Geoengineering
Part 4
WITH trust in government at an all-time low it is not surprising that concern is growing that geo-engineering may already be affecting us. Is it so unreasonable to question, as did Ian Andrew Patrick at the start of June, that the last months of exceptional floods and extreme weather across Northern Europe earlier this year were not engineered storms, whether to initiate cooling, or indeed, perversely, to ‘prove’ the climate hoax? Unless the new government here starts being open about what is going on, what it is investing in or sanctioning, questions are bound to be asked.
The international affairs think tank Chatham House is already asking them. It has called for the various weather modification projects they cite here to be reined in. They have reason. An independent geo-engineering site which monitors projects from Carbon Removal and Capture through to Solar Radiation Management and other geo-engineering approaches to weather modification and ‘cooling’ had, by 2021, identified more than 1,700 such projects around the world. Worryingly it points out that since there is no complete official record of weather and climate control projects their map is necessarily partial.
The range of just one private weather modification company’s projects worldwide – presumably acting with governmental authority as well as public and private funding – is revealed in its list of country contracts and interactive map here. Stretching from the USA to Thailand via the United Arab Emirates, the extent of its undertakings is indicative of the problem. The nearest projects to us appear to be in Spain and Turkey. This separate source indicates Spain has a history of cloud seeding which comes under the authority of the Spanish Ministry for Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge. A recent Daily Mail article reports that France and Switzerland have also conducted cloud seeding. Predictably this year’s unprecedented rainfall and cloud cover over the UK is blamed by the Guardian on ‘climate change’. But how do we know it is not the result of active intervention? Can we trust our government to tell us what might be going on in our skies here – and whether deliberate engineered interventions to change the weather or climate are not the cause? How, after the covid lie, can we have any confidence on them to open this up for critical debate – let alone to call for a moratorium on all such projects, experimental or routine?
In spite of the BBC’s dismissal of such concerns, increasing numbers of people are asking if clear blue skies are a thing of the past and what the criss-cross patterns they see signify. Is there activity going on and at what height? What in fact is the relationship between what we see and experience in our weather and geo-engineering interventions? Does anyone know? And before BBC Verify turns on me I would like to remind Marianna Spring that the Chatham House article referred to above reports that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself has observed that cloud brightening risks depleting the planet’s ozone layer and affects regional weather patterns, ‘while doing nothing to reduce ocean acidification; moreover that, in the case of cloud-seeding, there is uncertainty about adverse impacts on neighbouring countries, some of which are already coping with food or water security’.
The problems associated with geo-engineering are not hypothetical.
Journalist Lewis Brackpool recently submitted seven comprehensive Freedom of Information requests to various governmental departments, seeking details about a number of geo-engineering projects he has identified in the UK, including research initiatives, publications, funding sources, public awareness and consent, involvement of airliners, stakeholder engagement, and more. He has yet to receive satisfactory answers.
Of particular interest is an investigation being funded by a group of 18 West Country farmers and landowners who used an independent company to investigate levels and types of pollution in the soil, water, plant life, animals and human hair. The results of this I understand, may well form the basis of a prosecution against named companies carrying out ‘market leading aerial dispersant services’, which the group funding the investigation believes includes the spraying of sulphates, aluminium, barium and other toxic metals with the object of producing solar reflective cloud masses. A prosecution would likely expose government involvement and the misuse of taxpayers’ money to fund this attack on life and livelihood. Publicity about the case which appeared in open sources has – of course – been taken down: but it will not be covered up for ever.
The problem with any attempt at weather modification or climate change is that there are are always two sorts of effects from experiments like these – those that the experimenters intend, and those that they do not intend. Turning to the unintended – unless of course the destruction of our planet and all life on it is an intended consequence – the first effects will be those on food production. Plants need sunlight to photosynthesize and ripen and will not grow if the soil is waterlogged. Without plants there are no vegetable foods nor fodder for animals, therefore no meat either. So, put simply, starvation. The second set of effects will be those brought about by the chemicals being sprayed into the air such as sulphur dioxide, many extremely toxic to humans and animals and of course to plants, crops, soil and waterways. Once sprayed into the atmosphere they will inevitably drift down to earth and contaminate plants, water, people and animals. The result could be serious illnesses and probably deaths, along with the poisoning of the food chain and starvation. The final and most dangerous set of effects will occur if sustained spraying, tropospheric as well as stratospheric, succeeded in obliterating the sun. The initiation of a new glaciation would then be inevitable, would build very quickly and would obliterate life everywhere in its path.
The usual suspects, led by Bill Gates, are pouring money into these deadly campaigns. The UN has also pressed for further such globalist interventions to cool the climate.
Where do our elected politicians, whose duty is to secure the health, wealth and happiness of their citizens, stand on this? Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson bear ultimate responsibility in the last administration for ARIA and for Lockley’s secret project discussed in Part 3. Justin Tomlinson, who was Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, needs to come clean too. If their experiments continue, whether they be state funded or state sanctioned, their counterparts in the current administration will also be in the dock. I do not remember voting for any of this. Questions from the public are met with either silence or lies in the face of the published policy of the government telling us what a good thing this all is and that SRM is a last resort (to solve a non-existent problem). Lies that follow the line that comprehensive cloud formations are natural, that observers are looking at normal aircraft exhaust emissions and that people like me are conspiracy theorists, disregarding the incontrovertible prevalence of weather modification interventions around the globe that could leave us with no farms, no food and no future.