This page is for collecting (research) links for questioning climate change, geoengineering and weather modification.


Click to enlarge

Climate Change

Scientists are radically divided on the issue of abrupt climate change and few predict an upsurge any time soon. Nevertheless, it’s the scientists who base their opinion on first hand knowledge, “boots on the ground,” who are screaming the loudest. They do not let the “computer models” override what they personally experience. In contrast, they see and feel the reality “in the field.” They are like scientific pioneers in the field, in the marsh, below and above the ice, on expeditions into the wilderness where nobody cares to tread. It’s hard work.

Those scientific pioneers, like John Nissen, Chairman of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG), are deeply concerned about the rate of melt of the Arctic, and the attendant enormous plumes of methane, already observed in the Arctic seas, especially in the East Siberian Ice Shelf where waters are shallow and easily warmed, threatening to release gigatons of methane. Expeditions above, below, and on the surface have convinced these scientists that we’ve got a huge problem coming up, maybe soon, maybe too soon.

[linkview show_cat_name=”0″ cat_name=”Climate Change”]

Earth science watchdogs

[linkview show_cat_name=”0″ cat_name=”Earth Weather”] Space:
[linkview show_cat_name=”0″ cat_name=”Space Weather”]


Climate change conferences and treaties that serve the global government power grab? ~500-700 new bureaucracies? New taxes? 2-5 percent levies on GDP? If cap-and-trade is used & “buying allowance” is done with inflatory currencies, does that mean that pollution inflates further too? Is this the new bubble? How many more displacements and environmental damage due to enabling oiloholics, mineral buffs and other grubby grabbers overshoot loops?

Aside from that, the problem of artificial modification of the environment for military or other hostile purposes was brought to the international agenda in the early 1970s. Following the US decision of July 1972 to renounce the use of climate modification techniques for hostile purposes, the 1973 resolution by the US Senate calling for an international agreement “prohibiting the use of any environmental or geophysical modification activity as a weapon of war“, and an in-depth review by the US DoD of the military aspects of weather and other environmental modification techniques, US decided to seek agreement with the Soviet Union to explore the possibilities of an international agreement. The Environmental Modification Treaty came into force on 5 October 1978.

Meanwhile a moratorium on real-world geoengineering experimentation is urgent. Geoengineering experimentation is a violation of that 1978 Environmental Modification Treaty, yet seems to be rapidly on its way to become the next new Big Booming Business.

Hence, in my version of “Realpolitik”, I am not expecting any “authorities” to actually tackle governance of geoengineering as well as the evaluation of other new and emerging technologies that pose grave threats to the environment and to the hundreds of millions of people who depend upon its health for their livelihoods.

[linkview show_cat_name=”0″ cat_name=”Geopiracy Treaties”]


Realpolitik, we are advised, recognizes that the multilateral system can’t produce an equitable or effective agreement that will mitigate climate chaos: Recognizing this, concerned governments and scientists have no reasonable choice but to investigate technological strategies that could reduce or delay climate change, at least until social forces make a practical agreement possible. Also according to Realpolitik, there is no more hope of achieving a multilateral consensus on re-jigging the thermostat than there is of adopting effective targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Therefore, the issue is to create a narrative and construct a governance model that will allow a courageous, far-sighted, science-based “coalition of the willing” to justify their unilateral manipulation of the Earth’s systems. They call it geoengineering – we call it geopiracy.

[linkview show_cat_name=”0″ cat_name=”Geoengineering”]

Geoengineering Stakes

First and foremost is the international control of planetary systems: our water, lands and air. Second, is the commitment to climate change mitigation and adaptation. If some rich governments and industry see geoengineering as a quick, cheap fix for climate change, their money and technologies will be devoted to this “scientific solution” and there will be no resources to help the global South fend off the chaos ahead.

[linkview show_cat_name=”0″ cat_name=”Geoengineering Stakes”]

Geoengineering Actors

Leading the push to advance geoengineering experimentation are the UK’s Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, joined by counterparts in other countries such as Canada, Germany and Russia. Policymakers, who are looking for a way through the next election even more than a way out of climate change, are listening. Discussions are now taking place in Parliaments and Congresses. Major energy, aerospace and defence enterprises are remaining in the background, for now, allowing scientific hubris and conservative think tanks (the very ones that used to deny climate change) to take the heat. Once others deliver the “shock” – that climate chaos is upon us and GHG emissions won’t be reduced in time – industry can deliver the “therapy” of techno-fixes that will alter the stratosphere and/or restructure ocean surfaces to ostensibly buy us more time.

Only the world’s richest countries can really muster the hardware and software necessary to attempt rearranging the climate and resetting the thermostat. Equally unsurprising is that once the smog clears, the major private sector players in geoengineering will likely be the same energy, chemical, forestry and agribusiness companies that bear a large responsibility for creating our current climate predicament – in effect, the same folks who geoengineered us into this mess in the first place.

[linkview show_cat_name=”0″ cat_name=”Geoengineering Actors”]

Cloud seeding

Firing silver iodide, dry ice, and various salts into clouds to produce rain, and 220-millijoule pulses of infrared light …
[linkview show_cat_name=”0″ cat_name=”Cloud Seeding”]

Sky dimming

[linkview show_cat_name=”0″ cat_name=”Sky Dimming”]

Solar radiation management

Solar radiation management technologies aim to counter the effects of greenhouse gases by increasing the radiation of sunlight back into space. SRM encompasses a variety of techniques: covering deserts with reflective plastic, using reflective “pollution” to modify the atmosphere, or blocking incoming sunlight with “space shades.” Common to all these technologies is that they do not influence the concentration of greenhouse gases; they are only intended to counter some of their effects.

SRM has the potential to cause significant environmental damage, including releasing additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, changing weather patterns and reducing rainfall, damaging the ozone layer, diminishing biodiversity, reducing the effectiveness of solar cells, and risking sudden and dramatic climatic changes if the efforts are stopped, either intentionally or unintentionally.
[linkview show_cat_name=”0″ cat_name=”Solar Radiation Management”]

Ocean fertilisation

Dumping iron particles in the oceans to nurture CO2-absorbing plankton:

[linkview show_cat_name=”0″ cat_name=”Ocean Fertilisation”]

Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering

Blasting sulphate particles into the stratosphere to reflect the sun’s rays:
[linkview show_cat_name=”0″ cat_name=”Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering”]

Weather modification

Weather modification is another controversial issue and is often explicitly excluded from discussions of geoengineering. Some recent reports have excluded weather modification from their understanding of geoengineering, arguing that it is local and short-term and therefore, unlike geoengineering, intended to combat climate change.

Contemporary fascination with climate manipulation has its historical roots in weather modification and we would be unwise to ignore that history. The history, the intention, the technologies themselves, the institutions and the potential impacts have a great deal in common with global climate engineering schemes – there are too many overlaps with climate manipulation and too many potentially dangerous extraterritorial impacts to ignore this whole field of “science”.

[linkview show_cat_name=”0″ cat_name=”Weather modification”]


[linkview show_cat_name=”0″ cat_name=”Weather modification events”]

What future?

[linkview show_cat_name=”0″ cat_name=”Future”]

Got more links that are helpful for (our) research of overt or covert interventions going on? Post in the comments below please!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *