July 23, 2019 By Joseph P. Farrell

Yes,  you read that headline correctly. Antarctica needs more snow, according to the following article spotted and shared by "D", and by golly, the geoengineers want to provide it, all 7,400 gigatons of it:

Scientists propose dumping 7,400 gigatons of 'artificial snow' on Antarctica

Now, if you read this thing, you're probably scratching your head like I am, and wondering if it could possibly become any loopier than it already is. The coming-ice-age-global-warming-climate-change folks have been out in force in the last few decades, warning about rising sea levels and the threat they pose to places like Miami and New York City, unaccustomed as they are to negotiating life in cities built in water, unlike Venice, or for that matter, Amsterdam. But if you're like me, you're thinking there's something wrong with the following:

What can we do to stop Antarctica's ice sheets from disintegrating and causing a huge rise in global sea levels? A trio of scientists have simulated a radical geoengineering project to dump 7.4 trillion tons of snow on Antarctica, suggesting it could stop runaway instability in the glaciers.

Recent studies have shown warmer ocean water is being pushed toward the colossal West Antarctic ice sheet, destabilizing it and speeding up the decline of its huge glaciers. The threat of these huge ice deposits falling into the ocean is immense and the overall effect of their decline has been calculated to eventually raise sea levels by approximately 10 feet (3 meters) or more, endangering cities like New York.


Mostly, the problem lies in pumping the water out of the ocean, which requires an enormous amount of energy. The study suggests constructing a series of 12,000 wind turbines to enable this process to take place and then pumping artificial snow into two glaciers on the West Antarctic coast. The team suggest that activity would result in a 2 to 5 centimeter drop in sea level but the added weight of artificial snow falling on the surface would shore up the glaciers, improving their stability.


What we do know is the Earth's current default state: Burning fossil fuels and pumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere, warming the planet and causing sweeping changes like threatening a million species with extinction or, you know, the ice sheets melting. Considering the possibility of salvation in artificial Antarctic snow might be jumping a little far ahead.

Now, wait a minute: we're supposed to spend enormous amounts of money burning lots of fossil fuels to pump lots of water to turn into snow to dump on Antarctica to prevent climate change from melting the Antarctic glaciers and creating rising sea levels to flood New York City while said activity contributes to the very climate change we're supposed to be combatting...


I don't know about you but that bit of gerbil-in-a-flywheel-reasoning seems a bit, well, uhm... circular? Now, assuming that these people know what they're talking about (and let's remember, they've gone from the "coming ice age" folks in the '70s, the "global warming" goblins of the '80s and '90s, and are now covering all bets by talking about 'climate change', with computer-generated models spreading the "model of the decade" all along the way), it strikes me as exceedingly interesting, if not a bit ironic, that those who claim to be concerned about "the planet" are the ones willing to conduct continent-wide experiments that would have an effect on the whole planet, without really being certain of the outcome, since (according to them) such experiments haven't really been tried before. (Or have they? We'll get back to that in a moment.) It's a bit like listening to the people who shriek and scream about protecting children while they applaud abortion.

It's that final statement that I cited in the quotation above, though, that really gets me, the one about "the Earth's current default state", which is a repetition of the usual "burning fossil fuels and pumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere" meme, which is running neck-and-neck with the flatulence meme as a cause for "climate concern". The problem here is, that may very well be true from a scientific standpoint, but we'll never know, because the "control group" (the Earth) has been subject to the very deliberate, and mostly very covert, weather and geophysics experiment of a wholly different sort in recent decades, that of pumping and dumping and spraying heavy metals of a very different sort into the atmosphere, from aluminum, to barium... you name it, all in an effort to improve electrical conductivity of the atmosphere. Oh, and let's not leave out the other major ozonifier: ionospheric heaters, and so on. No studies as far as I'm aware have been done of potential climate effects of those technologies, and for good reason: "they" want to blame it on "us", tax "us" for it and make "us" pay for what "they" are doing. Or to put it differently, the "coming-ice-age-global-warming-climate-change" memes began to be "pushed" at approximately the same time those geophysical engineering technologies came on line and began to be used in a major way. Yea, that's a high octane speculation. And yes, I'm sticking with it.

One reason I'm sticking with it is because I watched a documentary years ago about one of those ionospheric heaters, HAARP, during which one of the people involved with the project cites the military's "environmental impact study" of the technology, a study concluding, of course, that such effects would be minimal and nothing to be concerned about, while the very patents behind the device talked about significant weather modification capabilities for use in "missile defense." (Actually, it was much worse, because as the clearly uncomfortable scientist was dodging and evading the issue and citing the "environmental impact study", he professed to know nothing about the claims of the patent of the very technology he was operating, but I digress).

So, no, I'm not willing to give up driving my car, nor eating beans, until the major media and technocrats come clean on what probably are the real causes: weaponized geophysical technologies, because until those technologies and their capabilities are openly integrated into the discussion of climate change any talk about the subject is merely its own kind of flatulence.

See you on the flip side...