“Popular Science” Warns About “Weather As A Weapon”

hacking-the-climate-change-winners-and-losers
Published on Dec 17, 2015

http://GeoengineeringWatch.org
TO READ OR POST COMMENTS ON THIS VIDEO, PLEASE GO DIRECTLY TO THE ARTICLE http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/po…
I recently acquired two exceptional original copies of “Popular Science” from June of 1958. Almost 60 years ago the dialog about weather warfare was more open. As the power structure began to consider how negatively the public would respond to the decimation caused by climate modification programs of mass destruction, the push to completely suppress media coverage of this issue commenced. Current mainstream media sources have done their best to convince populations that it is not possible to manipulate the climate. This lie is used to compel the majority of the public to ignore the blatant spraying they see over their heads on an almost daily basis. Not only is global climate manipulation possible today, it has been going on for nearly 7 decades.
“Control of Earth’s weather and temperature is within the realm of practicability now” says Dr. Joseph Kaplan, chairman of the International Geophysical Year.
Congressional documents from 1978 prove that global climate engineering had already been deployed at least a decade prior to Dr. Kaplan’s statement.
“…present knowledge lists seven possible ways of changing weather on a global scale………..All of these methods would regulate the distribution of heat in different parts of the Earth’s atmosphere. This is the basis of global weather control.”
Climate engineering is weather warfare, who gave those in power the right to experiment with our planet and all life?
“As a weapon (weather), it could be more disastrous than nuclear warfare.”
Geoengineering is wreaking havoc around the globe.
“The Russians may be ahead of us in weather control and that worries our scientists even more than the technical problems involved.”
The cowards in the power structure are driven by fear and thus have no regard whatsoever for the consequences of their actions.
“We cannot trust to luck that we will be first to control the weather.”
Weather as a weapon has always been sought by the military industrial complex.
The cloud of disinformation and deception surrounding the ongoing climate engineering insanity is massive beyond true comprehension. The entirety of the climate science and meteorological communities have participated in this deception, whether willingly (for a paycheck and a pension), or due to threats like the recent “gag order” placed on all National Weather Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employees by our government. Corporate media has, of course, done all they could to perpetuate the lies and deception, this is what they are paid to do.
Global climate engineering is nothing short of weather warfare and biological warfare that has been going on in plain sight for decades. The mounting consequences are becoming all but impossible to keep from public awareness. Countless organizations are discussing geoengineering but not yet openly admitting it has long since been a lethal reality with disastrous and deadly results. This 7 minute video summarizes the ramifications of the Popular Science Magazine disclosures.
We have one way forward, to expose and halt the climate engineering/weather warfare assault. This effort will take each and every one of us, make your voice heard.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

2 Responses to ““Popular Science” Warns About “Weather As A Weapon””

  1. Dogman says:

    Both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives held hearings, beginning in 1972, and the Senate adopted a resolution in 1973 calling for an international agreement “prohibiting the use of any environmental or geophysical modification activity as a weapon of war….” In response to this resolution, the President ordered the Department of Defense to undertake an in-depth review of the military aspects of weather and other environmental modification techniques. The results of this study and a subsequent interagency study led to the U.S. Governments decision to seek agreement with the Soviet Union to explore the possibilities of an international agreement.

    During the summit meeting in Moscow in July 1974, President Nixon and General Secretary Brezhnev formally agreed to hold bilateral discussions on how to bring about “the most effective measures possible to overcome the dangers of the use of environmental modification techniques for military purposes.” Three sets of discussions were held in 1974 and 1975, resulting in agreement on a common approach and common language.

    In August 1975, the chief representatives of the U.S. and the Soviet delegations to the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (CCD) tabled, in parallel, identical draft texts of a “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques.”

    The Convention defines environmental modification techniques as changing — through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes — the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydro-sphere, and atmosphere, or of outer space. Changes in weather or climate patterns, in ocean currents, or in the state of the ozone layer or ionosphere, or an upset in the ecological balance of a region are some of the effects which might result from the use of environmental modification techniques.

    Intensive negotiations held in the CCD during the spring and summer of 1976 resulted in a modified text and, in addition, to understandings regarding four of the Treaty articles. These were transmitted to the U.N. General Assembly for consideration during the fall session.

    Article I sets forth the basic commitment: “Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.” An understanding defines the terms “widespread, long-lasting or severe.” “Widespread” is defined as “encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometers”; “long-lasting” is defined as “lasting for a period of months, or approximately a season”; and “severe” is defined as “involving serious or significant disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources or other assets.”

    With regard to peaceful uses of environmental modification techniques, the convention provides that the parties shall have the right to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information.

    The U.N. Secretary-General officiated at the signing ceremony in Geneva on May 18. The United States joined 33 other nations in signing the Convention.

  2. dkblue says:

    Question Re Geoengineeringwatch/Dane Wiggington; I was repeatedly prevented from posting information where the UK scientist admitted geoengineering was an out of control experiment that many want stopped. I sent a friendly email asking why this had happened,received no answer and then had my donations blocked. What to make of this?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.