By Derrick Broze
In a recent speech, the director of the Central Intelligence
Agency discussed the controversial topic of geoengineering, leading some
activists to ask whether the agency is actively and deliberately
modifying the weather.
In late June, John Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence
Agency, spoke at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting about threats to
global security. Director Brennan mentioned a number of threats to stability
before discussing the science of geoengineering. Brennan said the
technologies “potentially could help reverse the warming effects of
global climate change.”
According to a 2013 congressional report:
The term ‘geoengineering’ describes this array of
technologies that aim, through large-scale and deliberate modifications
of the Earth’s energy balance, to reduce temperatures and counteract
anthropogenic climate change. Most of these technologies are at the
conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing
global temperatures has yet to be proven. Moreover, very few studies
have been published that document the cost, environmental effects,
socio-political impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. If
geoengineering technologies were to be deployed, they are expected to
have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects.
In general, geoengineering technologies are categorized as either a
carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method or a solar radiation management
(SRM) (or albedo-modification)method. CDR methods address the warming
effects of greenhouse gases by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the
atmosphere. CDR methods include ocean fertilization, and carbon capture
and sequestration. SRM methods address climate change by increasing the
reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere or surface.
Aerosol injection and space-based reflectors are examples of SRM
methods. SRM methods do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere,
but can be deployed faster with relatively immediate global cooling
results compared to CDR methods.
Director Brennan specifically mentions a type of SRM known
as stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI. As Brennan notes, SAI is “a
method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect
the sun’s heat, in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.”
Brennan goes on to claim that an SAI geoengineering program could
limit global temperature increases, a claim that has been disputed in
several studies. For example, Activist Post recently reported on a new analysis released
by the Finnish Meteorological Institute. The FMI is the government
agency responsible for reporting weather data and forecasts in Finland.
The Institute’s study, “Modelling radiative and climate effects of aerosols: from Anthropogenic emissions to geoengineering,” examined the potential for SRM to combat climate change.
The study specifically looked at two types of SRM. The first involved
marine aerosol concentrations use to increase clouds, while the second
looked at increasing the amount of sulphur concentrated in the
stratosphere. The researchers stated that their key objectives were to
“investigate the potential of aerosols to cool the climate at the global
scale, and identify the possible limits in the effectiveness of the
Solar Radiation Management techniques as well as the risks related to
The researchers found that the geoengineering techniques which were
studied do in fact have the potential to cool the climate and slow down
warming. “However, the cooling effect has limitations,” the team
writes.“The cooling effect attributable to aerosols would be rather
small due to the geographical change in tropospheric aerosol emissions
or change in energy production studied here when compared to the warming
due to the increased greenhouse gas emissions,” the paper states.
In other words, the effort, money, and time it would take to invest
and create geoengineering methods would likely do very little to
actually limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. The researchers
even state that, based on their models, if the world replaced coal with
nuclear power for energy production it would lead to a “temporal cooling
effect,” but after several years “the warming effect from
simultaneously increased GHG emission would exceed the cooling effect.”
Also, the cooling that does result from an increase in aerosols is “often achieved at the cost of air quality” which could “lead to an increase in premature mortality.”
In February 2015, an international committee of scientists released a report
stating that geoengineering techniques are not a viable alternative to
reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat the effects of climate
change. The committee report called for further research and
understanding of various geoengineering techniques, including carbon
dioxide removal schemes and solar-radiation management before
The scientists found that SRM techniques are likely to present
“serious known and possible unknown environmental, social, and political
risks, including the possibility of being deployed unilaterally.” The
report was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S.
intelligence community, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and the U.S. Department of Energy.
According to a 2013 study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres,
if geoengineering programs were started and then suddenly halted, the
planet could see an immediate rise in temperatures, particularly over
land. The study, titled, “The Impact of Abrupt Suspension of Solar
Radiation Management,” seems to indicate that once geoengineering
begins, the programs cannot be suspended without causing the very
problem the engineering was intended to solve.
Conspiracy Fact or Theory?
The idea that aerosols could be sprayed from planes is eerily
reminiscent of various conspiracies involving the government using
weather control technology to manipulate world events. This is what is
derogatorily called the “Chemtrails Conspiracy.” Essentially, some
believe geoengineering is actively taking place in our skies, and the
“contrails” are actually geoengineering programs covertly being carried
out. The “chemtrails” label comes from the portion of the crowd that
believes these programs are delivering dangerous chemical additives to
the food, water, soil, and humans below for nefarious purposes.
Despite the knee-jerk dismissal from many casual researchers, the
theories might be grounded in reality. In February 2015, while speaking
at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science in San Jose, California, Professor Alan Robock discussed the
possibility that the CIA is using the weather as a weapon of
war. Robock has done research for the intergovernmental panel on climate
change (IPCC) in the past.
Robock stated he was phoned by two men claiming to be from the CIA, asking whether or not it was possible for hostile governments to use geoengineering against the United States.
Professor Robock’s fears of the government using the weather as a
weapon are not completely unfounded. In a 1996 document entitled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather by 2025” the U.S. Air Force discusses a number of proposals for using the weather as a weapon. The Environmental Modification Treaty was signed by the United States and other nations to halt global weather modification.
But the government did not simply research these ideas, they actually
implemented them. During the Vietnam War the US government operated
covert weather modification programs under Operation Popeye.
The government does not only experiment with technology in foreign
countries, they like to try it at home as well. In 2012 it was revealed
that the US Army sprayed toxic chemicals over the skies of St. Louis without informing the public.
Whether or not Professor Robock’s theory is correct remains to be
seen; but for now, Director Brennan’s speech makes it perfectly clear
that America’s favorite spy agency is interested in manipulating the
weather on a global scale. Whether it’s happening already or will be in
the near future, the thought of the CIA (or any agency of government)
using the weather as a weapon of war should make it clear that the U.S.
government is not operating with reason or concern for the people.
Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter.
Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact Derrick@activistpost.com
This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.