The CIA is worried about the national security implications of climate change, and it’s also concerned about the potential implications of geoengineering—large-scale deliberate intervention in the Earth’s climate system.
The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has launched a study of geoengineering as a way to fight climate change, bringing together experts and getting the CIA involved as one of the study’s financers.
For the purposes of the NAS study, geoengineering is the process of removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere or reflecting solar radiation away from the Earth to reduce global warming effects.
While this is great fodder for conspiracy theorists who can imagine geoengineering as a weapon of mass destruction, that is exactly one of the CIA’s concerns—so it’s not so far out there.
The mainstream media buzz is that the CIA wants to “control the weather” through geoengineering. But let’s put this into perspective. First of all, this is just a panel of experts intending to produce an in-depth study called “Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts”. We’re not talking about massive, expensive labs churning out geoengineering tech that can be used by the CIA to reroute geopolitical dynamics. Certainly, nothing more than a study will be produced on the project’s $630,000 budget and within its 21-month timeframe.
There are precedents for government attempts to control the weather, as media is quick to point out, so it’s not exactly a new idea, but what we’re talking about is much bigger than manipulating the weather over Vietnam or ensuring that the Olympics in Beijing aren’t ruined by rain.
Oilprice.com Premium: Get the same inside information as the CEOs of Exxon, Chevron and BP - as fast as they get it, often before they get it
The CIA is partially funding the project, along with four other government agencies, including NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). And the research isn’t classified, according to the NAS. "We're doing an evaluation," he said. "This is an assessment of what is known in the science literature about some of the proposed engineering techniques--both solar-radiation management and carbon-dioxide removal," as reported by Fox News.
The fact is that despite the right-wing hesitancy to accept the very notion of climate change, let alone global warming, the CIA considers climate change a potential threat to global security and hence national security. (And it’s not the first time the CIA has attempted to get more involved in the climate change issue. The agency used to have its own research center dedicated to the issue but it was closed down last year because Republican officials thought it a waste of time for the CIA to be involved in this.)
When you throw geoengineering into the mix, it gets potentially more complicated because of the implications of what is essentially weather-controlling technology in the hands of “rogue” states. There are too many variables not to consider the security aspect of climate change and geoengineering. So, involved is exactly what an agency like the CIA should be.
But these are questions for later. Right now all the panel is concerned about is evaluating the technologies that have been proposed, assessing their feasibility and determining the risks of each. Those include:
--Solar radiation management (SRM): the idea of reflecting sunlight in an attempt to block infrared radiation and halt rising temperatures, with one proposed method being the scattering of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere to reflect the sun’s energy. Some scientists are calling for this to be done, now, in the Arctic, to halt the rapid melt, according to the New York Times.
--Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques, along with which is the idea of storing carbon dioxide in the deep ocean (which risks ocean acidification).
Oilprice.com Premium: Find out first about the latest technology and technology investments being made by energy industry insiders
ADVERTISEMENT
Before we start talking about a CIA conspiracy to control the weather, the real question the NAS study has to answer is whether geoengineering is feasible at all—or whether the cure would be worse than the disease.
Plenty would argue that it’s the climate equivalent of eating bags of chips and then getting liposuction, rather than just dieting and exercising.
By. Charles Kennedy of Oilprice.com
"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008
In other words, any geoengineering effort would only be needed in the short term. Here is a primer of LENR:
Check out this third-party verification of a LENR reactor that will soon hit the market: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
"Given the deliberately conservative choices made in performing the measurement, we can reasonabley state that the E-Cat HT is a non-conventional source of energy which lies between conventional chemical sources of energy and nuclear ones." (i.e. about five orders of magnitude more energy dense than gasoline, and a COP of almost 6).
This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
"Over 2 decades with over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real, much greater than chemical..." --Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center
"Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry." --Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA
By the way, here is a survey of some of the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html
For those who still aren't convinced, here is a paper I wrote that contains some pretty convincing evidence: http://coldfusionnow.org/the-evidence-for-lenr/
What about all the spraying that goes on continuously in the US now?
What is that and who is behind it and what is its purpose?
All the pieces are surely in place to make the case that our government does it:
- Means
- Motive
- Opportunity
- Prior behavior
I happen to be one of those who would not put it past our government to embark on a massive program of aerial spraying experimentation under dubious pretexts and reckless fail-safes.
And I know this as a fact (because I am a landscape photographer): in the late 1990's the nature, character, extent, behavior, and duration of contrails changed radically, and that change occurred almost literally overnight.
And, perhaps more intriguing, the contrails CHANGED BACK to "normal" (most of the time) during the mid-late 2000's.
In 1999 and 2000, I literally COULD NOT get a picture of the blue western sky without cross hatching or blanket sheeny cloud cover.
UV levels are totally off the charts due to the ozone destroying effects of geoengineering particulates.
Hope all will investigate this dire issue.
by William Thomas (Bio)
If you did not enjoy “traditional” chemtrails raining down on you, you are not going to like the new version, which the United States Air Force promises will feature aerial dumps of programmable “smart” molecules tens of thousands of times smaller than the particles already landing people in emergency rooms with respiratory, heart and gastrointestinal complaints.
Under development since 1995, the military’s goal is to install microprocessors incorporating gigaflops computer capability into “smart particles” the size of a single molecule.
Invisible except under the magnification of powerful microscopes, these nano-size radio-controlled chips are now being made out of mono-atomic gold particles. Networked together on the ground or assembling in the air, thousands of sensors will link into a single supercomputer no larger than a grain of sand.
Brought to you by the same military-corporate-banking complex that runs America’s permanent wars, Raytheon Corp is already profiting from new weather warfare technologies. The world’s fourth largest military weapons maker bought E-Systems in 1995, just one year after that military contractor bought APTI, holder of Bernard Eastlund’s HAARP patents.
Raytheon also owns General Dynamics, the world’s leading manufacturer of military Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.
Raytheon also reports the weather for NOAA through its AWIPS Advanced Weather Information Processing System. According to researcher Brendan Bombaci of Durango, Colorado, these Raytheon computers are directy linked with their UAV weather modification drones. Bombaci reports that NOAA paid Raytheon more than $300 million for this “currently active, 10-year project.”
She goes on to describe the Joint Environmental Toolkit used by the U.S. Air Force in its Weather Weapons System. Just the thing for planet tinkerers.
GREEN LIGHT for DRONES
For public consumption, nano-weather control jargon has been sanitized. “Microelectric Mechanical Sensors” (MMS) and “Global Environmental Mechanical Sensors” sound passively benign. But these ultra-tiny autonomous aerial vehicles are neither M&Ms; nor gems. [Space.com Oct 31/05]
According to a U.S. military flier called Military Progress, “The green light has been given” to disperse swarms of wirelessly-networked nano-bots into the troposphere by remotely-controlled UAV drones for “global warming mitigation.”
U.S. Army Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, as well as U.S. Air Force drones “are slated to deploy various payloads for weather warfare,” Military Progress asserts. This dual mission – to slow global warming and use weather as a weapon – seems somewhat contradictory.
FIGHTING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
U.S. Military Inc. is already in the climate change business big time. The single biggest burner of petroleum on this planet, its high-flying aircraft routinely rend Earth’s protective radiation shielding with nitrous oxide emissions, while depositing megatons of additional carbon, sulfur and water particles directly into the stratosphere – where they will do three-times more damage than CO2 alone.
Go figure. A single F-15 burns around 1,580 gallons an hour. An Apache gunship gets about one-half mile to the gallon. The 1,838 Abrams tanks in Iraq achieve five gallons to the mile, while firing dusty radioactive shells that will continue destroying human DNA until our sun goes supernova.
A single non-nuclear carrier steaming in support burns 5,600 gallons of bunker fuel in an hour – or two million gallons of bunker oil every 14 days. Every four days, each carrier at sea takes on another half- million gallons of fuel to supply its jets.
The U.S. Air Force consumed nearly half of the Department of Defense’s entire fuel supply in 2006, burning 2.6 billion gallons of jet fuel aloft.
While flying two to five-hour chemtrails missions to reflect incoming sunlight and slow global warming, a single KC-10 tanker will burn 2,050 gallons of highly toxic jet fuel every hour. The larger and older KC-135 Stratotanker carries 31,275 gallons of chemtrails and burns 2,650 gallons of fuel per hour.
The EPA says that each gallon of gasoline produces 19.4 pounds of CO2. Each gallon of diesel produces 22.2 pounds of CO2.
Total it up and routine operations by a military bigger than all other world militaries combined puts more than 48 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. Nearly half that total could be eliminated by ending the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. [TomDispatch.com June 16/07; huffingtonpost.com Oct 29/07]
NANO RAIN
Meanwhile, the 60 year quest for weather warfare continues. Though a drone cannot carry a heavy payload, more sub-microscopic weather modification particles can be crammed into a UAV Predator than all the chemtrail slurry packed into a tanker the size of a DC-10. T
According to the air force’s own weather modification study, Owning The Weather 2025, clouds of these extremely teeny machi
You only have to look at hills in the distance to see the man made haze that we are all unwittingly breathing in.
It's no wonder that it's a medical fact that 1 in 3 people will be touched by cancer in their lives.
Shame on the powers that be.
The mainstream media buzz is that the CIA wants to “control the weather” through geoengineering. But let’s put this into perspective. First of all, this is just a panel of experts intending to produce an in-depth study called “Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts”. We’re not talking about massive, expensive labs churning out geoengineering tech that can be used by the CIA to reroute geopolitical dynamics. Certainly, nothing more than a study will be produced on the project’s $630,000 budget and within its 21-month timeframe
unquote.
Huh? 21-month timeframe?