The Website of Dr. Joseph P. Farrell


If you thought the idea of geoengineering in conjunction with social engineering was fanciful, there's this bit of news from New Scientist (courtesy of a regular reader here, Ms. P.H.). This one should make everyone sit and ponder for a few minutes:

CIA spooks investigate geoengineering to fix climate

Any way one slices this one, we have a cornucopia of themes that the alternative research community will find quite intriguing, and in some sense, corroborative of views that have long been aired in such circles. Consider, for example, these admissions:

"In fact, the CIA's main interest in geoengineering does not lie in any offensive use. Rather, the US intelligence community sees climate change as a potential threat to global geopolitical stability, and so wants a thorough analysis of the mitigation options. "On a subject like climate change, the agency works with scientists to better understand the phenomenon and its implications on national security," says Ned Price, a CIA spokesperson.

"Given the CIA's interest, the study may consider the danger of nations starting geoengineering projects unilaterally, benefiting themselves but posing problems for others. "An important issue to address is the question of rogue actors," suggests panel member Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology, based at Stanford University in California.

"But the main focus of the final report, due in the second half of 2014, will be a scientific assessment of the feasibility of three or four proposed geogineering technologies – such as scattering sulphate aerosols high into the atmosphere to reflect the sun's energy, or storing carbon dioxide in the deep ocean. The panel will also consider the risks, which in the latter case would include accelerating ocean acidification."

Now, anyone following the story of weather modification will already be aware of the Pentagon studies that clearly that clearly state that one goal is to "own the weather" as a "force multiplier" (I'm paraphrasing here but that's the gist). So apparently, weather modification is ok if the USA does it, but nobody else (which might come as a disappointment to the Russians, who have developed similar capabilities if some in the alternative research community are to be believed). So the real problem isn't that it may be a bad idea, but rather, the strategic imperative.

But there's more, and chem-trail enthusiasts will be quick to spot it: spraying aerosols in the atmosphere to reflect the sun's energy. Here we see the same kind of scientism hubris we've encountered before, with GMOs: inadequate long-term testing, bought and paid for "scientists" without an ounce of common sense, sitting around tables debating whether or not to spray the atmosphere with all sorts of gunk, to stop environmental problems that not all scientists are agreed is even happening, and those that do agree, aren't agreed on the mechanism(s).

Anyone reading this, however, who thinks that these things have not been going on for a while, is rather naive, being like those who are "shocked" and "dismayed" and "disgusted" at the Snowden "revelations"(note the qualification), whereas, if you've been paying attention to the whole development since the INSLAW scandal and the Department of Justice's theft of Promis software, the idea that the US government only recently started massive electronic surveillance is merely wishful thinking.

The same with spraying and with weather modification. They've been doing both for decades. The fact that they're just now informing us means, if the patterns in evidence in previous "disclosures" hold true, that they've developed the technologies far beyond the experimental stage.

See you on the flip side.

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".

There are 22 comments Join the conversation

Comments are closed.