Why Are They Spraying?

See also: What Are They Spraying in The Sky?

From TheCityEdition.com -- Print This Page or Return to Article

October 15, 2015 (Updated 1/5/18)-- Stratospheric aerosol engineering has been touted by climate scientists as a means to reduce global warming and mitigate its various impacts.  These include dangerous methane releases in the Arctic, deforestation, evaporating polar ice caps and ocean acidification. A handful of the country's top universities, including Carnegie Mellon, Harvard and Stanford, along with The Royal Society in the U.K., are leading lights in what appears at first glance to be a noble undertaking.  By dispersing reflective metal and sulphur aerosols into the atmosphere, and doing it daily for the forseeable future, global temperatures will cool as sunlight gets bounced back into space.

But where does such an audacious scheme come from? In a 2008 study published by The Royal Society, a research team explains, "The concept of ‘geoengineering’ has been considered at least as far back as the 1830s with J. P. Espy's suggestion of lighting huge fires that would stimulate convective updrafts and change rain intensity and frequency of occurrence."

A century and a half later, at the “22nd International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies”, a scientific paper from H-Bomb inventor Dr. Edward Teller introduced the aerial spraying program fueling so much controversy today. Held in Siciliy in 1997, the seminar brought together experts from around the world to discuss solutions to climate change. According to the paper, it was possible to create a manmade sunscreen around the planet, cooling it down just like ash clouds from a massive volcanic eruption would. In particular, "Materials such as Al [aluminum] ..., which auto-coat with durable, oxygen-impervious, high-integrity oxide-skins of only a few monolayers thickness, might be aptly employed...The corresponding scattering systems may be... stratospherically dispersed from an airplane tank as a suitably fine aerosol, the individual nanoparticles of which would quick-freeze at stratospheric temperatures..." 

In the 2001 book Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism & Toxic Warfare, free-lance journalist William Thomas elaborated on how the proposed spray job might be implemented. With the Cold War over, the U.S. Air Force had 700 refueling tankers available for immediate re-assignment. The planes could be easily modified to carry aluminum aerosols in place of jet fuel. Moreover, Thomas had discovered that a patent for this technology had been filed seven years earlier by Hughes Aircraft.

This depiction of aerial spraying indicates that sulfate particles are dispersed from aircraft. However, chemtrail opponents claim aluminum oxide is the principle aerosol ingredient, and that it's sickening both plants and humans. Graphic: Harvardmagazine.com.

Following the logic behind Dr. Teller's plan, nearly all forms of air pollution help cool the planet because the haze they create blocks the sun. His proposal also amounted to an epic departure from the conventional wisdom prevailing five years earlier, when most climate scientists agreed that by cutting CO2 emissions, conserving energy, and restoring oceans and forests,the perils of global warming might be averted. Under this plan, alternative energy could phase out most greenhouse-gas emitting power sources, while the phytoplankton and trees who convert most of the world's carbon dioxide back to oxygen would be better protected through legislation and restoration efforts.

It now appears that U.S. Government agencies have tossed aside this sensible solution in favor of high-risk, grandiose sun-blocking schemes and covert weather modification techniques. And the consequences of this shift may be "coming back to bite us", as comedian Stephen Colbert has suggested. Consider that over the last decade, atmospheric scientists unaffiliated with geoengineering programs have warned about:

  • A sharp rise in aerosol pollution, causing the worrisome phenomenon of global dimming. Less sunlight hinders the growth of crops, reduces solar panel electricity and promotes drought.
  • the prospect of catastrophic ozone layer depletion. As far back as 1992, the National Academy of Sciences had considered the aircraft spraying strategy and recommended against its deployment. The ozone layer is earth's only shield against ultraviolet violet light from the sun, and its loss imperils nearly all biological life forms, from plants to humans.
  • the massive deforestation taking place throughout Asia. Geoengineers have already admitted that a perennial drought is an inevitable side effect of aerosol spraying.
  • an ever declining amount of food for the world's population. The reduction has been linked to several causes, including global dimming, aluminum oxide accumulation in the soil and extreme weather events.
  • continued temperature increases on the ground. Aerosol obscuration prevents the earth's absorbed heat from rising back into the atmosphere. Such rising heat is critical to generating rainfall in the tropics, without which the rainforests will collapse.

Such developments seem to contradict the stated goal of stratospheric aerosol engineering, which is to slow down global warming and its consequences, not speed it up. Perhaps understandably, the scientists at Carnegie Mellon, Stanford and Harvard have been playing coy when it comes to their unusual job occupation. While making the rounds at science conferences, dinners with billionaire investors, and the studios of Comedy Central, geoengineers like Prof. David Keith and Ken Caldeira insist that dispersing aluminum into the sky is still an idea they're batting around in their heads, not something that's actually taking place in realtime. An occasional field experiment may be conducted here and there, dispersing "minimal amounts of compounds" and "under strict university controls", but that's all there is to see right now.

In 2009, Keith also started a private company. Based in Canada, Carbon Engineering hopes to market equipment one day that will remove carbon dioxide from the air and turn it into a synthetic transportation fuel. Besides being in its infancy, this attempt to reduce CO2 emissions one gas tankful at a time is a far cry from the programs Prof. Keith has written about in science journals and his 2013 book, The Case for Climate Engineering. Until recently, he had defined geoengineering as "the intentional large-scale manipulation of the global environment" with "the primary intention of reducing undesired climatic change caused by human influences." Such statements carry the brazen ring of Edward Teller, who was himself known to wax giddy in extolling the power of nukes. "We will change the earth's surface to suit us," he once said. All of which makes you wonder... Is there a darker side to Teller's aerial spraying campaign?

-- --

Actor Peter Sellers (top photo) played the title character in Stanley Kulbrick's 1964 movie, Dr. Strangelove - or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb . Edward Teller is rumored to have been the inspiration for Strangelove. As for authoring a study on aerosol spraying, the alleged mad scientist was 89-years-old in 1997 and likely deferred the grunt work to his two co-authors, phycisists Lowell Wood (bottom left)and Roderick Hyde. Both men worked on the Strategic Defense Initiative at Lawrence Livermore Labs during the Reagan Administration. Prof. Ken Caldeira (bottom middle) called the same location home for 12 years, co-authoring a paper with Dr. Teller for the "24th International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies.” Since the death of the H-Bomb developer in 2003, Wood and Caldeira have carried the torch for the Teller aerial spraying initiative, with help from Harvard's Prof. David Keith (bottom right). Photos: Columbia Pictures, Twitter, Carbon Engineering.

Destroying The Planet In Order To Save It?

For scholars and ex-vice-presidents who watch geoengineering's march of progress from the sidelines, there is some question about whether injecting particulates into the atmosphere year after year is an appropriate or even effective way to curb those pesky human influences cited by Prof. Keith. Al Gore, for one, dismisses the program as “delusional in the extreme.” Colby College Professor James Fleming, author of Fixing the Climate: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control, believes geoengineering schemes are “untested and untestable, and dangerous beyond belief.” And Dr. Axel Kleidon of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry states the obvious: “When you try to fix one problem you create other problems.”

Other critics go further in bashing the chemtrail operation. They suspect the goal of reducing global warming is little more than a bedtime story masking a more nefarious agenda afoot. After all, it’s easier to secure the acquiescence of public officials and pilots if you portray your worldwide planet-dusting strategy as an attempt to rescue humanity from explosive methane gas releases and other fallout from climate change.

In a 2014 article posted on the website of Geoengineering Watch, activist Dane Wigington asserts, "Though groups of scientists like the Arctic Methane Emergency Group are calling for 'emergency wartime scale geoengineering to avert planetary catastrophe', available data indicates that the very geoengineering programs they are selling as a cure are more likely a major causal factor in triggering the methane catastrophe in the first place."

Making A Killing on Bad Weather

Although media coverage of geoengineering has focused on the academic players, it may be the case that the R&D phase is over and implementation has begun. In fact, the U.S. Air Force has been in the business of modifying the weather since 1947. That year, in collaboration with General Electric, Project Cirrus spawned two natural disasters, including the Cape Sable Hurricane in Miami. Another made landfall on Tybee Island after a pilot dropped dry ice into it. Although the project proved an embarrassment to everyone involved, its stated intention was to dissipate hurricanes, not instigate them, just as it's still claimed today.

During the Vietnam War, Operation Popeye was set in motion to manipulate the monsoon season and hammer the North Vietnamese with rainstorms. After the strategy was exposed in the Washington Post, National Academy of Sciences President Philip Handler stated “It is grotesquely immoral that scientific understanding and technological capabilities developed for human welfare to protect the public health, enhance agricultural productivity, and minimize the natural violence of large storms should be so distorted as to become weapons of war.”

But weather warfare was here to stay, and it arguably received its biggest boost with the filing of Bernard Eastland's ionospheric heating patent in 1987. The controversial HAARP facility and others like it were constructed to employ a technology first envisioned by Nikola Tesla in the early 20th century. By heating parts of the atmosphere, it's possible to create and then steer storm fronts, or cause them to linger over one spot for several days. (This aspect of weather modification is discussed in a companion piece to this article, What Are They Spraying in The Sky?.)

From a legal perspective, the United States is a party to the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, or ENMOD. While the treaty explicitly bans weather warfare between nations, it exempts all domestic activities. This is an odd caveat, if you think about it, since weather systems don't normally recognize national boundaries and can end up in any far-flung corner of the earth once they gather enough steam.

At any rate, ever since HAARP and the other facilities went online, the U.S. Military has been accused of doing to U.S. cities and towns what it did in Vietnam. That is, with one major difference: The high-tech tools used nowadays make those rainstorms over the Hồ Chí Minh Trail look like child's play by comparison. Weather warfare opponents allege that jets are routinely dispatched over the Gulf of Mexico during hurricane season to create Category 5 Frankensteins. To do this, the pilots inject aerosols or other substances to create a defined eye around which an otherwise disorganized weather system can coalesce.

Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, as well as the more recent Hurricane Harvey are offered as examples of geoengineered storms. While hard evidence of such claims is lacking, activists point to a 1996 military research paper called Owning the Weather in 2025:  Weather as a Force Multiplier to make their case. In addition to aerosol spraying of the atmosphere, the briefing paper lists a host of other weather modification techniques that could be employed to win a war. Of course, there's no war going on in the Gulf of Mexico and targetting civilian populations is a crime under both international law and the U.S. Military Code of Conduct.

Even if these allegations could be proven, they raise two important questions. What motives might justify carrying out such wilful destruction of lives and property? And who is it exactly that benefits from natural disasters and the spraying of toxic aluminum aerosols? To explore these aspects of geoengineering, chemtrail activists in Los Angeles put together two feature-length documentaries, What in the World Are They Spraying? (2010) , and Why in the World Are They Spraying? (2012). According to the filmmakers, several special interest groups are making a killing with weather-related disaster capitalism: 

  • Defense contractors working with the U.S. Air Force and NOAA on weather modification schemes.
  • Traders and investment firms active in the futures, weather derivatives, and agricultural commodities markets.
  • Multi-national agribusinesses - especially Monsanto - that are trying to dominate the world's food markets and eliminate non-GMO seeds.
The stock market angle represents a particular ugly twist in the chemtrail story. Apparently, whenever drought, flooding and other weather-related calamities occur, hundreds of millions of dollars can be made using a process known as “hedging”. According to Michael Agne, a trader on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange interviewed in one of the films, “You're betting there's going to be a weather disaster within a particular time-frame, at a particular location, and when it does happen there's going to be a big pay-off.”  That’s because disasters impact the volatility index and drive up the price of commodities, utilities, transportation and other service industries. Agne says that the energy firm Enron traded the first weather derivative back in 1997, at approximately the same time that the aerosol spraying may have begun.

At the other end of these stock transactions are non-GMO farmers who lose their crops to extreme weather, fungal infections or a variety of other abiotic stresses. According to an Oregon-based farmer and radio commentator, Barbara Peterson, many such families have filed for bankruptcy or sold out as a result of repeated crop losses since the climate-altering program began. Peterson, who's interviewed in Why in The World Are They Spraying?, says Monsanto’s solution to the farmers’ plight – to buy the company’s all-weather and aluminum oxide resistant seed lines – represents one of the smoking guns behind chemtrails.

Approved by the USDA in 2001, Terminator seeds produce sterile seeds in crops, forcing farmers to buy a new batch each season.  (Because of the current controversy surrounding them, Peterson says the seeds are still not widely used, so Monsanto relies on its patents and a 40-page contract to prevent farmers from using the non-sterile seeds they collect during harvests.) While the cost of GMO seeds is formidable, the plants that sprout are capable of surviving the full gamut of  abiotic stresses drought, flooding, frost, excess UV radiation and even aluminum oxide poisoning.  Such seeds may also provide a shorter growing season, thus affording the chance for a second planting if the farmer's first crop succumbs to bad weather.

Graphic appearing with an article about Monsanto in the journal Nature in 2013. The story describes a lawsuit brought by the agribusiness against a small Indiana farmer that ended up at The Supreme Court. (Spoiler alert: The court sided with Monsanto.)

Most farmers who refuse to use Monsanto’s GMO seeds can't compete in the extreme weather conditions that have become the new normal for the Midwest.  Preying on their misery, investment groups have gobbled up the acreage when it’s eventually put up for sale or auctioned.  Peterson describes this as another example of disaster capitalism, if not the smoking gun behind chemtrails. Among the buyers, she notes, is  billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros.  And his isn’t the only firm cashing in, according to Bloomberg.com.

While the eulogy for organic and non-GMO seeds is no doubt being written as we speak, the reverberations of agribusiness taking over all of American farms don't end there. In fact, one might lie awake deep into the night pondering various genetic modifications of that Monsanto and its rivals (if there are any left) have in store for our dinner table. Unlike vaccinations, parents can't simply say no when it comes to feeding their children. Neither can they relocate outside this country's borders to escape the genetically mutated harvest. The Wall Street farm grab is a global phenomenon.

In 2011, for example, Soros bought Adecoagro, which operates more than three dozen massive farms in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. Bill Gates is another player in the GMO scheme. In recent years, the world's richest man has become a Monsanto investor. Significantly, the company is actively marketing its GMO seed products in Africa, where  Gates operates a charitable foundation.  So far, however, the nonprofit Alliance for a Green Revolution has promised not to use GMO seeds. Gates is also connected to David Keith, who has managed the Fund for Innovative Energy and Climate Research, an entity established and funded by the Microsoft founder. Gates also provides primary funding to Carbon Engineering, Keith's private company.

Predicting Geoengineered Weather

So what happens when a forecast of clear skies is always followed by hazy days with artificial cloud cover? Or what if a weather-modified tornado strikes after evening news programs predict only a slight chance of showers?  We may never know, since  the weather forecasting industry has itself undergone modification in the last several years. As in the case of farmland, financial firms have suddenly developed a yen for this business, assuming control of television and online outlets throughout the Unites States and beyond. In 2011, the Rothschild banking family bought a majority stake in Weather Central, the Wisconsin-based distributor of interactive weather services.  The purchase no doubt piqued the interest of conspiracy theorists, as the Rothschilds feature prominently in Jim Marrs’ 1995 book Rule By Secrecy.

Within a year, the U.K. based Weather Service International, or WSI, acquired Weather Central. WSI is itself a subsidiary, owned  by an Orwellian sounding entity called The Weather Company, or TWC.  And we've all heard of TWC’s most famous division, The Weather Channel. In recent years, TWC has also acquired the online services Weather Underground and Intellicast. And who owns TWC?  That would be Comcast’s NBC Universal, the Blackstone Group and Bain Capital. Of this curious trio, the latter two firms were prosecuted and fined by the SEC in 2014 for collusion in buying up companies to reduce competition.

The name Blackstone Group might also prick the ears of conspiracy theorists, having been co-founded by a long-time Rockefeller Family associate, Peter Peterson. Peterson chaired both the Council on Foreign Relations and the New York Federal Reserve at the time of the September 11th terrorist attacks. (His firm enjoyed a "strategic alliance" with Henry Kissinger Associates as well.) It's alleged that Blackstone Group may have participated in the so-called inside job that brought down the Twin Towers on that fateful day, and that the collapse of 7 World Trade Center late that afternoon was a planned demolition.

It pays to be a disaster capitalist... This photo shows 7 WTC still intact after the Twin Towers collapse. Less than a year earlier, the Blackstone Group teamed up with real estate mogul Larry Silverstein and bought part of the $386 million mortgage on the building. Silverstein separately signed a 99-year lease to manage much of the WTC complex on July 25, 2001, then took out a $3.5 billion insurance policy on the deal. He eventually won an even meatier $4.6 billion settlement, based on the premise that there had been two occurrences of damage (i.e. two airliners hit the Twin Towers). In 2017, Silverstein received an additional $95 million payout after sueing United and American Airlines for negligence. Blackstone, meanwhile, cashed in big on the $861 insurance award for the demolished building. Conspiracy buffs claim 7 WTC was rigged with explosives prior to the attacks with help from the CIA. Even Rosie O'Donnell weighed in on the controversy, explaining on ABC's morning program, The View, that if the building had fallen on its own, "it's the first time in history that fire has melted steel".

It pays to be a disaster capitalist... This photo shows 7 WTC still intact after the Twin Towers collapse. Less than a year earlier, the Blackstone Group teamed up with real estate mogul Larry Silverstein and bought part of the $386 million mortgage on the building. Silverstein separately signed a 99-year lease to manage much of the WTC complex on July 25, 2001, then took out a $3.5 billion insurance policy on the deal. He eventually won an even meatier $4.6 billion settlement, based on the premise that there had been two occurrences of damage (i.e. two airliners hit the Twin Towers). In 2017, Silverstein received an additional $95 million payout after sueing United and American Airlines for negligence. Blackstone, meanwhile, cashed in big on the $861 insurance award for the demolished building. Conspiracy buffs claim 7 WTC was rigged with explosives prior to the attacks with help from the CIA. Even Rosie O'Donnell weighed in on the controversy, explaining on ABC's morning program, The View, that if the building had fallen on its own, "it's the first time in history that fire has melted steel". Photo: New York Office of Emergency Management

Returning to more recent events, in October 2015, IBM bought TWC -- that is, except for The Weather Channel, which minus its digital arm remains the property of Blackstone Group, et. al.   And that purchase was preceded by Google's announcement of a new partnership with The Weather Company to provide online storm tracking.  It’s expected that any independent weather forecast services still operating will soon fall by the wayside now that the mother of all search engines is throwing in with Big Brother.

Coincidentally, as these latest corporate maneuvers were being rolled out, the National Weather Service Employees Organization (NWSEO) and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) jointly filed a complaint against a series of gag orders issued to all NWS personnel. NWS is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which gets its own marching orders from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Significantly, most media broadcast outlets receive their weather information from NWS, leading PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch to comment, “Everyone is free to talk about the weather except for the people working inside the National Weather Service. Go figure.”

One reason for the shroud of secrecy may involve the company that provides NWS employees with most of their data. Raytheon is the country's fourth largest defense contractor, providing missile systems, intelligence and surveillance capabilites, drones and cyber-security for the U.S. Air Force and other divisions of the military. In 2015, it received over $2 billion dollars in mission support contracts alone. Raytheon also manages the much touted Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) through a subsidiary called E-Systems. AWIPS gathers satellite, radar and hydrological data worldwide for downloading into weather modeling programs at NWS and NOAA stations. Interestingly, E-Systems owns the Bernard Eastland patents. In 1997, Raytheon also purchased Hughes Aircraft, which had owned the patent for atmospheric aerosol spraying mentioned at the beginning of this article.

The glass at Raytheon's offices in Woburn, Massachusetts reflects the sky. In April 2017, the company's stock price hit an all-time high. Raytheon's president attributed it to an uptick in its sale of Tomahawk missiles as part of its "replenishment" operation for the war in Syria. Photo: Reuters

It's a lot to digest, isn't it? Given so much circumstantial evidence of dire events on the horizon, you might be wondering what top U.S. environmental organizations have to say about geoengineering and weather modification. Turns out, neither the Sierra Club nor the Natural Resources Defense Council have flinched, which is troubling given that both groups are headquartered in fire-ravaged, forest-collapsing California. The NRDC, whose leading P.R. man is Robert Redford, has so far offered a lukewarm shoutout to the geoengineering teams at Stanford, Harvard and Carnegie Mellon. The Environmental Defense Fund says it supports what it describes to its donors as small-scale, outdoor weather modification field experiments.

And how has the U.K. based Greenpeace responded to chemtrails? In a blog published May 13, 2015, a representative stated, “As far as we are concerned, chemtrails are an urban myth – a conspiracy theory with no conspiracy...”

And therein lies the crux of this 21st century pickle we find ourselves in.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Return to Main Menu

Copyright © 2015-2018 TheCityEdition.com

A presentation of