The CIA, Weather Warfare, and Climate Terrorism

As the CIA pretends it does not know what is going on, the world is waiting for the real answer to the question: Who is controlling our weather?


Chill factor at ‘CIA’ weather query


A leading American climate scientist has said he felt “scared” when a shadowy organisation claiming to represent the CIA asked him about the possibility of weaponised weather. Professor Alan Robock received a call three years ago from two men wanting to know if experts would be able to spot a hostile force’s attempts to upset the US climate. But he suspected the real intention was to find out how feasible it might be to secretly interfere with the climate of another country. The professor, from the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University, New Jersey, has investigated the potential risks and benefits of using stratospheric particles to simulate the climate-changing effects of volcanic eruptions. Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Jose, California, where he took part in a debate on geoengineering to combat climate change, Prof Robock said: ” I got a phone call from two men who said we work as consultants for the CIA and we’d like to know if some other country was controlling our climate, would we know about it? “I told them, after thinking a little bit, that we probably would because if you put enough material in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight we would be able to detect it and see the equipment that was putting it up there. “At the same time I thought they were probably also interested in if we could control somebody else’s climate, could they detect it?” Asked how he felt when the approach was made, he said: “Scared. I’d learned of lots of other things the CIA had done that haven’t followed the rules and I thought that wasn’t how I wanted my tax money spent. I think this research has to be in the open and international so there isn’t any question of it being used for hostile purposes.” Geoengineering to offset the effects of global warming could include scattering sulphur particles in the upper atmosphere to re-direct sunlight back into space, seeding the oceans with iron to encourage the spread of carbon-hungry algae, and creating reflective areas on the Earth’s surface. But the long-term effects of such strategies are largely unknown and many experts fear they may pose grave risks. A further twist in Prof Robock’s story concerns the CIA’s alleged co-funding of a major report on geoengineering published this week by the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences. The report mentions the “US intelligence community” in its list of sponsors, which also includes the American space agency Nasa, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the US Department of Energy. Prof Robock said the CIA had told one of his colleagues it wanted to fund the report, but apparently did not want this fact to be too obvious. “The CIA is a major funder of the National Academies report so that makes me really worried who is going to be in control,” he added. He pointed out that the US had a history of using the weather in a hostile way. During the Vietnam War clouds were seeded over the Ho Chi Minh trail – a footpath-based supply route used by the North Vietnamese – to make the track muddy in an attempt to cut it off. The CIA had also seeded clouds over Cuba “to make it rain and ruin the sugar harvest”. During a press conference on the potential risks of geoengineering, Prof Robock was asked what its greatest hazard might be. He replied: “The answer is global nuclear war because if one country wants to control the climate in one way, and another doesn’t want it or if they try to shoot down the planes … if there is no agreement, it could result in terrible consequences.” Source:

Just the Facts

Dear CIA, we cannot detect rogue geoengineering with today’s best atmospheric sensors:

20th Conference on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification, American Meteorological Society & Weather Modification AssociationAlbedo Variability Limits Potential Detection of Engineered Increases in Reflected Sunlight Tuesday, 6 January 2015. 211B West Building (Phoenix Convention Center – West and North Buildings) Dian J. Seidel, NOAA, College Park, MD; and G. Feingold, A. Jacobson, and N. Loeb.

Proposals for engineering the climate system by increasing reflection of sunlight away from Earth raise many complex questions. A fundamental scientific question is whether an engineered increase in reflectivity (albedo), either from short-duration field experiments or from prolonged implementation of a “solar radiation management” (SRM) scheme, would be detectable with the current global climate observing system. We have estimated notional detection limits through analysis of satellite observations of incoming and reflected solar radiation. High-precision, uninterrupted observations of solar radiation facilitate detection of very large albedo increases, but interannual albedo variability overwhelms the maximum increases estimated to be achieved by the leading proposed schemes. An abrupt global-average albedo increase 0.002 (comparable to a ~0.7 W m-2 reduction in radiative forcing) would be unlikely to be detected within a year, given a 5-year prior record. Three-month experiments in the equatorial zone, a potential target region for stratospheric aerosol injection, and in 1º (latitude/longitude) regions of the subtropical Pacific, potential targets for marine cloud brightening, have detection limits ~0.03 and 0.2, respectively. In summary, although very large albedo increases are potentially detectable, interannual albedo variability overwhelms the maximum conceivable increases associated with the leading proposed SRM schemes.

Weak Laws

Considering hostile modifications to the environment were banned in 1978, I find it troubling that weather modifications and rogue geoengineering are still undetectable.With the United States of America, China, and Russia engaged in weather modification for civilian and military purposesENMOD is rendered useless without verification.

The presentation above clearly states the need for a worldwide sensor network to detect hostile and non-hostile climate and weather intervention technologies.

I demand verification in a draft legislation called “The Clarity Clause” and you should as well, it’s national security after all.

Climate Intelligence Agency (CIA)

I first heard about the CIA’s interest in geoengineering back in July of 2013 and entered the discussion on Ken Caldeira’s geoengineering forum to express my concerns.I said:

So much for transparency?Will geoengineering become “national security” and thus hidden under “classified” stamps?

Has any member of this group been approached by the CIA or NAS, or are you “not at liberty to say”

I have been hopeful that this community would embrace open discussion, and sincerely hope that whatever comes of this study remains open to the public.

Mick West of contrail-debunking fame responded:

The media reports seem rather sensational, as if the CIA were to be using weather control for some kind of weapon. Really it’s just part of their normal geopolitical analysis. They have been engaged for a while, and had a “Center on Climate Change and National Security “, which was only open from 2009 to 2012. The original press release explains the reasons for CIA involvement in this type of research:CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security September 25, 2009

Though Mick was correct about the origins of the CIA’s involvement with climate change and geoengineering, I think he missed this:

C.I.A. Closes Its Climate Change Office November 20, 2012“The C.I.A. for several years has studied the national security implications of climate change,” Mr. Ebitz said in an e-mailed statement. “As part of a broader realignment of analytic resources, this work continues to be performed by a dedicated team in a new office that looks at economic and energy matters affecting America’s national security. The mission and the resources devoted to it remain essentially unchanged.”

“Closing the Climate Change Center at the C.I.A. was the right decision,” Mr. Barrasso said in a statement. “I offered an amendment on the Senate floor to eliminate the center because it was unnecessary, wasteful and totally out of place. It’s critically important for the C.I.A. to focus its resources on preventing terrorism and keeping Americans safe.”

The next year on July 17, 2013, this “dedicated team” of CIA spooks is funding research on artificial cloud cover: CIA Backs $630,000 Scientific Study on Controlling Global Climate, Conspiracy theorists, rejoice!

Edward Price, a spokesman for the CIA, refused to confirm the agency’s role in the study, but said, “It’s natural that on a subject like climate change the Agency would work with scientists to better understand the phenomenon and its implications on national security.” The CIA reportedly closed its research center on climate change and national security last year, after GOP members of Congress argued that the CIA shouldn’t be looking at climate change.

The goal of the CIA-backed NAS study is to conduct a “technical evaluation of a limited number of proposed geoengineering techniques,” according to the NAS website. …

The CIA’s decision to fund scientific work on geoengineering will no doubt excite conspiracy theorists. The last time the government tried to do cutting-edge research related to the atmosphere—with the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), which aimed to protect satellites from nuclear blasts—people speculated that it might be a death ray, a mind control weapon, or, worst of all…a way to control the weather.

The National Academy of Science CIA funded reportThis month the released the CIA-backed research report and the fur started flying. You can register then read the reports here:

The Public Response to the NAS/CIA reportAfter that, you can read media coverage of the reports and comments from civil societies here:

The Geoengineers Respond to the NAS/CIA reportThe discussion on the NAS/CIA report over on the Geoengineering board is priceless. Here’s Ken Caldeira’s response:

Based on the history of our intelligence agencies involvement in secret kidnappings and torture, killing noncombatants with drones, spying on our telecommunications, etc, we can take it as a given that secret US governmental organizations will engage in criminal behavior.

However, we should be entirely clear:
There is absolutely no evidence that any US intelligence agency has any interest in climate intervention for anything other than defense-related informational purposes.
Furthermore, there is no plausible scenario in which climate intervention could be used effectively as a weapon.
So, while I share Alan’s contempt for the criminal behavior of our secretive governmental agencies, I do not think it is helpful to speculate that in this instance, the agencies are looking for new ways that they might inflict suffering on others.

I completely disagree with Ken’s statement. My research over the past three years has taught me that one thing is for certain, if military advantage can be had by using an emerging technology, the military will use it despite legal ramifications in the name of “national defense.” The United States of America’s military is once again engaged in the advancement of weather warfare technologies despite ENMOD bans.

Weather Warfare 2015

For those who doubt the US military’s intention to control climate chaos, the following two 1994 FOIA documents obtained by The Sunshine Project show both the US Air Force and US Navy are engaged in weather modification techniques.

Code C2741 (Warhead Development Branch) NAWCWPNS, China Lake, California.

Weather Modification US Navy FOIA: Non-Lethal Warfare Proposal 1994

The Navy paper above proposes studying weather control under the name “non-lethal warfare” and the paper below shows a timeline of the US Air Force Phillips Lab’s use of carbon black aerosols.

Weather Modification Using Carbon Black – USAF Phillips Laboratory (AFMC) Geophysics Directorate

Owning the Weather

After the 1994 proposals mentioned in the FOIA documents, weather warfare techniques were researched in detail with Air Force 2025.

In December 1994, the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force (CSAF) tasked Air University to conduct a study to identify the concepts, capabilities and technologies the United States would require to remain the dominant air and space force beyond the first quarter of the 21st century. The study was called Air Force 2025, or 2025 for short. USAF 2025 Fact Sheet

As a part of AF 2025, the United States Air Force discussed the future of weather warfare in its 1995-1996 brainstorming session “Weather as a Force Multiplier; Owning the Weather in 2025: Weather as a Force Multiplier.” Of particular interest is the following chart which shows the use of “Carbon Black Dust (CBD)” by 2005 with a star indicating “Technologies to be developed by the Department of Defense.”

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025

Also worthy of mention is the intent to create a global weather control system, see the following images (WXMOD is military jargon for “weather modification”):


An Operational Analysis for Air Force 2025 - An Application_8539117812_l

The intention to dominate the climate for weather warfare is clear. Next you will see AF 2025 become reality, one year later.

Owning the Weather meets reality

Weather warfare, as laid out in the “Owning the Weather in 2025” paper, was presented the following year at a joint US Air Force and US Army conference titled “Test Technology Symposium ’97 Weather Modification.” The presenter, Dr. Arnold Barnes from the Phillips Lab/GPO at Hanscom Air Force Base, reiterated the use of Carbon Black Dust for weather modification and showed a slide with “Current Capabilities” as of

USAF Phillips Lab carbon black cloud seeding

USAF Phillips Lab carbon black cloud seeding


  • 14 DAY FORECASTS BY 2040



Notes: Improvements in forecasts will follow from better and faster computers, improved communications and more detailed atmospheric observations from satellites, UAVs, microchips and ground based remote sensing. Current techniques for small area, short term atmospheric modifications will become easier to implement and will have improved accuracy as to the predicted results. Modifications of storms of thunderstorm size and larger are unlikely because of the energy required, the unknown side effects, and possible treaty violations. Due to political environmental concerns, it is doubtful that the treaty will be weakened. It is more likely to be made more restrictive with the growth of population and water demands. As weapons and other systems become more sophisticated, the atmospheric environment will continue to be a major factor in the usefulness and operational effectiveness of these systems. For this reason it is imperative that atmospheric scientists be brought in at the beginning on any and all new proposed systems so as to avoid the costs of altering or abandoning the system at a later date.


The summary slide mentions blocking satellite coverage with contrails and ionospheric modification.

This is where the geophysical warfare and the space race gets interesting!

Secretary of Defense William Cohen - Eco-Terrorism and Weather Warfare - Geophysical Warfare

Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy
Sam Nunn Policy Forum
April 28, 1997 University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

The HAARP Effect

The Russian government accused the United States of climate terrorism:

The U.S. plans to carry out large-scale scientific experiments, under the HAARP program, and not controlled by the global community, will create weapons capable of breaking radio communication lines and equipment installed on spaceships and rockets, provoke serious accidents in electricity networks and in oil and gas pipelines and have a negative impact on the mental health of people populating entire regions, the deputies said.

HAARP is credited with satellite protection by Van Allen Belt destruction as well as anti-satellite capabilities, Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars program is a reality.

See our map of Star Wars radars and Ionospheric Heaters worldwide:

HAARP and the Sky Heaters Map

ClimateViewer 3D

Military weather control summary

The military has expressed its intentions to use the climate to its advantage not only on the battlefield, but over the homeland. The US. military is actively engaged in:

  1. cloud-seeding with Carbon Black Dust
  2. boring holes in clouds with dry ice and lasers
  3. creating contrails for darker night-time operations and blocking surveillance satellites
  4. creating virtual-antennas using our ionosphere.
  5. making mobile ionospheric heaters to replace HAARP.
  6. trying real hard to destroy the Van Allen Belts, who needs them?

Ken Calderia and company, please acknowledge these facts, it is national defense. You may believe our military isn’t controlling the weather, but you would be wrong, and other militaries don’t even hide it: When Cloud Seeding Goes Wrong: Cement Chunk Falls From the Sky Russian Air Force.

Cloud seeding is a highly controversial method used to modify local climates. Russia and China are two large nations that believe various methods of cloud seeding are effective in deflecting storms and preventing rain clouds from precipitating on events requiring dry weather. Silver iodide, dry ice and various salts are used as artificial particles acting as water droplet nuclei. Dropping these particles can trigger precipitation, but any form of climate modification can be unpredictable, and in some cases, dangerous. One such unpredictable outcome from last week’s “routine” cloud seeding effort by the Russian Air Force above the skies of Moscow resulted in something bigger than rain hitting the ground. A pack of cement (with rain-making properties I’m guessing) was dropped from one of the 12 seeding planes with a cocktail of silver iodide and liquid nitrogen. The point? To clear the skies above Moscow in preparation for a dry national holiday on June 12th known as Russia Day. The result? The cement mix failed to break apart, creating the desired cloud of dust after it was released. Instead it maintained its shape (and presumably its cement-like hardness) and dropped to the ground like a stone rock. “A pack of cement used in creating good weather in the capital region failed to pulverize completely at high altitude and fell on the roof of a house, making a hole about 80-100 cm (2.5-3 ft).” – Naro-Fominsk Police when talking with agency RIA-Novosti.

Now let us explore climate change implications for national security.

Climate Change and National Security

Fresh water has been dubbed “Blue Gold” in many publications as potable water will be to this century what oil was to the last century. – Col. David Kutchinski

CO2 clouds the debate over climate change while the loss of clean drinking water and food scarcity are the real threat. security concern number one: Food and Water, not CO2.

America, Russia, and China are preparing for the worst climate change has to offer so rest assured their military strategists will be involved in the “climage change” debate whether you like it or not. Any technology designed to spray sulfates or aluminum into the sky can be weaponized, therefore scientists involved in Geoengineering SRM techniques for deployment and lobbying on behalf of SRM technologies are actively supporting military agendas whether they are clearly stated or not. Geoengineering SRM studies are Compartmentalization at its finest, the New Manhattan Project.

“Schemes aimed at attempted control of weather and climate—often framed as responses to critical problems such as water shortages, military exigencies, and cold war dominance—have fallen short of their goals many times in the past. The checkered history of this field provides valuable perspectives and a cautionary warning on what might otherwise seem to be today’s completely unprecedented climate challenges. Contemporary engineers err if they ignore this history.” – James Roger Fleming (my Yoda)

Some historical perspective from Dr. Fleming:

Weather and climate extremes are routinely blamed on CO2 in the global warming debate arenas, however these discussions rarely include the history of weather control attempts and hostile environmental modification. Climate intervention technologies will lead to war and it is my personal belief that a moratorium on weather modification projects and SRM field projects for a two year period wherein a global network of sensors can record a baseline that will determine when we have “natural” weather and when we do not. How can we base so many forthcoming global climate change laws on the assertion that CO2 is causing weather extremes without first considering ALL THE PEOPLE HACKINGZAPPINGGAMBLING WITHBETTING ON, AND STEERING OUR WEATHER?!? Hands off mother Earth until we can see what natural weather actually looks like, then blame CO2 all you like. How bad is the water wars overhead? We will now explore who is hacking the sky, why they do it, and how they are all gambling with your weather.

Hurricane Hacking

After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Department of Homeland Security took an interest in mitigating hurricanes with the help of Bill Gates and some of the top geoengineering SRM scientists around. When the DHS approached NOAA with a proposal to fund hurricane modification projects, NOAA declined citing their past failures with Project Stormfury. Unperturbed, the DHS said “to hell with those weather wackos” and funded the HAMP and GRIP projects with NASA.Here is the timeline:

So while Ken Caldeira lobbies for Solar Radiation Management on behalf of Bill Gates’ FICER money, he, and a few of his fellow geoengineering scientists, jointly own patents on hurricane modification and seem to think they know better than NOAA scientists and cloud-seeding experts with years of experience. Two of Ken’ hurricane hacking co-patent holders attended the DHS Hurricane Modification Workshop:

department-of-homeland-security-and-noaa-hurricane-modification-workshop-report-2008-attendees1. Mr. William Laska – Department of Homeland Security 2. Dr. Edward Hume – Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory 3. Dr. Joe Golden – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 4. Dr. William Cotton – Colorado State University 5. Dr. Bob Kurzeja – Savannah River National Laboratory 6. Dr. Alan Blumberg – Stevens Institute of Technology 7. Dr. Jerald Carithers – University of Southern Mississippi 8. Dr. William Woodley – Woodley Weather Consultants 9. Dr. Jay Hobgood – Ohio State University 10. Dr. Moshe Alamaro – Massachusetts Institute of Technology 11. Dr. Stephen Salter – University of Edinburgh 12. Dr. Daniel Rosenfeld – Hebrew University 13. Dr. Mark DeMaria – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 14. Dr. Edward Walsh – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 15. Dr. Isaac Ginis – University of Rhode Island 16. Dr. John Latham – University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 17. Dr. Patrick Fitzpatrick – Mississippi State University 18. Dr. Sundararaman Gopalakrishnan – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 19. Ms. Paula Lantzer – Department of Homeland Security Not Pictured: Dr. Roelof Bruintjes – National Center for Atmospheric Research

At the DHS Hurricane Modification Workshop field projects were suggested then carried out with HAMP and GRIP.

  • Cloud seeding with sea-salt aerosol to enhance cloud albedo (cloud brightening) and longevity, thus producing ocean surface-water cooling. Some laboratory work would also be required.
  • Limited scale field tests:
    • Salt Seeding Tests
    • Carbon Black Aerosol (CBA)
    • Upper Ocean Cooling
    • Ion Generators
    • Seeding
    • Monolayer Films

Why do geoengineering scientists say there has only been 4 geoengineering field projects while ignoring geoengineering hurricane mitigation:

Hurricane experts say implementing it would involve huge economic, logistic and scientific challenges. It would also be controversial, because it involves geoengineering, where man tries to alter the atmosphere on a mammoth scale to eliminate or reduce potential negative impacts on people or property. Cloud brightening is also among the geoengineering methods proposed for combating rising global air temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. …

Other large-scale, geoengineering proposals to mitigate hurricanes have price tags estimated in the multiple billions. Those ideas include coating a giant swath of the ocean with a chemical or oily film that would limit evaporation, or using a fleet of ships to pump up cold waters from ocean depths to cool the surface. The cold-water suggestion is being pushed by billionaire Bill Gates, the Microsoft founder.

“The economics of the problem would really ramp up quickly,” said Marks, director of NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division. “It’s in the execution with these type of proposals. We have heard all sorts of things that sound reasonable on the surface, until you start to look at the details. Then they start to spiral out of control.” Can Hurricanes Be Tamed? Scientists Propose Novel Cloud-Seeding Method

The final point I would like to make about geoengineering hurricane mitigation is this, people are betting on the weather which makes stockbrokers suddenly interesting in which way these hurricanes are steered.

Gambling with Weather Control

The first weather derivative deal was in July 1996 when Aquila Energy structured a dual-commodity hedge for Consolidated Edison Co. 1 (Environmental Finance – Weather Risk [PDF]) Weather derivatives slowly began trading over-the-counter in 1997. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange introduced the first exchange-traded weather futures contracts and corresponding options, in 1999. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange was founded in 1898 as the Chicago Butter and Egg Board, an agricultural commodities exchange. A major early pioneer in weather derivatives was Enron Corporation, through its EnronOnline unit. The CME currently lists weather derivative contracts for 25 cities in the United States, eleven in Europe, six in Canada, three in Australia and three in Japan. Most of these financial instruments track cooling degree days or heating degree days, but other products track snowfall and rainfall in at ten separate U.S. locations. The CME Hurricane Index, an innovation developed by the reinsurance industry provides contracts that are based on a formula derived from the wind speed and radius of named storms at the point of U.S. landfall. source: Introduction to Weather Derivatives

Here is an infographic on the history of Weather Derivative trading:weather-derivative-timelineFocusing again on geoengineering hurricane mitigation, our next doomsday came in the form of Hurricane Sandy and wouldn’t you know the betting went on:

Don Cyr, Associate Professor of Finance & Dean, Goodman School of Business, Brock University, looks at the use of weather derivatives in managing weather related risks tied to Hurricane Sandy

Geoengineering hurricane mitigation is big money and employs Geoengineering SRM technology. The lines between weather modification and geoengineering have officially blurred.cme-group-hurricane-contract-regions-weather-derivative  For more information on gambling with our weather see:

It’s all about the Benjamins

The truth about weather warfare is it all boils down to water, money, and control. The sky is like a lake. Many people use the lake for different purposes like swimming, fishing, boating, tubing, diving, drinking, and even fracking. The sky is no different. Our unregulated skies are used for:

  • precipitation enhancement (cloud-seeding)
  • snowpack augmentation (cloud-seeding)
  • hail mitigation (cloud-seeding)
  • hurricane mitigation (cloud-seeding and geoengineering)
  • military operations (cloud-seeding)

Every square foot of the the west side of the Rocky Mountains is covered in orographic cloud seeding generators, gas powered weather modification stations that spew silver iodide all winter long.


Figure 1. A generator blasts silver iodide into clouds over the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California. Source: Arlen Huggins

In 1949 Irving P. Krick came up with the idea for the ground-based smoke generators and they have been in use ever since:

In summer of 1948 Krick performed the first series of 27 airborne cloud seeding tests over central Arizona, dropping up to 300 pounds (140 kg) of ice particles on each flight. Indeed, the seeded clouds released rain, raising water levels in local reservoirs. The “rain makers” admitted that the result had other, natural, causes, but in a year that was one of the driest on record it was a significant success. Financially, the volume of water added by Krick’s experiment cost only $2.50, compared to $14 going rate. In December 1949 Krick suggested cloud seeding without resorting to airborne devices; his proposal employed ground-based smoke generators dispersing vaporized silver iodide. A single smoke dispenser set, asserted Krick, could be moved by two wheelbarrows; it theoretically provided cloud-seeding particles for an area of 240 square miles (620 km2). Tests demonstrated a fourfold increase in precipitation. By 1951 his cloud-seeding business had 120 employees and had been hired to seed clouds over 330 million acres (1,300,000 km2) in the western United States as well as parts of Mexico and San Salvador.

In 1959 Krick was technical advisor on the Disney film on hurricane control “Eyes in Outer Space” which gave plenty of thanks to the military (VIDEO).

Watch this Video on YouTube

Project Skywater

Krick’s smoke generators have a long, secret history, which I believe is not part of the Polar Express discussions. The US Bureau of Reclamation manages all water resources on the west coast, and funded Project Skywater starting way back in 1961.

Sixty years of cloud-seeding and nobody seems to know how big it really is (VIDEO)

Watch this Video on YouTube

In 2003 the National Academy of Science said cloud seeding is completely unpredictable:

“Although 40 years have passed since the first NAS report on weather modification, this Committee finds itself very much in concurrence with the findings of that assessment… We conclude that the initiation of large-scale operational weather modification programs would be premature. Many fundamental problems must be answered first. It is unlikely that these problems will be solved by the expansion of present efforts, which emphasize the a posteriori evaluation of largely uncontrolled experiments. We believe the patient investigation of the atmospheric processes coupled with an exploration of the technological applications may eventually lead to useful weather modification, but we emphasize that the time-scale required for success may be measured in decades.” National Science Foundation – Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research (2003)

“It was concluded that tests conducted so far have not yet provided either the statistical or physical evidence required to establish that the seeding concepts have been scientifically proven.” American Meteorological Society – Critical Assessment of Hygroscopic Seeding of Convective Clouds for Rainfall Enhancement

“It should be realised that the energy involved in weather systems is so large that it is impossible to create cloud systems that rain, alter wind patterns to bring water vapour into a region, or completely eliminate severe weather phenomena. Weather Modification technologies that claim to achieve such large scale or dramatic effects do not have a sound scientific basis (e.g. hail canons, ionization methods) and should be treated with suspicion” “Purposeful augmentation of precipitation, reduction of hail damage, dispersion of fog and other types of cloud and storm modifications by cloud seeding are developing technologies which are still striving to achieve a sound scientific foundation.” World Meteorological Society – Executive Summary of the WMO Statement on Weather Modification (mirror)

In 2004, in light of the findings of the National Academy of Science (11), the EAA considered eliminating funding for cloud-seeding, but eventually included $153,520 in their 2005 budget for cloud-seeding flights and an independent evaluation of previous efforts (12). In 2007, the EAA approved cloud seeding efforts for the ninth year in a row, and for the first time the program included a method to statistically evaluate the project’s effectiveness. Four Board members voted against continuing the program, saying there was evidence that cloud seeding could actually decrease rainfall by accident, and they also had concerns about the EAA paying for scientific studies to investigate something the National Academy had already concluded doesn’t work. The Edwards Aquifer – Cloud Seeding

This really made the weather wacking warriors really mad so they wanted a do-over this past year, and during the Wyoming Weather Modification Pilot Project they failed, hard:

Analysis showed that cloud seeding produced a 3 percent increase in precipitation with a 28 percent probability that this result happened by chance. Most scientists and statisticians wouldn’t accept that level of uncertainty, says Breed, who was part of the NCAR team that analyzed the results, but for water managers in drought-prone areas, it’s a different story. “If you say, I’m 70 percent confident that this will have an impact, well, a lot of them will think that’s not too bad.”

NCAR scientists, quit trying to frame your way out of your monumental failure.

I would argue there is at least a 4 percent chance you are going to kill someone when your experiments get out of hand, and nobody will know.

Geoengineering SRM and Denial

If the failures of cloud-seeding are indicative of the future of geoengineering SRM field projects then we are in for a bumpy ride. As clearly stated in this article, geoengineering is already underway in the form of hurricane mitigation, the military is looking to capitalize on weather intervention technologies, cloud-seeding is completely unpredictable after 60 years of daily experimentaion overhead, and the geoengineering lobbyists keep banging their drums.

Here is a list of on-going weather control programs:

NOAA Reported Weather Modification Activities

WMO Reported Weather Modification Activities (worldwide)

WMO hasn’t published a report since 2006, and you have to call NOAA to get the reports for the USA.

Now every Tom, Dick, and Harry is getting in on the mix:

There has to be public accountability for climate hackers when the world is debating more hacking to fix THEIR HACKING.

We need a solution to the already cloudy skies, and clarity over who is attempting to control it.

The Clarity Clause

A draft legislation to end atmospheric modification without notification:

When atmospheric nuclear testing was banned in 1963, no verification system existed. In 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty created the International Monitoring System (IMS) consisting of 337 forensic seismology, hydroacoustics, infrasound, and radionuclide monitoring stationsaround the world to listen for the distinct sounds of nuclear explosions. Trust but verify.

When weather warfare was banned at the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) in 1976, NO VERIFICATION REGIME WAS EVER CREATED. We cannot detect rogue geoengineering, cannot verify cloud-seeding projects, or even predict the weather with any certainty because “too many hands are in the cookie jar.”

The global warming climate scientists would have you believe that destructive weather can surely be blamed on CO2 while never mentioning daily weather experiments overhead. This is insanity.

We demand verification of the ENMOD ban by building a global sensor network to detect intentional and unintentional weather modification sources as well as detect all atmospheric chemical releases. In addition, we will amend ENMOD to require atmospheric experiments be publicly announced prior to initiation:

To protect life from man-made weather events all nations shall:

  1. Create a “multilateral registry of cloud seeding, geoengineering, and atmospheric experimentation events with information and data collection on key characteristics” and publish hourly updates on activities to a publicly available website [1] and create an atmospheric sensor network for verification.
  2. Require nations/states/persons to notify the multilateral registry (at least) 24 hours prior to initiation of atmospheric experimentation/modification to ensure public notice, and liability should said experimentation/modification cause monetary, environmental, or physical losses.
  3. Verify the chemical composition of our atmosphere with a global network of sensors with data publicly available.

Please help make this law a reality.

The stakes have never been higher (VIDEO).

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply