in total conflict with many of the traditional geographical and political units and concepts. 
Political, legal, economic and sociological consequences of deliberate environmental modification, even for peaceful purposes, will be of such complexity that perhaps all our present involvements in nuclear affairs will seem simple. Our understanding of basic environmental science and technology is primitive, but still more primitive are our notions of the proper political forms and procedures to deal with the consequences of modification. All experience shows that less significant technological changes than environmental control finally transform political and social relationships. Experience also shows that these transformations are not necessarily predictable, and that guesses we might make now, based on precedent, are likely to be quite wrong. It would seem, however, that these non-scientific, nontechnological problems are of such magnitude that they deserve consideration by serious students throughout the world if society is to live comfortably in a controlled environment. 

Author’s note: In the section on weather modification I have drawn heavily on Weather and Climate Modification (National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Washington, zg66). A. T. Wilson’s paper on ‘Origin of Ice Ages’ appeared in Nature, vol. aox, pp. z4y-g (xg64), and J. T. Hollin’s comments in vol. ao8, pp. ra-16 (r 965). Release of tectonic strain by underground nuclear explosion was reported by F. Press and C. Archambeau in Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 67, pp. 337-43 (1962), and man-made earthquakes in Denver by D. Evans in Geotimes, vol. to, pp. rr-rp. I am grateful to J. Homer and W. Ross Adey of the Brain Research Institute of the University of California at Los Angeles, for information on the experimental investigation of the infiuence of magnetic fields on human behaviour.


  1. Dear Margo,

    I really appreciate your balanced tone and all the work you've done to present this material to us. I too have had growing concerns about a very one-sided misrepresentation of anthropogenic climate change. I've been an environmentalist most all my life and had bought into the global warming fears hook, line and sinker. It wasn't until I began to research chemtrails, discovering documents such as:

    - NASA's A Recommended National Program in Weather Modification written in 1966 which described a dozen different US Govt. agencies (including the organization now known as NOAA - the organization from whom we receive virtually all our climate data) and the parts they played in the R&D of weather modification. This doc. stated that seeding operations would be underway "primarily by aircraft", and that the use of lead oxide would be investigated.

    -The US Air Force document, An Introduction to Weather Modification written in 1969 which described seeding thunderstorms with metallic chaff, and that tests were "being carried out around the globe" with the participation of commercial airport authorities in the U.S. and Europe.

    - The Dept. of Defense's 1997 document - Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 which unequivocally stated that weather modification, "with few exceptions...involve infusing either energy or chemicals into the meteorological process".

    This showed me that weather, and probably climate modification has been going on for a very long time, over a half century at least, yet NOT A WORD OF THIS ACTIVITY APPEARS IN ANY CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH, NOR IS IT MENTIONED IN THE UN IPCCs REPORTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE. This raised all my alarm bells.

  2. (continuation from previous post)
    I, like you, am quite concerned by chemtrail/geoengineering activists such as Dane Wiggington, who, despite his excellent work exposing government geoengineering schemes, seem to believe that a good portion of climate change is being caused by carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases, and therefore wholeheartedly buying into the fearmongering of climate change.

    Unlike you however, I don't believe that the goal of employing geoengineering worldwide is to destroy the planet, its people and its other life forms, but to control it. I've done a bit of research on groups such as Bilderberg, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and the Club of Rome, and each of these "think" tanks seems to have World Government as their secret agenda, and many of the influential members of these groups seem to be directly, or indirectly tied to the weather and climate modification agenda. It seems to be the case, as Mikhail Gorbachev stated in an interview with the Monetary and Economic Review in 1996, that "the threat of an environmental crises will be the international disaster key that will unlock the New World Order". Gorbachev is a member of the Club of Rome and the Council on Foreign Relations. And James Warburg, son of CFR's founder, stated "We shall have world government...the question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.

    Gorbachev is also closely tied to the Rockefellers who fund several of his organizations (the Gorbachev Foundation and his Green Cross International). David Rockefeller also sat at the helm of the CFR as chairman and funder for many, many years, was a Member of the Club of Rome, helped found the Bilderberg Group, and founded the Trilateral Commission. Despite giving a public image of philanthropy, the Rockefeller family has long had a "plan for the world" which involves "the supranational sovereignity of an intellectual elite and world bankers" marching us "toward a world government" (from his address in 1991 to a Trilateral Commission meeting). Additionally and incidentally, the very land upon which the United Nations sits was donated by the Rockefellers. And it is the UN that is at the very helm of steering all climate change related policy around the world. In addition to this, the head of the IPCC's Executive Committee Rajendra K. Pachauri is also a member of the Advisory Group for the Rockefeller Foundation.

  3. (continued from previous post)
    Climate change is already being trumpeted as being a major threat to National Security in the US and in other countries round the globe. From a Council on Foreign Relations report titled CLIMATE CHANGE AND NATIONAL SECURITY: AN AGENDA FOR ACTION:
    "Climate change presents a serious threat to the security and prosperity of the United States"
    Headlines such as this one from the US Independent News:
    "Obama Expected to Mandate New Climate Change Policies with Executive Order".

    I've been learning that whenever there is a threat to national security, people become compliant with greater and greater restrictions imposed on them, more willing to accept the unacceptable (such as the fact that there is no longer any such thing as privacy, as surveillance has reached previously undreamed of proportions), more tractable and compliant.

    And then, when it seems the world is on the verge of collapse, Geoengineering will be sold to the public as a means of combatting climate change.

    So not only will we then welcome geoengineering as our possible saviours, we will also be playing into the hands of the powerful elite sitting at the helm of the world government scheme, for, just as Henry Kissinger (National Security Advisor to 2 Presidents, member of the Bilderberg group since its inception, member of the CFR AND the Club of Rome) once stated,

    "Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”

    In closing, I'd just like to say that there are many scientists who belive the earth isn't warming at all, that Al Gore's "hockey" stick graph that's been used as the model to illustrate climate change, is in actual fact incorrect. The IPCC CLIMATEGATE scandal which showed that NOAA and NASA were manipulating global temperature records to try to prove that temperatures are rising faster than they, in fact, actually are, seems to support this view. Most of the world's climate data is supplied to the IPCC by the same organizations leading the weather and climate modification scheme around the world: NASA and the US Dept. of Defense "share" their data with NOAA, and NOAA is one of the leading data contributors used in the IPCC reports along with UCAR, NASA, and Lawrence Livermore (A US govt. funded lab specializing in defense). And when you consider that Ben Santer (top climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore and the Un. of East Anglia, and major contributor to the IPCC), by his own admission, single-handedly eliminated 5 sections from the 1995 IPCC Report that concluded that man is NOT contributing to global warming and then substituted his own conclusions, well, it does lead one to think that all is NOT as we are being led to believe.

    Here is a well considered article, worth looking into which shows, step by step, using science, how and why it is that the science on climate change is not at all settled...

    Thank you again Margo. I'm very glad to have discovered your work (followed a link from geoengineeringwatch's last podcast in the comments section).
    Juscha photography