September 4, 2019 By Joseph P. Farrell

Regular readers of this site know that I am one of those who thinks - for various reasons - that there has been full scale geoengineering and weather warfare going on for some time. Indeed, as I've made it very clear, I have a rule: I will not discuss climate change with anyone who does not admit the technologies exist (and have existed for some time), and admit the possibility that they might be being used. To pretend to discuss a phenomenon without addressing one of its major potential causes is to commit a material omission. As Elana Freeland aptly put it in an interview with me, the presence of such technologies and their potential use means, in effect, that there is no such thing as purely "natural" weather. And while it's purely anecdotal, I've seen the strangeness myself, watching storms and tornadoes track one way, then make sudden and jarring turns. Just a few days ago one such storm was tracking "northeast", and as I was listening to my local weather radio, even they sounded mystified when the storm suddenly turned due south, after remaining stalled over one area for about thirty minutes.

Something seems to have changed with Hurricane Dorian, however, because I've noticed that more and more articles are appearing that at least entertain the idea that storms can be created, if not steered. There are all sorts of speculations out there about the storm, and its track. Perhaps President Trump's tweet about nuking the storm fueled the sudden interest. But as I previously pointed out, he's not new to the "nuking hurricanes" game:

America's Decades-Old Obsession With Nuking Hurricanes (and More)

Count me in four-square agreement with Wired's assessment of President Trump's idea that nuking hurricanes is "a terrible idea," if for no other reason than that we don't know what would happen. The storm might dissipate, but do so by scattering all that nuclear fallout to the four winds. Terrible idea. Then again, it might actually feed more energy into the storm. An even worse terrible idea. And besides, any way one slices it, under current treaty obligations, no one is allowed to detonate nuclear weapons in the atmosphere.

Which brings us back to weather modification. Consider the following article:

In this article, the following image is reproduced:


What's interesting here is the language being used for the 2009 U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology: "Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention." Notably, what's absent is any qualifier that would indicate future difficulties; rather, the language conveys the idea that "Large-Scale Climate Intervention" is already underway; most regular readers of this site or others dedicated to the topic would probably say it is. If the committee were to be strictly accurate and follow the public narrative that such modification might be possible, but that it isn't currently in operation, the title of the hearing would have more accurately stated "Geoengineering: Assessing the Potential Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention."

A year earlier, the Reichsicherheithauptamt... Er... uhm... I mean, the Department of Homeland Security, did this:

Department of Homeland Security Hurricane Modification Workshop

Look at those bullet points, and ponder the implications:

  • identify viable hurricane modification hypothesis that warrant further study
  • Understand hurricane physical processes including their initial development, mechanics, life cycle, instabilities and responses to outside dynamics and forces
  • Understand DHS specific concerns regarding hurricane threats to life and property caused by wind, rain and storm surge
  • Define potential DHS-specific hurricane modification factors, requirements and risks (i.e. pre-development modification, track changes, intensity change)
  • Address projected effort/cost/viability/time-lines for hurricane modification implementation
  • Recommend a path forward
  • Limited scale field tests:
    • Salt Seeding Tests
    • Carbon Black Aerosol (CBA)
    • Upper Ocean Cooling
    • Ion Generators
    • Seeding
    • Monolayer Films  (Italicized emphasis added, boldface emphasis in the original

What's even more intriguing to ponder is the mission statement:

In view of these realities, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the organizational assistance of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/Global Systems Division of the Earth Systems Research Laboratory sponsored a workshop on hurricane modification at the David Skaggs Research Center in Boulder, Colorado February 6-7, 2008. This action is consistent with the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) mission to respond to threats and hazards to the nation and the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) goal to accelerate delivery of enhanced technological capabilities to meet requirements and fill capability gaps to support DHS agencies in accomplishing their mission. (Boldface emphasis in the original)

The language again is uncomfortably ambiguous, for on the one hand, purely natural weather can be understood as a "threat and hazard to the nation," but so can deliberately engineered weather, and the fact that it is the Reichsicherhe... er... Department of Homeland Security doing the study that suggests to my mind that a hidden goal of the conference may have been how to recognize and distinguish between purely "natural" weather and weather that may be a weaponized use of weather modification technologies, since that would obviously fall under DHS's "mission brief." Two such signatures might be sudden, inexplicable, and dramatic changes of course (think Hurricane Katrina), or intensification, or de-intensification of a storm. Another might be the track falls over areas (targets) that have connections to recent political news. Consider, for example, the track of Dorian through - and the devastation caused to the unfortunate victims in - the Bahamas. The Bahamas are a British Crown Colony, and we know Who was ultimately behind the recent prorogation of Parliament concerning Brexit.

All of this is, of course, speculation in aid of trying to develop an eventual template for discernment. The fact is, Dorian seems to have sprouted a great deal of such speculation in amounts not seen since Katrina, but the context, especially with DHS's study, lends a credence to such speculations that they previously did not have. As the weather gets increasingly strange, such speculations will only increase.

See you on the flip side...