UNConventional Grey

 

Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims. 

Click here to sign the People's Proclamation and send it to everyone you know.

Source: A Plague on Both Houses

UNConventional Grey RUSERE SHONIWA NOV 22   READ IN APP   Screenshot from UNConventional Grey documentary In a two-part piece I did on geoengineering, I referenced a documentary that I thought deserved its own space in a separate post. Well, here it is – UNConventional Grey: https://odysee.com/@StopTheCrime:d/UN-Conventional:d While Dane Wigington’s latest documentary titled “The Dimming” is necessary viewing, I prefer UNConventional Grey, partly because it does a better job of explaining the evolution of Geoengineering as a military weapon. It also succeeds in explaining the corporate agenda behind the Climate Change movement. On 10 December 1976, the UN General Assembly passed resolution 31/72 – Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. That’s a clue to how long geoengineering has been going on. It started long before 1976 but by then concerns about its abuse had already gathered enough momentum to give rise to a globally recognised convention. The Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) serves the US Department of Defense as a repository of government funded scientific research. In 1996 it published a paper that is quite blunt about the US strategic military application of weather modification: “In 2025, US aerospace forces can own the weather by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war fighting applications. Such a capability offers the war fighter tools to shape the battlespace in ways never before possible. It provides opportunities to impact operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures. The purpose of this paper is to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather modification system to achieve military objectives rather than to provide a detailed technical road map. A high risk, high reward endeavor, weather modification offers a dilemma not unlike the splitting of the atom. While some segments of society will always be reluctant to examine controversial issues such as weather modification, the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at our own peril. From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather modification offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary.” [emphasis added] The documentary also makes the point that I tried to make in my Geoengineering articles. If you respect the scientific method, it’s your duty to be a climate sceptic because there is neither a consensus of scientists nor a scientific consensus over the debate about whether man-made CO2 emissions are the primary driver of climate change or if climate change poses the existential threat to humanity that climate alarmists would have us believe. But being a climate sceptic isn’t enough when geoengineering could be the Frankenstein’s monster we should really fear. In the documentary there is a section which encapsulates this. A geoengineering sceptic poses the following question to a panel of geoengineering scientists: “In 2010 the World Meteorological Organization released a report which listed 42 countries engaged in full-time weather modification activities. This list [presumably referring to a sub-list] is just from the US alone. It’s very extensive. it would take all day to go through. I just want to highlight one particular program. It was carried out by division V Cloud Seeding. The area covered in this particular program was 184,000 square miles in volume. Now the IPCC does not list any mention of weather modification in any of its reports….with all of these weather modification programs taking place, how would you determine whether that event [extreme weather event] was caused by nature or whether it was caused by climate intervention?” [emphasis added, time stamp 1:04:15] The response from a panelist: “Your question is a very good one and climate scientists have to be very careful about attribution.” [video clip ends there] Another speaker later claims that the responder acknowledged that the IPCC ignores the effects of weather modification in its reports and models. The documentary also claims that climate agreements signed at successive UN Climate Change conferences have created a framework that legitimizes geoengineering by the signatory states without any input from national electorates and legislators. Which would explain why so many governments are stealthily engaging in geoengineering projects in the knowledge that should they face legal challenges, they can point to clauses in Climate Change agreements that legitimise sweeping and undefined action to address climate change. Ultimately this documentary succeeds in covering not just geoengineering but the entire corporate agenda behind Climate Change as the primary vehicle for a new and complex energy tracking and rationing industry that will transfer vast amounts of wealth to global corporates, paid for by you, the taxpayer.

"Geoengineering – Part II: Terrorism, The Insane Society and The System" by Rusere Shoniwa

 

Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims. 

Click here to sign the People's Proclamation and send it to everyone you know.

Source: A Plague on Both Houses

Geoengineering – Part II: Terrorism, The Insane Society and The System

RUSERE SHONIWA

OCT 13, 2023

Screengrab from The Dimming - Documentary by Geoengineering Watch

Having surveyed the potential devastation and idiocy of geoengineering in Part I, how can we put it into some kind of moral context? First, let’s understand that what is going on – from geoengineering, to the covid fiasco, to Ukraine, to the War of Terror – is state terrorism. In fact, it’s more than that because of its seemingly contradictory features of sheer scale accompanied by public apathy to it.

I have often used the word ‘terrorist’ to describe the criminal activity of the US, UK and other allied governments. I am not exaggerating for dramatic effect. I actually think it doesn’t go far enough in capturing the institutional psychopathy we’re dealing with. The word terrorist is typically used to describe the threat or use of violence to advance a political aim. It should go without saying that terror and fear are synonymous, but it’s important to emphasise this simple point in order to remind ourselves that, when governments use fear as a tool of coercion, they are terrorising you. And that’s before we get into an analysis of the brutal impact of these terror campaigns in the form of actual death and other harms. There is no question that this criminality by our governments is rife, not just in stoking fear to influence behaviour but in the callous termination of life in pursuance of political objectives.

Of course, ministers don’t mount the podium and tell you that they’re trying to kill you. That would be poor taste. But they know that lockdowns cause cascading misery in myriad ways and therefore shorten lives. They know that covid ‘vaccines’ are causing excess deaths. They know that they are decimating the population of fighting-age men in Ukraine in order to destroy a country so that global capital can profit from its reconstruction. They know that forced farm buyouts will restrict food supplies and cause starvation. They must know that blocking out the sun has to be one of the most outlandishly stupid and dangerous undertakings ever dreamt up since humans crawled out of the proverbial sludge. And so on, ad nauseam. So why do we let them get away with murder? Why have so many in the West signed up to this death cult?

Some would argue that state violence resulting in death is not qualitatively the same as the crime of murder, on the grounds that it isn’t premeditated. They might argue that it’s more akin to some sort of inevitable, and therefore excusable, collateral damage in pursuance of noble policy agendas. Is it murder or manslaughter by incompetence? But is the latter any less evil than the former if you can prove that the state’s actions could reasonably have been expected to result in deaths? If so, I see no reason to grant any degree of leniency. If someone wanted to get rich and also decided that achieving that goal entailed killing someone else, is the taking of life more excusable because enrichment was the primary motivator? I think not.

I am convinced that we are dealing with state terrorism here, but why is the word ‘terrorism’ inadequate to describe what governments are doing? Well, a terrorist group is by its very nature a weak entity. Terrorists resort to terror precisely because they are challenging an entity far more powerful than they are. They have calculated (always incorrectly) that terrorism is the only tool available to advance their political agenda. On the other hand, the US and its allied governments are the most powerful entities on the planet. And they are made all the more powerful by virtue of being captured by, and therefore serving the interests of, the most economically powerful interest group in modern history – global capital.

Global corporate interests have subsumed the function of the state and either created or captured supranational and unaccountable organisations to create a three-headed monster that now imposes its will on humanity. The growth of this three-headed monster – global corporates, national governments and supranational NGOs – has spawned crimes against humanity the scale of which beggars belief. One paradox of having this much power at their disposal is that the perpetrators can disguise their crimes as the inevitable consequence of large-scale bureaucratic endeavour, a camouflage that is not available to relatively small-time, amateur terrorist groups like Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda is forced to be transparent about its terrorism, which in itself leads to its inevitable defeat. We, on the other hand, vote for our terrorists in official ceremonies called ‘democratic elections’. Politicians then claim that they are merely trying to do the difficult jobs that we elected them to do. Their jobs are so vast in scope that mistakes are bound to happen when dealing with health and safety at a national or global level. And so, in an act of insanity comparable to and supportive of the governments’ criminality, societies shrug their shoulders.

Despite these all-too-frequently occurring and colossal ‘mistakes’, media outlets are able to either bury them completely or propagandise them as the inevitable consequence of crisis management. But the reality is that The System purposefully subjects us time and again to callous and inhuman experiments. Following mass recalcitrance in the form of Brexit and Trumpism, The System’s managers told us what to expect in 2016 when they snarled: “it’s time for the elites to rise up against the ignorant masses”.

At any rate, this is why government terrorism is far more successful and effective than the amateurish ISIS or Al-Qaeda brands. Ironically, when terrorism is scaled up to the government level or, better still, the international level of the UN and the WHO with their pandemic treaties and Agenda 2030 programmes, then strangely, the terrorism becomes undetectable or more palatable to the masses. 95 people killed by police incompetence at a football match – that’s obvious and everyone cries foul. An estimated ten million killed globally by a ‘safe and effective’ ‘vaccine’ and possibly billions maimed – not so obvious. This is what makes the lethal medicine go down – it’s cloaked in arcane bureaucratic processes, the language of public health, and treaties and legislation put before our elected stooges in parliament.

And the whole enterprise is managed by an administrative class whose souls are dead; they have lost the human instinct (‘intelligence’ has nothing to do with it) to see things for what they are, or they lack the courage to resist even if they could see it.

So we need a new name for the global public-private partnership reign of terror that is being unleashed. No terrorist organisation has ever dreamed of conquering the world, but geoengineering epitomises the galactic ambition of the new self-declared masters of the universe. For these megalomaniac psychopaths, the world just isn’t enough. Confident that they now own the world, they have set their sights on conquering the sun, and in doing so, they aspire to outdo the gods of ancient Greek myth.

The bigger picture – why is it happening?

Dane Wigington explained in his interview with RFK Jnr that there is evidence that large-scale geoengineering experiments involving the US military spraying particulates began shortly after World War II. By 1962, these experiments led former US president Lyndon Johnson to declare that “he who controls the weather, controls the world“. It is therefore reasonable to deduce that the military industrial complex sees the potential for disrupting crop and food production by intervening in weather patterns as a weapon of war. Degrading an enemy’s capacity to fight by degrading its resources without them either knowing or being able to prove that they have been targeted is a central tenet of 5th Generation Warfare, and weather manipulation fits perfectly into this toolkit. It is therefore highly likely that geoengineering is a military project that, owing to its increasing exposure, has, of necessity, latched onto the ‘climate crisis’ as a pretext for its ongoing development and deployment against targets of the collapsing US empire. It could then make the ‘climate crisis’ a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But that doesn’t explain why we have handed over the keys to the planet to psychotic war planners. They might be howling-at-the-moon mad but surely most of us aren’t? How did we get to the point where people who should be in straitjackets are running the world? As John Lennon correctly surmised: “our society is run by insane people for insane objectives…by maniacs for maniacal ends.”

As an aside, and as a way of unveiling madness, we should try to be alert to the abuse of language by the maniacs and their minions to disguise their insane antics. The MIT Review talks about how SRM “creates a moral hazard”. The children’s TV “News” crew at CBS used the word “controversial”. The Daily Mail is of the view that one government that thinks it has the right to unilaterally endanger the lives of every human on Earth with an act of inter-planetary terrorism is “audacious”. That word actually has positive connotations (daring and intrepid), but at worst simply implies that the US government is being a bit cheeky and insolent by toying with the lives of all Earth dwellers. When you see words like “moral hazard”, “controversial” and “audacious” being bandied about in relation to the antics of these sociopaths, understand that what we should  really be saying is: “They are bypassing Satan’s intermediaries and taking orders directly from the Devil himself”.

It should go without saying that the lunatics engaging in geoengineering do not own the Earth, humanity, or the sun and therefore have no right to even contemplate, let alone engage in, the sort of destructive unilateral action that is already in train. Attempts by a parasitic class of rulers to control nature, all of humanity and indeed the planets, must be seen as the inevitable consequence of a system that selects for, and therefore rewards, psychopathy because narcissism, Machiavellianism and control-freakery are highly advantageous character traits for rising to the very top of that system.

So the language of mental illness, as a starting point, has validity. But what most of us don’t realise is that we operate in a system that does the opposite of controlling for madness. It rewards madness. That system acts as an insanity force-multiplier while paradoxically hiding its diabolical flaw from us. As I said, the terrorism this system produces is so enormous that we cannot conceive of it as being primarily the product of a few insane individuals. I say ‘primarily’ because ultimately it is our system – we are collectively doing this to ourselves. Terrorism is a word we have customarily reserved for small bands of extreme outliers. Our chosen leaders, responsible for the smooth ordering of all facets of our lives, can’t possibly be terrorists! So we transfer culpability to a less tangible process. And we are partly correct, since a few individuals would not be able to wreak such havoc if we had not handed them the controls to vast and powerful machines – the machinery of government, the economy, academic institutions, and so on.

All of this is so big that it is too big for many of us to see. Our inability to comprehend the monsters we empower is well understood by the monsters themselves. Referring to the web of lies that intelligence agencies create and navigate, the first director of the FBI, J Edgar Hoover, remarked:

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists.”

We are now at a point where all the monstrous lies created in the past several decades are coalescing into a storm that could sink us unless we see them for what they are.

Geoengineering is just part of a broader pattern of global terror that was launched with the planet-wide lockdowns and coerced vaccination of 2020-2022. Afraid that people will resist the terror wielded by the vaccinators’ needles, the Dr Strangeloves have applied their imagination to enforcing covert involuntary vaccination by developing an airborne method for delivering mRNA right to your lungs. A ‘One Health’ paradigm for the entire planet is in the process of being rubber-stamped by the global public-private partnership. Under that paradigm, one person at the helm of the WHO will have the power to declare a wide array of health emergencies and unilaterally impose pharmaceutical interventions on the entire planet, all underpinned by an elaborate infrastructure of biomedical digital ID and online censorship, paid for with your tax money, thanks very much! 

The G20 sub-group of the public-private-partnership is committed to the implementation of Digital ID and programmable Central Bank Digital Currencies, the combination of which grants the controllers of these technologies the ability to instantaneously and arbitrarily control populations by locking people out of the financial payment system based on dissident behaviour detected by referencing your digital ID record. The message in all of this is clear – you are livestock, and resistance is futile. The System managers’ war cry in 2016 bears repeating – “it’s time for the elites to rise up against the ignorant masses”. The correct term for these ‘elites’ – the owners and managers of The System on which global capital is built – is parasites – life forms that leech the life out of other life forms and give nothing back in return.

Having conquered the world’s economy and established itself as the first-ever truly global hegemonic power, global capital is, as CJ Hopkins rightly points out, conducting clear-and-hold operations to extinguish pockets of resistance. Covid 1984 was the launch of project Total Control – global totalitarianism. Not only will they not back off, they can’t back off. The financial and monetary system that serves as the foundation of The System’s power is collapsing. Myriad financial assets that serve as complex, and mostly fictitious, measures of wealth are all nestled in a giant debt ponzi scheme that is about to explode. The controllers are doing what controllers are supposed to do – they’re trying to engineer a controlled demolition. The alternative is a repeat of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis on steroids. They aren’t going to sit back and watch hundreds of grenades randomly going off in their faces. This control strategy entails birthing a new system, which they would like to see emerge like a phoenix from the ashes. A system that acts as a bridge from this disaster to a stable and permanent form of technocratic global totalitarianism.

Losing control of the collapse risks losing control of their ill-gotten gains. There is therefore no limit to the depravity to which they will sink to hold onto power. Hence sun dimming, air vaxxing, planned rationing more severe than WWII, eating bugs to ‘save the planet’, attempts to normalise cannibalism, legislated censorship, and a digital gulag enforced with programmable Central Bank Digital Currency.

Humanity is now being asked to prove whether we really understand and want this thing called freedom. If we can’t collectively reject the hell that The System’s controllers have planned for us – a hell so huge that it is hiding in plain sight – then we don’t understand the value of freedom and we definitely don’t deserve it.

"Geoengineering – Part I: The Real Monster of Man-made Climate Change" by Rusere Shoniwa

 

Geoengineering – Part I: The Real Monster of Man-made Climate Change

RUSERE SHONIWA

OCT 8, 2023

1

Share

Read Time:15 Minutes

In my rebuttal of Jonathan Cook’s fact-bending ‘climate-crisis’ narrative, I speculated that:

“If human activity is not a significant driver of climate change, it stands to reason that the proposed measures aimed at curbing humanity’s alleged contribution to this climate catastrophe will not only be futile but will also likely be disastrous for humanity.”

The disastrous measures I had in mind were the Agenda 2030 rationing measures aimed at severely curbing fossil fuel usage combined with unrealistic renewable energy goals; measures designed to choke economies and immiserate the bulk of humanity.

There is, however, an elephant of sorts in the climate-change room when it comes to discussing ‘decarbonisation’ measures: that elephant is human climate manipulation, or geoengineering. Coverage of it is increasing in the alt-media Freedom Movement space, but I can’t help feeling there is a reluctance to tackle unscientific climate alarmism and geoengineering together. It’s as if there’s a fear of sceptic-overload, and yet I don’t see how you can be a climate sceptic and ignore geoengineering. But the Daily Sceptic, which is prolific in its high-quality debunking of unscientific climate alarmism, doesn’t seem to know how to broach the topic of geoengineering. A search on the Daily Sceptic site threw up just two results, and one was a reference to another article in their round-up section. I’m beginning to find that odd.

Geoengineering has been rising steadily in my consciousness over the past year or two, and it is truly terrifying. So terrifying that I haven’t yet been able to quite express my thoughts on it. It has left me stupefied. Watching a documentary on it has helped me clarify why it has had this effect. I will share that documentary in a post to follow this one because it deserves its own space. This essay is an attempt to un-stupefy myself; to find the words to describe how insane geoengineering is. But the words don’t come easy.

Dr Joseph Mercola has recently published an exposé on geoengineering. His piece is based on the U.S. presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s recent interview with Dane Wigington, founder of GeoengineeringWatch.org. I highly recommend watching it if you haven’t already done so. It’s a video that should cause a glitch in the matrix of those living in normie world because it discusses compelling evidence that makes the whole subject a little harder to dismiss with the usual thought-terminating cliché of ‘conspiracy theory’.

Geoengineering in a nutshell

Geoengineering is man-made manipulation of the climate –  playing God with the weather. It’s the deliberate manipulation of climate and weather systems using, among other things, toxic aerosol spraying of light-scattering particulates into the atmosphere to block sunlight from reaching the earth’s surface, with the aim of creating a cooling effect. This is done from the back of military and commercial jet aircraft. Yes – chemtrails. They’re real. These particulates contain heavy metals such as aluminium nanoparticles. Lab tests conducted by Geoengineering Watch also show the presence of barium, strontium, titanium, manganese, polymer fibres, surfactant chemicals, and graphene in these particulate trails, as well as in rain. Aluminium alone kills the root systems of plants and trees, as well as the soil microbiome. It also alters soil pH, which makes it harder for some crops to grow. We end up ingesting it in food grown in the contaminated soil, and it’s neurotoxic to humans.

Mercola cites a geoengineering map created by the ETC Group and the Heinrich Boell Foundation, which shows how geoengineering projects have expanded from some 300 in 2012 to more than 1,700 in 2023.

Dane Wigington believes that there has been a 25-30% reduction in the sun’s rays that reach the earth’s surface owing to the effect of toxic aerosol spraying that has been going on for decades without our permission and knowledge. These particulates settle in oceans, rivers and in the soil, causing damage to those ecosystems. Just how much damage has been caused to date is unclear.

This report by News Uncut quotes reliable sources confirming that geoengineering experiments are taking place. Mainstream propaganda machines like CBS News were giving it their trademark cheery spin as far back as 2021. As with all propaganda, the CBS report begins with an unchallenged premise, uncritical acceptance of which is your civic duty – namely that climate change and global warming are evils that we must “fight”. I have expressed my doubts about the climate-crisis assumption in previous articles by positing a very different paradigm, namely that it is your civic duty to be a climate sceptic because that’s what the scientific method demands, especially when there are a group of scientists who claim there is a climate crisis and another group of scientists who claim, in good faith, that there isn’t one. Under those circumstances, to insist, as CBS News does, that there most definitely is a climate crisis simply makes you a climate and/or science religionist.

Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims. 

Click here to sign the People's Proclamation and send it to everyone you know.

Source: A Plague on Both Houses

A dimmer switch for the Sun – The Science™ is so simple!

Let’s take a look at reports that disclose planned geoengineering activity, bearing in mind that these reports would not be coming out if the technologies were not already being seriously considered and if they had not already pilot tested the technologies.

The White House’s report issued in June 2023 titled “Congressionally-Mandated Report on Solar Radiation Modification” sets out in detail its plan for use of “atmospheric-based approaches to solar radiation modification (SRM), specifically stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB)”.

Infusing the subject with all the nuance of a four-year-old discussing his favourite dessert, here’s what the cretin at CBS News has to say about SRM:

“What you do is you fly planes into the stratosphere, about 60,000 feet into the atmosphere, and you just spray aerosols, and it blocks out, it dims the sun, enough of the sun to perhaps reduce temperatures by a degree Fahrenheit. Of course you wouldn’t want to do too much of that. It’s very simple. It’s very inexpensive. It may only cost a few billion dollars a year….but because it’s so inexpensive it freaks a lot of scientists out. It can be done unilaterally. It could be done by a small nation. It could be done by a really rich person. And we don’t know what the side effects are. There hasn’t been much research done into this yet.” [emphasis added]

In fairness to the CBS News boy and girl in the linked video, they point out that it might not all be strawberries and cream because they say that the cumulative effect of any temperature-blocking might rebound all at once as soon as the intervention was paused. But even that is probably a gross oversimplification of what would happen if humans cackhandedly interfered with nature’s complex weather systems because the boy, while managing to preserve the expression of a three-year old who’s been handed a puppy for his birthday, then says this rebounding is predicated on not having engaged in any decarbonisation measures, which, in turn, is based on the contested IPCC theory that carbon dioxide is the dominant cause of all global warming.

The more important point to make, which is not given sufficient prominence by the CBS News dynamic duo, is that it is impossible to predict the outcome of this insane experiment, and that we would not be contemplating it if the ‘scientists’ promoting this stupidity were capable of acknowledging the limits of their puny knowledge base.

I make no apologies for the boy/girl characterisation because it’s impossible to watch that video and see anything other than children playing at being adults. Their self-abasing psychological regression is integral to the ‘news’ pantomime that infantilises the public with IQ-lowering kindergarten narratives designed to brainwash the masses into not just accepting but enjoying the abuse inflicted on them by their overlords.

Enter some sober adults

Gregg Braden is a five-time New York Times best-selling author, scientist and educator,  and has been invited to speak to The United Nations, Fortune 500 companies and the U. S. military. Let’s juxtapose the CBS News Kindergarten version against his more circumspect and adult assessment of solar radiation modification. Page 22 of the White House’s detailed plan states:

“For SAI [stratospheric aerosol injection] experiments, of interest is how aerosols are formed and evolve in the real stratosphere in response to the injection of aerosols or aerosol-precursor gases (e.g., sulfur dioxide).” [emphasis added]

In a video titled “Now They Want to Block the Sunlight From Reaching the Earth”, Braden points out that spraying millions of tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere has a lot of potential downside:

·         It returns to the earth as acid rain which lowers the PH of the soil.

·         It lowers soil fertility.

·         It is harmful to forests.

·         It increases soil erosion due to loss of plant life.

·         It returns to rivers, lakes and oceans, increasing acidification of those water reservoirs.

·         It kills phytoplankton, which is the base of the ocean food chain.

·         It kills marine life.

·         It causes allergic and respiratory problems for humans.

Braden illustrates the complexity of the earth’s ecosystem by showing a map of the human metabolic system. Click on the human metabolic map to appreciate not only its mind-boggling complexity but also how one change in a dietary variable affects myriad metabolic pathways in ways we still don’t understand. Then ask yourself why this same principle would not apply to the planet’s complex ecosystem of interrelated systems, including the atmosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere and biosphere. This mooted barbaric interference in such a dynamic, interrelated and complex system must surely amount to attempting to fix a Swiss watch with a monkey wrench. It’s also another reason why it is unfathomable to me that anyone could be confident of the simplistic argument that global warming today is predominantly driven by one variable, namely CO2.

Braden also discusses a Yale report that speculated on what might be involved in implementing this idiotic scheme. It would require a mere 175,000 particle-spraying flights per year, which…wait for it… would release millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the air. Thankfully, it seems that the morons may have stymied themselves with their own simplistic single-cause, single-solution model of climate catastrophe.

Citing Geoengineering Watch, Mercola notes that:

“while global cooling is the stated aim of most of these geoengineering programs, as the planet warms, the laws of physics state you need more precipitation to cool it, not less, because the atmosphere carries more moisture as the temperature rises.

To cool the planet, you need to create more rain, but these programs have resulted in less rain, and the reason for the reduction in rainfall is due to the particulates in the atmosphere. In addition to deflecting heat from the outside, these particles also trap heat down below, making the overall heating of the planet massively worse.”

If these people are claiming they have science on their side, it’s not difficult to expose the absurdity of that claim. Dimming the sun has never been tried before, and basic principles of ethical science demand that a containable, small-scale experiment be conducted in order to predict and avoid industrial-scale mayhem. It can’t be done in this case because scaling up the experiment is the only way you’ll know if it really works. Under this potentially genocidal plan, the test subjects are the entire human species and planet Earth. We don’t have a control group – as far as we know, there’s only one planet Earth and one human species.

I had a sneaking suspicion that the sun is vitally important to life on Earth, so I went in search of some reliable confirmation. Here’s how NASA’s history division expresses it:

“Nothing is more important to us on Earth than the Sun. Without the Sun’s heat and light, the Earth would be a lifeless ball of ice-coated rock. The Sun warms our seas, stirs our atmosphere, generates our weather patterns, and gives energy to the growing green plants that provide the food and oxygen for life on Earth.” [emphasis added]

There you have it. No further emphasis or elucidation is required to convince me that dimming the sun by poisoning the environment and humans with toxic particulates would be an act of global terrorism, ecocide and possible genocide. To add to the senselessness of it all, if that were possible, it would be done in the name of preventing something that might not be happening – namely a CO2-driven ‘climate crisis’.

Geoengineering also turns the already deceptive ‘climate crisis’ debate into a hall of mirrors: is it the real man-made climate change monster being used to fulfil the false prophecy of a man-made climate crisis while also doubling up as the excuse to fight the alleged crisis? More on that in Part II.

Another thing that jumped out at me was NASA’s admission that the sun “generates our weather patterns”. That looks like an admission that climate change is multifactorial and can’t be pinned solely on man-made CO2 emissions. Now, I suspect that the climate-crisis alarmists will immediately accuse me of confusing climate change with weather patterns. Well, don’t blame me because that’s what the alarmist-in-chief, the UN, is doing. Its definition of climate change is:

“Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.” [emphasis added]

There’s more than one problem with the UN’s definition that signifies both an ideological stance and leads to ideological blowback. First, there is no definition of “long-term”, which I think is deliberate because they want to incorporate weather patterns which, in turn, serves the purpose of using wildfires and hot summers as incontrovertible evidence that the end is nigh.

Second, it’s dishonest to claim that “since the 1800s” burning fossil fuels has been the main driver of climate change. Take a look at this linked graph and you’ll see that fossil fuel usage only ramps up to any significant degree post-1950. So what we’re really seeing is a claim that in a relatively short space of time (roughly 50 years since 1950 to the early 2000s), fossil fuel usage has created an existential climate-crisis that will be dramatically averted in an even shorter time frame (between now and 2050) by drastically dialling back fossil fuel usage before 2050. My point being, where does “long-term”, not defined, come into any of this?

Third, there’s the admission of the role of solar activity and other factors at play in climate change, immediately followed by the complete dismissal of these factors in the modern era because only humans could possibly be the problem. But there is no explanation of how they managed to unequivocally untangle the potential influence of human and other climate change factors. Needless to say, untangling the effect of all these factors, human and other, is vital to understanding the causes of climate change. After all, it has been happening since the beginning of time, and if the climate experienced dramatic changes before 1800 (hint: it certainly did), humans might not be the sole causative factor in the post-1800 era.

Dangerous man-made CO2 climate change versus dangerous geoengineering climate change

Suffice to say, there is more than enough reason to halt all geoengineering that has been going on for decades and to nix any future Frankenstein projects. In concluding Part I, I want to discuss what I think is an incongruity in Dane Wigington’s conceptualisation of climate change. He believes that man-made CO2-driven climate change is a real danger but has chosen to focus his efforts on raising the alarm about geoengineering on the grounds that the latter is a more dire environmental threat than the former.

Given that his website resource focuses on geoengineering, his particular arguments, if they are qualitatively different to the IPCC’s, aren’t clear to me, so I don’t understand the basis for his expressed certitude in dangerous man-made CO2 climate change. My position is scepticism based on the rational premise that his position is not based on a scientific consensus. It’s not even based on a consensus of scientists. (The two are different, and if one of the conditions were met, I would regard my position as a little more shaky.)

I am aware of a view that posits from a political perspective that one has to acknowledge, even if one has doubts, the CO2 man-made ‘climate-crisis’ narrative in order to make some progress on putting the brakes on geoengineering. This form of intellectual dishonesty makes no sense to me, to put it mildly, because disingenuously acknowledging a CO2-driven climate crisis not supported by a scientific consensus opens the door to some kind of dangerous mitigation policy, either in the form of Agenda 2030 economic strangulation, or environmental destruction by geoengineering, or worse still, a combination of both. If both the CO2 ‘climate crisis’ and geoengineering are wrong, an either/or choice leaves you trying to decide between two ‘mitigating’ poisons that are both potentially lethal. If both are wrong, both must be rejected.

In Part II, I will zoom out in an attempt to put geoengineering into some kind of moral context and give a sense of the enormity of the issue.