THE ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION CONVENTION OF 1976

THE ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION CONVENTION OF 1976

As you might have guessed, I've been much focused upon the subject of geoengineering lately, given that much of America's breadbasket has been so under water this season that many crops did not even get planted, and many farmers are facing ruin. But not to worry, disaster capitalism is alive and well, and various journals of crony c(r)apitalism are urging people to buy up farmland, on the cheap. It was a predictable move given the strangeness of the last cycle of storms, which set a record for the number of tornadoes for the year, and they all occurred within a week and a half. Geoengineering has reached such a fever pitch of insanity that yesterday I blogged about people talking about moving the Earth's orbit in case the Sun decides to go nova, which we're reassured won't happen for billions of years (that's without all that high-tech stuff perhaps inducing unknown resonance effects).

It's that technological angle that has me exercised today, for a number of regular readers of this website have been sending in various articles on the subject, and V.T. sent an article that sent me looking at the 1976 Environmental Modification Convention, and that in turn brought me to this valuable website which those of you concerned about this technology might want to bookmark:

The Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) Weather Warfare Ban

Weaponizing the weather has been an idea that's been around for a long time,but it received a huge kick during the Second World War, when there were actually serious proposals for producing tsunamis ahead of Allied invasion forces invading Japanese held islands in the  Pacific. The efforts continued after World War Two, particularly in the USA and the Soviet Union, and, as this site actually notes, the USSR engaged in heavy weather modification after the Chernobyl disaster to force rains to "bleed" out radioactivity prior to it reaching Moscow. But it is this convention that tells a whole story, for as V.T. put it in the email that accompanied this article, why bother having a convention if the technologies did not exist?

What caught my eye in the text of this convention were the first three articles:

The States Parties to this Convention,Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, and wishing to contribute to the cause of halting the arms race, and of bringing about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare...

Have agreed as follows:

Article I. 1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.

2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organization to engage in activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article.

Article II. As used in article I, the term "environmental modification techniques" refers to any technique for changing-through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes-the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.

Article III. 1. The provisions of this Convention shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes and shall be without prejudice to the generally recognized principles and applicable rules of international law concerning such use.

There's a couple of glaring omissions here, and I'm sure you caught both of them. Firstly, no corporation - to my knowledge - is a signatory to this convention. Consequently, any state or group of states (to use the language of the convention), wishing to observe the letter but not the spirit of the convention could conceivably use corporate "cut outs" to conduct such geophysical warfare. Indeed, reading the convention one discovers that the development of such technologies and their use for "peaceful purposes" is entirely "ok." One can almost hear the technocrat narrative: "oh...! We're sorry! We were trying to relieve our drought. We didn't realize it would result in massive flooding in your (country, state, region) and wipe out your current crop planting season."  Indeed, as far as I can tell, the wording is so ambiguous that one reading of the convention would not prohibit the high contracting parties  from utilizing the technologies in such a way within their own jurisdictions, that if it were so used by those parties against another party or parties, would be taken as geophysical warfare.

Secondly, there's a complete lack of any detail as to how such geophysical warfare is to be detected and determined. While the convention has undergone clarifications since its original signing, those clarifications are still vague enough to drive a truck through. What is interesting is that any complaint or suspicion of such actions can be lodged with the UN Security Council, which will "investigate" and presumably could provide "punitive action" against the offender, provided of course that any such action were not vetoed by the five permanent members, which, interestingly enough, are the very same powers that have access to the technologies in the first place.

Finally,  human diplomatic history and international relations are replete with broken treaties and conventions. And I strongly suspect this convention has already been broken.

But at least it does one thing: it affirmed that even in the 1970s there was a fear of technologies designed to weaponize geophysical processes, from the lithosphere(earthquake weapons), the hydrosphere(tsunami creators), atmosphere(chemtrails), and outer space(ionspheric heaters). And of course, we've developed all of them.

(Indeed, Nikola Tesla took out a patent in 1893 for an mechanical oscillator which he claimed produced "earthquakes", decades before the convention was even a gleam in the UN's eye, long before there was even a UN. Tesla made lots of strange claims in his life, and the problem is, Tesla was Tesla, and it's always hazardous to second guess him. Interestingly enough, the television show "Myth Busters" built a version of this oscillator, and tested it. It didn't produce any earthquakes, leading them to claim the myth was busted, but it did cause oscillations that could be felt hundreds of feet away. I have my  own suspicions about that episode, and I'll keep them to myself, but as one might guess, they involve "resonance" and the possibility that it was ignored, meaning that the "busted myth" may itself need to be busted.)

In any case, given the recent strange weather, it seems as if the technologies and techniques might have been perfected to a degree only dreamed of when the convention was originally signed.  If so, we might not have to bother about moving the Earth out of its current orbit...

See you on the slip side...



10 thoughts on “THE ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION CONVENTION OF 1976”

  1. Joseph Patrick Farrell in all this talk about climate change you and researchers seem to avoid the discussing the impact of humans have on weather a good example of this that Washington DC experienced at least to dust storms from soil erosion in Kansas 1934-1935.
    We continue to alter the surface of our planet to meet our needs without any thought on how it changes the environment which leaves us all vulnerable to climate change but natural and artificially induced

  2. Makes me wonder about the Italian Bridge collapse in August last year. Poor engineering and/or ageing infrastructure aside, it kind of felt like the possibility of an intentional act. Given the recent election of Salvini at the time you might expect it as some kind of warning or payback. I did come across an interesting news article at the time linking its demise back to Salvini somehow via some strange corporate and / or criminal associations or something along those lines. [ I did bookmark it somewhere but after a recent Mozilla Firefox update I have lost access to all my bookmarks….. 🙁 ]

  3. I believe that they are making a bad situation worse for fun and profit; however, I also believe there is more to it than that and it is Earth/Solar system wide and due to the current state of our Sun and magnetic shield. There are numerous nation suffering from sever drought and storms; I doubt that they are chemtrailing all of them and focusing their weaponry over the entire earth. I could be wrong; I just have a feeling that there’s more to it than the elite mucking about with the weather. It’s bad enough as it is, and just plain evil to enhance the situation.

  4. I watched the Mythbusters episode on resonance when it first aired. It never felt quite right, like ‘higher authorities’ wanted to damp-out (sorry) any interest in a potentially-dangerous subject…

    That being said, resonance effects on real structures (full-scale ones) are subject to a ‘spreading out’ of the resonance frequency. Every single joint and flexibility ‘de-tunes’ the perfect beat-frequency. An old bridge – a girder of which was used on the show – has a near-infinite number of joints and is flexible. That is probably why there were vibrations noticeable 100 ft away, but no catastrophic build-up. The energy of the thumper was ‘de-tuned’ throughout the whole bridge. On other structures, your mileage may vary…

  5. I don’t know about weather modification, but as I write this, it’s hotter in San Francisco (new record?) than in Las Vegas, so something strange is going on indeed!

  6. Well, very interesting.

    Local weather man says we are drought free for the first time in 19 years in the entire state of Colorado. I noticed those weather bombs they talked about this winter originated near the SW states.
    So glaring an omission that I was blinded by the fact no corporation was a signatory. By design?

  7. Should we buy weather derivatives rather than insuring our homes? How long will it be before insurance companies go out of business or policies become unaffordable?

Comments are closed.