June 26, 2019 By Joseph P. Farrell

On Monday I blogged about the subject of weather modification, and pointed out that the sheer number of actors with access to some form of weather modification technologies has grown dramatically, and with it, the pressure to create a central authority to monopolize such technology's use and deployment. I also  pointed out that the thesis of Elana Freeland, authoress of Under an Ionized Sky, is that given the extent, and length of time, that weather modifications efforts have been under way, that there is no longer any such thing as purely "natural" weather. It's that pressure to centralize authority, which I talked about on Monday, which is creating the next "change of meme" to come down the pike.

Remember how we got to the meme of "climate change" and how it was all "man's fault"? It started out as "the coming ice age", then it became "global warming", and now it's climate change. Along the way, a "gimongous" amount of "papers" were published, modeling how humans were producing "climate change." Virtually every human activity has been blamed for contributing to "the problem": cattle ranching and cattle flatulence, use of fossil fuels, &c. And long the way, draconian measures have been proposed to curtail the activities of these "climate change" creators, including massive taxation, and so on. Most regular readers of this website are more than familiar with all these memes and arguments.

But seldom, if ever, are the real sources of man-made climate change every mentioned in those papers generated from their computer models. Ask yourself this: when was the last time you encountered a climate change apocalypse-predicting paper full of computer models that took into account and incorporated the geoengineering technologies - cloud seeding, chemical spraying, ionospheric heaters, and so on - as a component of the computer modeling?

I'm willing to concede that there may be such papers. But if so, I've not heard of them. And more importantly, if there are such papers, they never seem to be the ones mentioned in the lamestream media discussions of the subject, nor are they ever mentioned by the so-called conservative opposition.

With that in mind, R.B., who supplied some of the articles for Monday's blog, also ran across this article:

What’s in a name? Why we became C2G

Note what's going on here, and they're "right up front" about it, and place the whole scheme right at the beginning of the article:

As of today, Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative (C2G2) will go by a new name: Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G).

This was not a decision taken lightly, but one we felt had become increasingly important to achieve our core mission: to catalyze the governance of emerging large-scale approaches to tackle climate risk, such as carbon dioxide removal or solar radiation modification.

As an initiative with the term ‘geoengineering’ in its title, C2G2 was sometimes – mistakenly – viewed as promoting ‘geoengineering’. This brought with it many negative connotations and misunderstandings, which hampered our ability to engage with society, and to catalyse the learning processes necessary to take informed decisions.

If terminology stands in the way of understanding, then it should be changed.

Our mission, however, remains the same.

In other words, just as a large segment of the human population is waking up to the reality of geoengineering technologies, the people actually promoting the use of such technologies ostensibly to fight "climate change" (and which in fact are driving the phenomenon) are now ready to start talking about precisely the creation of the governance of the climate, and that means that we can be expecting to hear about the creation of global governance structures to legalize the monopoly on such technologies, particularly the more exotic ones, which only a narrow technocratic segment of the population already controls.  At one stroke, they are attempting to take the concept of geoengineering out of the public eye, and to remove it as a source and cause of climate change, and to dress it up as the technology to combat climate change.

It's the typical tactic of the Gnostic: redefine reality by manipulations of language.  And with that, it's its own species of unreality.

The problem is, Climate governance remains geoengineering. It is, in effect, the admission that much  of climate change is caused by humans, and by these technologies.

In other words, folks, these statements are the admission that the technocrats have caused it just as much as fossil fuels, or cattle ranchers.

But rest assured, the technologies themselves - the ionospheric heaters and chemical spraying - will still not appear as causes in their computer-generated models and the resulting "scientific" papers.

See you on the flip side...