"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over, you almost never get it back." Carl Sagan

A great deception is underway. For over 100 years man has been attempting to control weather and governments, militaries, and companies around the globe are playing tug-of-war in our skies. These Water Wars are reaching epic levels as interested parties attempt to wrench every last drop of water out of the sky. With a global water crisis nearing, denial of weather manipulation technologies by The Powers That Be has hit an Orwellian level. Atmospheric data is censored, scientists are illegitimately framing climate debates, discussing "controls" for climate and weather social media responses, and re-branding weather control techniques in an attempt to legitimize experimenting with our sky.

As honest people march against the fossil fuel industry demanding clean renewable energy, scientists and politicians are testing global climate controls in an effort to prolong the use of dirty technology. Like a crack addict refusing to quit, this technology originally dubbed “Geoengineering Solar Radiation Management” allows fossil-fuel addicts to keep on smoking. With COP 21 looming, politicians hope to spare dirty industry the pains of change by blocking out our sun, allowing them to continue to spew toxic chemicals across the sky, land, and our dwindling water supply. To make Geoengineering SRM a reality, you have to believe the lie that CO2 is causing crazy weather. The real #ClimateDenial must end today: Geoengineering SRM will kill people, change rainfall patterns worldwide, and people controlling our weather are to blame for extreme weather events, not CO2!

Climate Change Public Relations

The "March for Climate Change" in London on March 7th, 2015 will no doubt be broadcast all over the lame-stream media. The event creators' "Time to Act 2015" video is a climate change fear-porn commercial wrapped in a tantalizing fantasy. Although I fully agree with going solar as the only solution that makes sense and this video moves me, I know that the "tracks are already laid" and therefore it is highly unlikely that this or any march could ever unseat oil tycoons from their thrones. Here is the video below:

Five days after the march, Dr. Evil and company will be hanging out at the Cambridge University in the UK to discuss Geoengineering our sky at the SRM Science 2015 on March 12 – 14. As cuddly as the March for Climate Change video is, solar power is doomed if you block out the sun. Solar power can remove our power-shackles while dismantling “the grid” and it is my belief that Solar Radiation Management is a mechanism for oil barons to keep themselves necessary WHILE stifling the hopes of renewable energy, lest we mention its military implications. Here is a little tidbit on SRM Science 2015:

Cambridge University, Department of Engineering, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

“Are climate engineering approaches fatally prone to error and misuse, and worth excluding from the climate conversation on both practical and moral grounds? Are they an emergency measure which could have far-reaching and unpredictable consequences if deployed? Could they be a relatively straightforward remedy for some of the consequences of climate change? And how should research aimed at these questions be regulated?

SRM Science 2015 is open to all those who are interested in this topic, and we are looking forward to welcoming participants from a wide range of disciplines, sectors (particularly academia, policy and civil society), geographical regions, cultures, and generations. The primary purpose of the conference is to provide a forum for scientists and engineers to present and discuss recent research results in a manner that is comprehensible to all participants. Apart from the technical sessions and keynote lectures, there will also be opportunities to exchange ideas, network and collaborate on all aspects of SRM. We hope that you will find this conference to be a stimulating, thought-provoking and constructive experience.”

These scientists, policy makers, lobbyists, and undoubtedly three letter agency representatives claim they believe that upcoming climate change discussions are doomed to fail (due to the aforementioned oil fat cats) so they are only creating a “backup plan” that hopefully will never need to be used. Do they care what the public has to say about their backup plan or are they working at the behest of fossil fuel whip-holders hell bent on destroying solar energy and polluting like mad men?

Geoengineering Public Relations

Pollsters are quickly realizing that Joe Average really isn't cool with the idea of spraying chemicals high in the sky to block out sunlight, even if it is to "save us" from "global warming." Geoengineering has gotten a really bad name in a very short time so geoengineering was renamed (more accurately) Climate Engineering and that stuck for quite some time.

A notable example is the DC Geoengineering Consortium which renamed itself the Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment (FCEA) but their URL is still dcgeoconsortium.org. Names really matter these days in the age of the search result PageRank, nonetheless the FCEA had just changed their name when the CIA, NRC, and NAS re-framed “Climate Engineering” as “Climate Intervention”:

Climate Intervention Reports Release Event Webcast

So how does the FCEA feel about this verbal shell game?

WILL THE “CLIMATE INTERVENTION” REBRANDING STICK?

I’ll be interested to learn what others make of the move, by the authors of the NAS reports, to rebrand the entire climate engineering enterprise as “climate intervention.” Holly Buck, in our FCEA roundup of responses to the NAS reports, suggests that climate intervention is a “more accurate and less hubristic term than ‘geoengineering,’” in part because it shifts the focus from natural to socio-ecological systems. Personally, I’m happy just to stick with “climate engineering,” so long as that word “engineering” is understood as something more than the production of new technological artifacts. And besides, now that the Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment has settled on a name, we’re not eager to change it …

Personally, I take offense to the Climate Intervention moniker. Interventions are what you do for crack heads, and our climate is no crack-head. We do not need to Intervene any further in the Climate as clearly Weather Modification “experts” have no clue what they are doing despite doing so for over 60 years.

In the following video, we discuss Climate Intervention Semantics:

So what do we call IT? Far from a formal polling, here are the results of a terminology search on Google Scholar:

• geoengineering [25,200 results]
• weather modification [20,900 results]
• weather control [4,130 results]
• climate modification [5,310 results]
• climate engineering [2,460 results]
• climate intervention [119 results]
• ecological alteration [366 results]
• albedo modification [531 results]
• albedo enhancement [1,580 results]
• solar radiation management [1,470 results]
• stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) [173 results]
• stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG) [84 results]
• chemtrails [1,460 results]

As we can see, the terms geoengineering, weather modification, climate modification, and climate engineering are most popular with those researching how to play God. Regardless of the language you choose to describe intentional man-made atmospheric alterations there is no debate over whether or not to use these technologies, rather there is a careful perception management experiment underway wherein “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.”

Geoengineering, news media and metaphors: Framing the controversial

Our study has shown that an analysis of metaphors can give important insights into how a novel controversial technology is conceptualized and presented to the public. It supports the findings of Nerlich and Jaspal (2012) when it comes to the identification of metaphors and their conceptual background, but our analysis highlights the diversity in the use of these metaphors. The main difference between our analysis and the findings of Nerlich and Jaspal is that they stress the use of diverse metaphors in favouring geoengineering, with special emphasis on the looming catastrophe, whereas we have explored the use of metaphors from different angles.

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is the primary motivating factor in sales, politics, and just about everything. These authors are discussing the proper "frame" to discuss "geoengineering" and make it palatable, which operates on the premise that if we do nothing "you will die." This appeal to fear will likely work, as politicians are mindless automatons who operate from the notion "these scientists must be right and I don't want to die."

Where does this leave the March for Climate Change folks? Praying for change, hoping for a clean future, getting sprayed with chemicals.

If you look at Ken Caldiera’s geoengineering forum on Google Groups you can check out all the references to framing the Climate Intervention debate.

In 2013 Climate Hamilton made the following statement regarding framing geoengineering and selling it to governments:

What is most disturbing about the NASA report, co-authored by Ken from the meeting he organized, is its profoundly anti-democratic analysis. As I note in the book, Ken Caldeira and Lee Lane argue that in the “emergency” framing of geoengineering there is no point thinking about political objections and popular resistance to solar radiation management because, in a crisis, “ideological objections to solar radiation management may be swept aside”. The authors count the ability to sweep aside civil society objections to deployment of solar radiation management as an “obvious political advantage”.

It is no surprise to me that the right-wing ideologues from the American Enterprise Institute should support the bypassing of democracy. That Ken, who frequently wheels out his credentials as an activist, should endorse such disdain for public participation in decisions determining the future of the planet comes as a shock.

…

Yes, the report does come down more in favour of the “buying time” argument than the “emergency” framing, but it does so because the authors calculated that governments would be scared off by the emergency framing and would be less likely to fund research into geoengineering.

In the end, most scientists researching ways to block sunlight with atmospheric chemical releases (not to mention space mirrors) are in fact LOBBYING for these technologies and actively engaged in ways to FOOL the public and policymakers into swallowing their bitter Geoengineering SRM pill.

Climate Censorship

To make matters worse, at this year's American Meteorological Society and Weather Modification Association's "20th Conference on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification" the following video was recorded on WX Geeks with Dr. Kim Klockow from UCAR and Dr. Susan Jaskow from the California University of Pennsylvania.

Klockow and Jasper are both public relations specialists and are both affiliated with UCAR, the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. Jasper’s credentials include “the processes of social organizing, especially grassroots movements” which has to include dealing with activists like myself. These two folks know that we know that people are altering the weather and creating climate extremes and they want to control that message. UCAR and its sister NCAR are the center of the weather modification research world with most of its climate control funding based out of Israel:

“Since 1996, NCAR’s rainfall enhancement research program has received more than 95 percent of its funding from outside the U.S.”

It surprises me little that two perception managers would discuss censoring scientists, gatekeeping atmospheric data, and preparing to deal with social-mediarologists. Dr. Jasper states:

One weakness about social media is, both its strength is, its common universal access, so anyone can produce content. So what we don't have there is any gatekeeping the way we have in traditional forms of media

Then Dr. Klockow reiterates Jasper's statement regarding us pesky activists:

Now we have this mechanism [the internet] by which anyone can join our [climate scientists] sphere, and it's making for a very difficult landscape to manage

Roll that beautiful bean footage: 3/2/2015 -- Meteorologists WANT TO 'GATEKEEP' science data - 2015 Weather Modification Conference

The video ends with director of the National Weather Service, Dr. Louis Uccellini, and the Storm Prediction Center’s director Dr. Russell Schneider claiming ignorance of weather modification programs in the USA. When asked about the Department of Homeland Security steering hurricanes, both men denied knowledge of the Hurricane Aerosol Microphysics Program (HAMP). The DHS Hurricane Modification Workshop in 2008 was attended by NCAR, UCAR, NOAA, Savannah River National Lab, Woodley Weather Consultants, and several universities from the USA, UK, and Israel yet these two directors NEVER HEARD OF IT.

Here is Dr. Uccellini’s response:

Cloud seeding now is done more by the private sector and they don't tell you when they're doing it because they consider it proprietary. So we do not factor in that type of activity into either our analysis or forecasting. We're just not being made aware of what is happening.

Dr. Uccellini goes on to claim he does not know about geoengineering research but he has heard talk of setting of nuclear blasts to kill tornadoes. Fascinating.

Then Dr. Schneider says:

I think cloud seeding is, I'm not sure. I'm not that familiar but I don't know of any government programs dealing in that.

Deny, deny, then deny again. Did you know that Public Law 92-205 requires anyone who wants to modify the weather to notify NOAA using a special form?

Recently, both these report forms and all associated links to these weather modification reporting laws on NOAA’s corporate services website have been removed and the form pictured above says it expired in 2007. Nonetheless, NOAA does keep records on the individuals kind enough to submit a form. As you can see, the directors were clearly lying:

NOAA Reported Weather Modification Activities

• 2012 NOAA Weather Modification Programs 12WXMOD5 partial | Link
• 2011 NOAA Weather Modification Programs 11WXMOD5 partial | Link
• 2010 NOAA Weather Modification Programs 10WXMOD5 | Link
• 2009 NOAA Weather Modification Programs 09WXMOD5 | Link
• 2008 NOAA Weather Modification Programs 08WXMOD5| Link
• 2007 NOAA Weather Modification Programs 07WXMOD5 | Link
• 2006 NOAA Weather Modification Programs 06WXMOD5 | Link
• 2005 NOAA Weather Modification Programs 05WXMOD5 | Link
• 2004 NOAA Weather Modification Programs 04WXMOD5 | Link

As you can see, most of the weather modification in America is payed for by power companies and water districts. This list only includes what Dr. Uccellini referred to as the "private sector" and does not include DHS hurricane control or geoengineering programs.

The World Meteorological Organization used to track and publicly report worldwide weather modification activities, however their list is very generic and has not been updated since 2006.

• Register 2003-2004
• Register 2005-2006

The directors of the NWS and SPC denying any knowledge of these weather modification experiments is starting to remind me of Operation Popeye and the US Air Force's weather warfare in Vietnam. US military top brass lied under oath during Congressional testimony claiming the same thing: the military/government isn't modifying the weather:

Laird wasn’t the only official whose 1972 weather modification testimony was untruthful.

Benjamin Forman, a senior Department of Defense lawyer, reiterated Laird’s denial later that year: “We have not, as Secretary Laird has previously said, ever engaged in weather modification activities in Northern Vietnam.”

At the same hearing, the Deputy Director of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency had similar difficulties. Asked by Senator Pell if rainmaking projects had been approved by Laos and Thailand, Philip Farley replied: “I don’t wish even to admit, sir, that there were such projects.”

Dr. Uccellini and Dr. Schneider are denying knowledge of weather modification activities because they are complicit in censoring atmospheric data to cover the tracks of not only cloud-seeders but military operations. In the following video, a local weather guy admits that their radar “accidentally” shows military chaff floating over Florida:

We have technology that can erase all of that man-made material and only show you only the rain

Here is the video: Meteorologists Begin To Admit To Climate Engineering

I built a Google Earth app to track weather manipulation worldwide using all of the same sensors the scientists are using and it is useless without transparency. Maybe that is why the Rothschild’s are buying up weather companies…

If the National Weather Service and Storm Prediction Center are censoring radar data, what else are they censoring?

Geoengineering Is Already Happening

If you read my last article The CIA, Weather Warfare, and Climate Terrorism or watched the video on YouTube then you know that even the CIA is freaking out about "who is controlling our weather?" The fact is nobody really knows and there is no way to tell! Scientists barely understand how aerosols form clouds, cannot predict the outcome of cloud seeding experiments after 60 years of performing them, and their atmospheric sensors cannot tell the difference between natural weather and man-made weather.

Dr. Cush Ngonzo Luwesi (PhD) from Nairobi had a great response to Alan Robock’s CIA revelations:

This is quite obvious Prof. Spy agencies and state criminals have long used unconventional arms to harm other people or countries, whether in time of war or peace. As a genuine scientist, your worries are also quite genuine. I am quite sure that some of your fellow researchers are receiving such funds to develop climate intervention technologies that will be used for other purposes than fixing the global warming issue. I therefore urge you to keep up raising awareness on these issues.

I fully agree.

Even though geoengineering scientists claim their work is just a bunch of computer models and theories, they are already experimenting in our skies with geoengineering.

Here is the official list of geoengineering field projects:

• Yuri Izrael’s solar radiation experiment carried out in Russia with an uncertain degree of scientific credibility and an unclear assessment process;
• E-PEACE, an experiment which while not identifying as SRM resulted in clear implications for marine cloud brightening (MCB) technology post hoc;
• The SPICE project’s cancelled balloon deployment experiment, whose “stagegate” process was interested in exploring a wide range of SRM governance issues.

Not in that list but obviously cloud making experiments:

• South African salt particle flare experiment - according to Stephen Salter
• The NASA J-2X Cloud-making rocket at Stennis Space Center:

While all of these experiments seek to make clouds, power plants and jet planes do it with ease on a daily basis (IE. water vapor pollution)

Oddly enough, in the list of official geoengineering SRM experiments they do not mention the New Manhattan Project aka contrail production studies and hiding data on water vapor pollution.

While blaming climate change on CO2, water vapor pollution in combination with attempts to turn that vapor into rain are the real global warming problem!

Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases (man-made and natural) as a % of Relative Contribution to the “Greenhouse Effect”

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics	Percent of Total	Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor
Water vapor	-----	95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	72.369%	3.618%
Methane (CH4)	7.100%	0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O)	19.000%	0.950%
CFC's (and other misc. gases)	1.432%	0.072%
Total	100.000%	100.000%

With over 100,000 flights per day in 2014 how can we deny the influence of flight pollution on the weather?

Noted as far back as 1970 in the paper “On the possibility of weather modification by aircraft contrail” and reiterated in Gray et al’s 1974 “Weather Modification by Carbon Dust Absorption of Solar Energy” jet plane exhaust has serious implications for cloud formation, influence on major storms, and a myriad of other factors that today’s scientists still claim ignorance of.

“likely contrails are affecting precipitation to a much greater extent than are present deliberate seeding operations.”

Flight pollution and hurricanes:

“This paper is written for the purpose of opening a dialogue on a new area of potential weather modification – mesoscale weather modification from solar energy interception by small carbon particles. It would appear that present-day weather modification may need a broader scientific outlook.”

By simply flying through clouds planes are making it rain:

In 2007 Andrew Heymsfield … was a on a research flight west of Denver International Airport when he and his team flew right below a big [cloud that had been flown through by an airplane]. When they went back and looked at footage from a ground-looking camera on the plane, they found the area directly beneath the hole had been coated in two inches of fresh snow.

Today scientists are beginning to read between the lines in the sky and asking the hard question, are contrails trapping heat?

“Contrails formed by aircraft can evolve into cirrus clouds indistinguishable from those formed naturally. These ‘spreading contrails’ may be causing more climate warming today than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation.”

Atmospheric science: Seeing through contrails by Olivier Boucher, Nature Climate Change 1, 24–25 (2011) doi:10.1038/nclimate1078 Published online 29 March 2011

Nonetheless, scientists are attempting to cool the planet with commercial flights by adding chemicals to jets gas tanks:

Another technique examined was the use of commercial passenger aircraft flying at high altitudes to inject sulphate aerosols, emitted by aviation fuel, into the stratosphere. Reference link and Presentation

The Academy of Finland if far from alone in discussing how to geoengineer our planet using flight pollution.

• “Use commuter aircraft fuels doped with aerosol generators” [ref]
• “dissolved or suspended in their jet fuel and later burned with the fuel to create seeding aerosol, or (2) injected into the hot engine exhaust, which should vaporize the seeding material, allowing it to condense as aerosol in the jet contrail” [ref]
• “Options for dispersing gases from planes include the addition of sulfur to the fuel, which would release the aerosol through the exhaust system of the plane, or the attachment of a nozzle to release the sulfur from its own tank within the plane, which would be the better option.” [ref]
• “The particles may be seeded by dispersal from seeding aircraft; one exemplary technique may be via the jet fuel as suggested by prior work regarding the metallic particles. Once the tiny particles have been dispersed into the atmosphere, the particles may remain in suspension for up to one year.” [ref]

Meanwhile, all of these organizations claim to be studying how to offset aviation's carbon footprint while denying that ALL OF THIS is a geoengineering experiment:

• Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI)
• Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and Cruise Emissions II (ACCESS II)
• Civil Aircraft for the Regular Investigation of the atmosphere Based on an Instrument Container (CARIBIC)
• Project REACT4C “Reducing Emissions from Aviation by Changing Trajectories for the benefit of Climate” REACT4C on CORDIS
• Centre for Aviation Transport and the Environment (Omega)
• Ice-Supersaturated Regions (ISSR)
• Formation flying civilian airliners? Flying planes like birds to save on the gas bill, no joke.
• Climate compatible Air Transport System (CATS)
• Climate Optimized Routing of Flights
• Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)
  • Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Dashboard

• Future Aircraft Traffic Management Concepts Evaluation Tool (FACET)
• FAA Aviation Environmental Tool Suite
  • Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) • aedt.faa.gov • [PDF]
  • Environmental Design Space (EDS)
  • Aviation environmental Portfolio Management Tool (APMT) • mit.edu
  • Legacy
    • Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS)
    • System for Assessing Aviations Global Emissions (SAGE)
    • Model for Assessing Global Exposure to the Noise of Transport Aircraft (MAGENTA)

They even have a tool to predict where contrails will occur and hope to do "localized cooling."

Deny cloud-seeding experiments, deny cloud ionization technologies, deny space weather modification, and definitely deny the New Manhattan Project or the Ship Track and Contrail Control Con-game.

Enough is enough, we need real transparency before policy makers act on false, incomplete data.

Too Many Hands in the Cookie Jar

Every Tom, Dick, and Harry is trying to control our weather while scientists, policy makers, and three letter agencies discuss framing, gatekeeping, and deny any of this is really happening.

• Oliver’s Travels offers perfect Wedding Day Weather for £100,000
• Rain on Request – Crowd-sourced Cloud Ionizers for California Drought
• Cloud Ionization, Electric Rainmaking, and Laser-guided Weather Modification
• HAARP and Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds (geoengineering noctilucent methane clouds)
• How we made the Chernobyl rain
  • TWENTY- FIVE YEARS OF CLOUD SEEDING ACTIVITY TO MODIFY WEATHER CONDITIONS IN CITIES
• How Beijing used rockets to keep opening ceremony dry
• When Cloud Seeding Goes Wrong: Cement Chunk Falls From the Sky Russian Air Force

To say that so many hands altering our sky isn't to blame for extreme weather events is either ignorance or insanity.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. We need a real solution to bring clarity to the climate debate.

The proof is in the pudding as they say and I think you will agree defense contractors should not be dictating who, how, and why we modify the climate:

A Plan for the next phase in Weather Modification Science and Technology Development from the 16th Conference on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification, 2005 There have been plans for developing weather modification science and technology since 1946. These past plans have lead to modern weather modification technologies. These modern weather modification technologies can help the community at large and have been doing so for over 50 years. Recent technological and scientific advances, along with contemporary socioeconomic problems, form the basis for constructing a new plan that facilitates the development and applications of modern weather modification technologies for more effectively benefiting society.

The paper comes with the acknowledgement:

The contents of this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of any government agency or Raytheon Company and its business units, especially Raytheon Technical Services Co, ITSS. The comments of Mr. Robert Black, Manager, Program Engineering Office, Contractor at EDC, two anonymous reviewers of a previous version of this paper are appreciated. The review of this paper by Dr. Joe Golden is greatly appreciated.

Nonetheless, with the help of radar-making defense contractor Raytheon this paper discusses who will benefit from the next level of weather modification.

... research aircraft and relevant resources at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology Institute of Atmospheric Sciences, University of North Dakota, Weather Modification Inc., NOAA, and the University of Oklahoma MESONET to help with various aspects of model development/ validation efforts and other physical studies. The agreements should also be extended to Woodley Associates, North American Weather Consultants, Atmospherics Incorporated, as well as other relevant companies, organizations, universities, and government agencies (e.g., those in Texas, Nevada, and Kansas, Colorado State University, NOAA National Severe Storms laboratory, the USGS/U.S. Navy/U.S. Department of Agriculture/CDC research team-Bozeman, Montana, and the USGS/EDC teams for Land Use Dynamics, Applications Research, & Remote Sensing Systems).

Program Customers:

Program customers potentially come from the following entities:

• Farmers
• crop insurance industry
• water district managers
• utility industry
• relevant organizations
  • Weather Modification Association (WMA)
  • Environmental Water Resources Institute-EWRI
• scientific community
• government agencies
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  • National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA)
  • Department of Defense (DoD)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
  • foreign

Anticipated Sources of Funding:

• Farmer groups
• insurance industry
• water districts
• utility industry
• State Governments
• NOAA
• Congress
• Office of Federal Coordination for Meteorology (OFCM)

 

As you can see, controlling the weather is big money and no “March for Climate Change” will change that.

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. Retired Col. David Kutchinski

Climate scientists say that geoengineering has nothing to do with weather modification, but that is not only an oversimplification it is a blatant lie. Geoengineering SRM will alter rainfall patterns worldwide and some places may never see rain again which is . Geoengineering debates are really about cogitating ways to coax the public into having global weather control programs and the only obstacle is figuring out how to pay the dead people.

With the denial game we witnessed in the interview with the heads of National Weather Service and Storm Prediction Center, the discussion of gatekeeping and public relations, the censorship of public atmospheric data, and the massive push for solar radiation management we can only assume one thing: The conspiracy to cloud our skies is underway and we need to fight back with history as our guide. Geophysical Interventions are already at epic levels, we need to stop screwing with the sky and find out what natural weather is. Between the tropospheric and ionospheric modifications of the past century some blame for extreme weather events must be assumed on the part of the men playing God with our planet, and more tinkering is likely to exacerbate the problem further.

Enough is enough, know the truth about who is creating wacky weather while screwing with our sky:

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 stations around 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 1978, 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.

We need an extended moratorium on atmospheric experimentation so new sensors can establish a baseline study on what natural weather actually is.

After one hundred years of failed experiments in our sky, don’t be bamboozled any longer, share these facts and tell policy makers:

#ClimateIntervention?

I think not, how about:

#HandsOffMySky

Please share this message if you agree, our time is short!

Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.

Say no to Geoengineering SRM, plant a tree and sequester carbon the natural way, and let it grow!