Our Environmental Catastrophe: Geoengineering and Weather Warfare
by grtv
The
environmental movement has developed a single-minded obsession with the
supposed effects of carbon dioxide on the global climate. Rather than
CO2 gas, however, the technologies that are now being proposed to
mitigate this supposed problem might be the real cause of our coming
environmental calamity. This is the GRTV Backgrounder on Global Research
TV.
Transcript:
For decades now, we have been told to be afraid of
the long-term effects of manmade carbon dioxide on our climate.
Seemingly every day some new storm, drought, warm spell or cold snap is
featured on the news, with government-funded scientists warning us that
this is a sign of things to come unless the world reduces its CO2
production.
The problem, of course, is that this is a third-rate
scientific hoax propagated on the strength of the public’s ignorance of
the underlying science, or lack thereof. The models and predictions used
to scare the public into believing that CO2 is driving climate and will
continue to do so in an increasingly dangerous fashion share the
distinction of being universally wrong in their predictions of trends
over the past 15 years, yet we are still asked to believe in the
long-term validity of these same falsified models.
As Robinson et. al. noted in their 2007 study,
“Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,”
published by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, “Predictions
of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use
and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current
experimental knowledge.”
Also in 2007, J. Scott Armstrong, a researcher at the
University of Pennsylvania and the author of “Long-Range Forecasting,” a
standard textbook on the principles of forecasting, co-authored an
audit of the procedures that the IPCC used for its global warming
projections, finding that those procedures violated 72 of the 89
relevant principles of scientific forecasting.
Last year the Journal of Geophysical
Research-Atmospheres published a study showing that climate prediction
models examining periods of less than 30 years on the geographical scale
of continents are riddled with inaccuracies.
Earlier this year, the UK’s Met office was forced to
revise downward their projections for temperature increase over the next
four years after a 15 year standstill in global annual temperatures.
Ironically, this divergence from the continuous temperature increases
that had been predicted by the CO2 alarmists is now being blamed on
“natural variability” including “the cycles of changes in solar
activity,” which leaked drafts of the IPCC AR5 report due out next year
indicate has been vastly underestimated.
Sadly, the fearmongering, hype and misleading
predictions on this issue have become so internalized that there is a
subsection of the population that is now willing to question whether
every conceivable event in the galaxy is the result of carbon dioxide,
even near-earth asteroids.
That so many are concentrating so much time and
attention on the question of carbon dioxide, a trace gas in the
atmosphere which itself is only partially manmade, is only to be
expected. Scientists, pundits, writers and businessmen are only
responding to the market incentives that are at play. Governments and
universities around the world are now sinking billions of dollars a year
into grants to fund research related to the supposed CO2 threat, and
entire industries such as carbon trading and carbon sequestration, are
developing in response to this interest. Quite simply, too much money
and potential political power is at stake for the threat of global
warming to be revealed as a false alarm.
One of the most worrying possibilities to arise from
this trend, however, is the political legitimization of a concept that,
ironically, has the potential to become a real threat to our
environment: geoengineering.
The practice of geoengineering is now well over half a
century old. As early as the late 1940s, American mathematician John
von Neumann was researching weather modification and its potential uses
in climatic warfare for the US Department of Defense. In the 1950s early
cloudbursting experiments were performed by Wilhelm Reich and in 1956
Dr. Walter Russell was writing of the potential for complete weather
control.
In the 1960s, Dr. Bernard Vonnegut, brother of the
famous writer, vastly improved the techniques then in use by employing
silver iodide crystals in the cloud seeding mixture. Silver iodide’s
hygroscopic qualities insure water particles quickly bond with its
crystalline structure. As the recent documentary Skywatcher points out,
the process of cloud seeding is now so widely and routinely employed
that it is having profound effects on our climate.
Given that CO2 is not the problem it is made out to
be, coupled with the admitted advent of modern weather modification
technologies in DoD research programs, it is impossible not to inquire
into the possible links between the current push toward geoengineering
and the military-industrial complex. Last year I had the chance to talk
to Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Research on
Globalization about the past, present, and future of weather warfare
technology.
The potential military benefits to the wartime
deployment of weather modification technologies are self-evident. In
fact, they are so self-evident that, as Professor Chossudovsky notes,
the UN was compelled to introduce a convention in 1977 prohibiting the
use of environmental modification technology in warfare. The US ratified
that convention in 1980.
Other potential benefits to the deployment of this
technology suggest themselves in the monetary sphere. So many events in
the course of human activity are predicated on short-term weather and
long-term climate phenomena that the ability to determine (or even
influence) either could be extremely valuable. Insurance companies, for
example, stand to lose billions (and reconstruction-related industries
stand to make those same billions) every time a strong storm makes
landfall in populated areas.
So it should not be surprising that a market has
evolved for “weather derivatives,” effectively allowing large financial
institutions to make money gambling on the weather. And it should also
come as no surprise that this market was largely pioneered by that
infamous globalist-connected insider corporation, Enron.
Last year I had the chance to talk to researcher
Peter Kirby about Enron’s involvement in weather derivatives and the
vast sums that stand to be made as geoengineering projects continue to
be deployed under the threshold of public awareness.
Even if we were to assume that weather modification
technologies are not currently being used for the purposes of weather
warfare or market manipulation, the potential for such abuses alone
should be more than enough to dissuade us from pursuing these
technologies. Even more worrying, perhaps, are the true unknown
environmental ramifications of the long-term effects of these
technologies on our environment.
Ironically enough, those who are warning us of the
potentially disastrous consequences of manmade climate change may be
exactly right in their assessment after all. But in the end, it may not
be the manmade CO2 they are worried about that is the real culprit of
this coming catastrophe, but the geoengineering technologies that are
being proposed as the “solution” to this problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment