If warming the arctic was regarded as good for commerce for 100 years why would a discovery that found carbon dioxide was already performing the task for free, suddenly be regarded as a catastrophe to prevent?
The BP Gulf Oil Spill Disaster demonstrates how Big Oil exists in a world of opportunistic pragmatism, no matter the risk to the environment. With an established record of corporate sociopathy, Big Oil would have little interest in what event would cause arctic ice to retreat as long as their long-held dream of new arctic navigation routes and access to previously ice-locked oil and gas reserves was realized. It could make marginal difference if the arctic temperatures rise due to (1) rising CO2 levels or (2) covert arctic climate manipulation.
This timeline of determined Geoengineering projects suggests the goal of mediating arctic climate remains a favorite goal of the fossil fuel industry.
1877 Harvard geologist Nathaniel Shaler proposed channeling more of the warm Kuroshio Current through the Bering Strait to raise temperatures in the Polar region by 30 degrees.
1912, New York Engineer and Industrialist, Carroll Livingston Riker proposed building a 200 mile jetty off Newfoundland to increase the Gulf Stream’s flow into to the Arctic Basin with the added benefit that it would “shift” the axis of planet earth. The New York Times characterized the proposal as “amazing”… but not insane.
1929: Hermann Oberth, German-Hungarian physicist and engineer; Proposed building giant mirrors on a space station to focus the Sun’s radiation on Earth’s surface, making the far North habitable and freeing sea lanes to Siberian harbors.
1945; Julian Huxley, biologist and Secretary-General of UNESCO 1946-48; Proposed exploding atomic bombs at an appropriate height above the polar regions to raise the temperature of the Arctic Ocean and warm the entire climate of the northern temperate zone.
1946 Village Voice article from 2005 reporting on theMay, 1946 issue of Mechanix Illustrated that featured several arctic-warming geoengineering proposals. One “brave new idea” was proposed by Julian Huxley, then the Secretary-General of UNESCO, and brother of Aldous Huxley, that would detonate atomic bombs to warm the Arctic.
1958; M. Gorodsky, Soviet engineer and mathematician, and Valentin Cherenkov, Soviet meteorologist; Proposed placing a ring of metallic potassium particles into Earth’s polar orbit to diffuse light reaching Earth and increase solar radiation to thaw the permanently frozen soil of Russia, Canada, and Alaska and melt polar ice.
1958; Arkady Markin, Soviet engineer; Proposed that the United States and Soviet Union build a gigantic dam across the Bering Strait and use nuclear power–driven propeller pumps to push the warm Pacific current into the Atlantic by way of the Arctic Sea. Arctic ice would melt, and the Siberian and North American frozen areas would become temperate and productive.
1958 Russian Oil engineer, P.M. Borisov’s Proposed Method of Melting the Arctic and Greenland icecaps by spreading black coal dust on the ice, creating cloud-cover across the poles to trap heat and to divert warm Atlantic waters into the polar regions. This scheme was taken seriously by Soviet climatologists. Two conferences were held in Leningrad in the early 1960′s following an initial meeting in Moscow by the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1959.
1958 Atlantic Richfield geologist L.M. Natland, proposed exploding up to 100 underground nuclear bombs to mine the Alberta Oil Sands. Heat from the detonations was expected to boil the bitumen deposits, reducing their viscosity to the point that standard drilling operations could be used. The plan was encouraged by US efforts to find “peaceful uses” for atomic energy. The project was approved in 1959 but the Canadian government reversed their decision in 1962 and declared that Canada was opposed to all forms of nuclear testing. In 2012 the Canadian Tar Sands are, again an issue of international concern.
1962 Harry Wexler (March 15, 1911- 1962) was an MIT graduate and PhD in meteorology. Wexler had been researching the link connecting chlorine and bromine compounds to the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layers, but died of a heart attack while on vacation in Woods Hole, Mass. Wexler had already accepted an invitation to deliver a lecture entitled “The Climate of Earth and Its Modifications” at the University of Maryland Space Research and Technology Institute. (Source)
It remains largely unexplained why decades of optimism for warming the arctic was suddenly replaced with a campaign of fear and doom for the consequences of warming the arctic under the name of “Global Warming”
In the 1960’s Geoengineering proposals to warm the Arctic took a largely unexplained U-turn when oceanographer, Roger Revelle’s research concluded that carbon dioxide was already warming the climate for free and without the need for expensive and risky geoengineering projects.
This U-Turn of direction appeared to be a setback with the exception of those stakeholders in the energy sector who had been invested in arctic warming projects for decades. Did the CO2 story finally promise to give Exxon, BP and Shell what they wanted?
If the science of Roger Revelle’s forecast for global warming turned out to be wrong or too slow, the DoD could step in – for reasons of national security – to assist arctic warming as secret component of the military’s classified weather modification and weapons program.
The 1996 Air Force document that forecasts “Owning the Weather in 2025” would not rule out using Tesla and plasma technologies to increase arctic temperatures in order to disadvantage a perceived enemy. A decision not to intervene might betray the military’s primary objective of “Full Spectrum Dominance”. After all, access to Oil and Gas has been a national security priority for decades.
In 1966, Dr. Gordon J. F. MacDonald was Chairman of the ICAS Select Panel on Weather and Climate Modification and wrote:
“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.” Gordon MacDonald “Unless Peace Comes: How to Wreck the Environment. Source
MacDonald was referring to Roger Revelle and Hans Suess paper that reversed the debate from how to warm the arctic to how to avoid warming the arctic. Revelle’s ocean research reported a rise in carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere was allegedly a result of industrial age manufacturing and coal-burning.Source
Revelle had worked with the Navy in the late 1940’s to determine which projects gained funding and successfully promoted the idea that the Navy should invest more in “basic research”. Revelle was deeply involved in the global growth of oceanography. He was also one of the committee chairmen in the influential National Academy of Sciences studies of the “Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation” (BEAR), 1954-1964. Revelle’s world influence was significant as president of the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research, an international group of scientists devoted to advising on international projects. Revelle and other scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography helped the U.S. government to plan nuclear weapons tests so that oceanographers might make use of the data. Source
The conclusions of the BEAR report were understandably significant for demonstrating the harmful biological and environmental damage of atomic radiation and could easily suffice to thwart geoengineering projects that recommended detonating H-bombs. But the evidence is weak that all intentions to mediate arctic climate was totally abandoned.
If the fundamental goal to warm the arctic remains an unspoken priority of national security in the energy sector, the project could be taken out of public view and committee oversight to become a classified operation in the development of the military’s weather warfare program – an initiative that was acknowledged by civilian weather modification programs formalized by the 1966 NASA and ICAS charter.
Since 1958 Congress and the military had already been working on exotic weather warfare systems that involved electromagnetic manipulation of the ionosphere.
US Congress, Senate, Committee on Inter-State and Foreign Commerce, Weather Modification Research, Hearing, Washington D.C. US Govt. Printing Offlce, March 18-19, 1958; Lowell Ponte quotes Capt. Orville as reporting “that the Dept. of Defense was studying ways to manipulate the charges of earth and sky and so affect the weather by means of an electronic beams to ionize or de-ionize the atmosphere over a given area” …. Capt. Orville also discussed ongoing US Air Force experiments with ‘sodium vapor, ejected from jet planes to intercept solar radiation ‘ over enemy countries and rain their weather. (The Cooling, op. cit. pp. 168-169 Source P. 42
The flip-flop from finding ways to warm the arctic to suddenly finding ways to keep the arctic from warming was announced in 1963 – the year following the sudden death of Meteorologist, Harry Wexler. Having total awareness of the military’s 1958 weather weapons program, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended the appointment of a “Panel on Weather and Climate Modification”. source This event could serve to consolidate military and civilian weather modification programs for peaceful purposes or – if necessary – as covert weather modification and even climate warming operations secretly carried out by the military under the catch-all justification of “national security”.
FOLLOW THE MONEY: Lobbyists for Big Oil publicly claim Global Warming is a hoax while quietly investing billions in new drilling opportunities due to the reality of receding arctic ice. The energy sector has made huge investments in ice-breakers and drilling equipment to profit from the very global warming they are reluctant to acknowledge. The position of having your cake while eating it is essential. When arctic climate warming is revealed as a military climate modification operation, big oil can fall back on “we told you so”. Since governments may come and go over the next 100 years, they calculate the demand for oil – and the companies who drill for it – will remain intact.
- “As the polar ice cap retreats, energy companies are looking north for a potentially huge new source of crude” Source
- “Shell is one of six companies planning to extract oil, gas and minerals in the Arctic as global warming melts ice and opens new sea lanes to commerce.” Source
- “Remote and dangerous sources of arctic oil are becoming increasingly attractive as the global need for oil grows and the existing reserves dry up.” Source
Documents from 1966 reveal how the military and federal agencies are modifying the global climate.
TITLE: “Present and Future Plans of Federal Agencies in Weather-Climate Modification”
This set of documents from 1966 reveals a network of government agencies in perpetual and secret collaboration , working with the military to Geoengineer the climate. Created as an agenda of the elitist National Academy of Sciences – decades of an inter-agency culture of secrecy explains why the issue of covert aerosol Geoengineering is a taboo topic to be degraded to the status of “conspiracy theory” by every government agency in this web of complicit bureaucrats at every opportunity. This is why your local TV “meteorologist” will rarely make a helpful comment about an unusual sky filled with persistent jet trails.
- 1966, JUN: “Present and Future Plans of Federal Agencies in Weather-Climate Modification” Prepared by the ICAS select Panel on Weather Modification
- 1966: NOV: A Recommended National Program in Weather Modification – A Report to the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences (ICAS) by Homer E. Newell – Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, NASA, Washington, D.C.
- 1966: APPENDIX I – Panel on Weather and Climate Modification to Committee on Atmospheric Sciences NAS-NRC – Membership Recommendations
- 1966: APPENDIX II – Special Commission on Weather Modification – National Science Foundation Membership Recommendations.
- 1966: APPENDIX III Report prepared by the ICAS Select Panel on Weather Modification; “Present and Future Plans of Federal Agencies in Weather-Climate Modification,” dated June 20, 1966
- 1966: APPENDIX IV Memorandum for Dr. Homer E. Newel1 from J. Herbert Hollomon, Chairman, ICAS, Subject: National Weather Modification Program, dated June 21, 1966
- 1966: APPENDIX V NASA Panel to Study Weather Modification Activities; Membership, Chronology of Meetings, and a Compilation of Supporting Material used by the Panel
- 1966: APPENDIX VI Budget Recommendations and Trends for a National Weather Modification Program
1966 – NASA: A Recommended National Program in Weather Modification – A report to the Independent Committee for Atmospheric Sciences (ICAS) by Homer E. Newell – Associate administrator for Space Science and Applications, NASA, Washington, DC.
In 1966 US Government Document from NASA to ICAS (Independent Committee for Atmospheric Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences (NSA)was the first step in establishing a national Weather modification program that would ultimately involve multiple federal agencies. The report focused on four initial agencies: ESSA Bank & Trust, National Science Foundation, NASA, and the Dept. of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation.
Under Recommended Principals it was noted that (a) each agency would be independently funded while stressing inter-agency cooperation in research. Independent funding of agencies could make the program less conspicuous and more difficult for Congress to defund. Also, new agencies could be brought on board without high profile budget hearings. (b) A designated “central” agency – while having responsibility for focusing the national program – would not have any real authority to implement programs, leaving those decisions to probable unidentified civilian lobbyists and DoD “stakeholders”.
Although the theme of the ICAS report is in the context of protecting water, agriculture, forests, lands and natural resources, the knowledge gained from climate manipulation was of more immediate interest to the military and their industrial complex.
Thirty years following the creation of the Nation Program in Weather Modification, the US Air Force published a document (“Owning The Weather in 2025” ) establishing that federal agencies involved in the National Weather Modification program are under tacit authority of the Department of Defense.
Owning the Weather in 2025 – Opening Statement: Current technologies that will mature over the next 30 years will offer anyone who has the necessary resources the ability to modify weather patterns and their corresponding effects, at least on the local scale. Current demographic, economic, and environmental trends will create global stresses that provide the impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn this weather-modification ability into a capability.
In the US Government Sponsored Technologies for Weather Modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels. These levels could include unilateral actions, participation in a security framework such as NATO, membership in an international organization such as the UN, or participation in a coalition. Assuming that in 2025 our national security strategy includes weather-modification, its use in our national military strategy will naturally follow. Besides the significant benefits an operational capability would provide, another motivation to pursue weather-modification is to deter and counter potential adversaries.
Weather-modification can provide battlespace dominance to a degree never before imagined. In the future, such operations will enhance air and space superiority and provide new options for battlespace shaping and battlespace awareness.
“The technology is there, waiting for us to pull it all together;” Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the weather by 2015
“Real world event” drills.
On September 5th at 2:30 PM from the Co State capitol, DHS and the Red Cross, announced a special CO. Preparedness Program. All in all it would not seem that out of the ordinary because September is ‘National Preparedness Month’ BUT the announcement was Colorado specific. One would expect a plethora of national announcements but this one was uniquely specific to Colorado. They proposed to engage all counties of CO. in their preparedness cycle. Two dozen companies and agencies from insurance companies to healthcare supported this ”effort”.
A few days later the unnatural flooding began, with FEMA placing the event in their Sit Rep report on the 12th.
Currently FEMA is drawing in private land owners in many counties for assistance with all counties under control in three years.
As skeptics continue to scoff at the evidence of ongoing geoengineering, the destruction from these programs is unparallelled. The video below, detailing exactly what just took place in Colorado. It is inconceivable that more people aren’t demanding to know what on earth is going on.
Over the last century, hundreds of billions of dollars — that we know about — have been spent on weather forecasting and modification programs. Hurricane modification experimentation began in the 1940s, cloud seeding was used successfully by the US Military as a weapon for 8 years during the Vietnam War, and weather weapon technologies had become such a threat by the late 1970’s that the UN officially banned them under the ENMOD Treaty signed in Geneva on May 18th, 1977.
With the rapid technological advancement since the 1970s why are we now experiencing unprecedented levels of “natural” disasters like the floods that just wiped out the Front Range of Colorado? Is “climate change” the only reason why 2011 was the most expensive year for disasters in human history?
If climate models have progressed alongside computing power — as the climatologists would have us believe — why doesn’t the National Weather Service or NOAA accurately forecast events like the Colorado floods well in advance and use proven technologies to prevent or at least diminish the impact of severe weather events?
If the weather has been used as a weapon in the past, what is to stop the (corrupt) government from using it as a weapon now? The ENMOD Treaty does not forbid using the weather as a weapon within the borders of ones own country and the US doesn’t really follow the UN Treaties on torture or chemical weapons anyway.
Frankly, on the 12 year anniversary of the most heinous false flag terror attack in the history of human civilization, I wouldn’t put anything past the shadow government and the professional liar politicians who pretend to have the best interests of the people in mind while consistently pushing for agendas that fly in the face of common sense and our common cause. One Love. Peace.common cause.