Some folks are doing something regarding Chemtrails at least. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cloudbusters/
http://www.metatech.org/cloudbuster_&_orgone_generator.html Jose > <Forwarded for your consideration. Not evaluated by myself. -Allan> > > >From: "Curtis Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >X-Yahoo-Profile: curtis_lang2001 > >Mailing-List: list [EMAIL PROTECTED]; contact > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:13:53 -0500 > >Subject: [globalnews] HAARP: Weather Weapons Go Online > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Guerrila News Network > > > > > > > >Playing God > >Michel Chossudovsky, January 30, 2002 > > > >The important debate on global warming under UN auspices provides > >but a partial picture of climate change; in addition to the > >devastating impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the ozone layer, > >the World's climate can now be modified as part of a new generation > >of sophisticated "non-lethal weapons." Both the Americans and the > >Russians have developed capabilities to manipulate the World's > >climate. > > > >In the U.S., the technology is being perfected under the > >High-frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) as part of the > >("Star Wars") Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). Recent scientific > >evidence suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the > >ability of potentially triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and > >earthquakes. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass > >destruction. Potentially, it constitutes an instrument of conquest > >capable of selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological > >systems of entire regions. > > > >While there is no evidence that this deadly technology has been > >used, surely the United Nations should be addressing the issue of > >"environmental warfare" alongside the debate on the climatic impacts > >of greenhouse gases... > > > >Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate > >climatic manipulations for military use has never been explicitly > >part of the UN agenda on climate change. Neither the official > >delegations nor the environmental action groups participating in the > >Hague Conference on Climate Change (CO6) (November 2000) have raised > >the broad issue of "weather warfare" or "environmental modification > >techniques (ENMOD)" as relevant to an understanding of climate > >change. > > > >The clash between official negotiators, environmentalists and > >American business lobbies has centered on Washington's outright > >refusal to abide by commitments on carbon dioxide reduction targets > >under the 1997 Kyoto protocol.(1) The impacts of military > >technologies on the World's climate are not an object of discussion > >or concern. Narrowly confined to greenhouse gases, the ongoing > >debate on climate change serves Washington's strategic and defense > >objectives. > > > >"WEATHER WARFARE" > > > >World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirms that "U.S. > >military scientists ... are working on weather systems as a > >potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and > >the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth's atmosphere to produce > >targeted droughts or floods." (2) Already in the 1970s, former > >National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had foreseen in his > >book "Between Two Ages" that: > > > >"Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, > >techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare > >minimum of the security forces need be appraised... [T]echniques of > >weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods > >of drought or storm." > > > >Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlines several > >types of "unconventional weapons" using radio frequencies. He refers > >to "weather war," indicating that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had > >already "mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate > >changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s."(3) These > >technologies make it "possible to trigger atmospheric disturbances > >by using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radar [waves]." (4) > > > >A simulation study of future defense "scenarios" commissioned for > >the U.S. Air Force calls for: > > > >"U.S. aerospace forces to 'own the weather' by capitalizing on > >emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies > >to war-fighting applications... From enhancing friendly operations > >or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of > >natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global > >communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers > >the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce > >an adversary... In the United States, weather-modification will > >likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic > >and international applications. Our government will pursue such a > >policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.(5) > > > >HIGH-FREQUENCY ACTIVE AURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM (HAARP) > > > >The High-Frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) based in > >Gokoma Alaska --jointly managed by the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. > >Navy-- is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under > >the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air > >Force Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP > >constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating > >"controlled local modifications of the ionosphere". Scientist Dr. > >Nicholas Begich --actively involved in the public campaign against > >HAARP-- describes HAARP as: > > > >"A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of > >the ionosphere [upper layer of the atmosphere] by focusing a beam > >and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto > >earth and penetrate everything -- living and dead." (6) > > > >Dr. Rosalie Bertell depicts HAARP as "a gigantic heater that can > >cause major disruption in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, > >but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly > >radiation from bombarding the planet." 7 > > > >MISLEADING PUBLIC OPINION > > > >HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of > >scientific and academic research. U.S. military documents seem to > >suggest, however, that HAARP's main objective is to "exploit the > >ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes." (8) Without > >explicitly referring to the HAARP program, a U.S. Air Force study > >points to the use of "induced ionospheric modifications" as a means > >of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy > >communications and radar.9 > > > >According to Dr. Rosalie Bertell, HAARP is part of a integrated > >weapons' system, which has potentially devastating environmental > >consequences: > > > >"It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly > >destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere. > >It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory > >construction which is separately being planned by the United States. > >HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and > >development of a deliberate military nature. The military > >implications of combining these projects is alarming. ... The > >ability of the HAARP / Spacelab/ rocket combination to deliver very > >large amount of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on > >earth via laser and particle beams, are frightening. The project is > >likely to be "sold" to the public as a space shield against incoming > >weapons, or, for the more gullible, a device for repairing the ozone > >layer. (10) > > > >In addition to weather manipulation, HAARP has a number of related uses: > > > >"HAARP could contribute to climate change by intensively bombarding > >the atmosphere with high-frequency rays... Returning low-frequency > >waves at high intensity could also affect people's brains, and > >effects on tectonic movements cannot be ruled out. (11) > > > >More generally, HAARP has the ability of modifying the World's > >electro-magnetic field. It is part of an arsenal of "electronic > >weapons" which U.S. military researchers consider a "gentler and > >kinder warfare". (12) > > > >WEAPONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER > > > >HAARP is part of the weapons arsenal of the New World Order under > >the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). From military command points > >in the U.S., entire national economies could potentially be > >destabilized through climatic manipulations. More importantly, the > >latter can be implemented without the knowledge of the enemy, at > >minimal cost and without engaging military personnel and equipment > >as in a conventional war. > > > >The use of HAARP -- if it were to be applied -- could have > >potentially devastating impacts on the World's climate. Responding > >to U.S. economic and strategic interests, it could be used to > >selectively modify climate in different parts of the World resulting > >in the destabilization of agricultural and ecological systems. > > > >It is also worth noting that the U.S. Department of Defense has > >allocated substantial resources to the development of intelligence > >and monitoring systems on weather changes. NASA and the Department > >of Defense's National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) are working > >on "imagery for studies of flooding, erosion, land-slide hazards, > >earthquakes, ecological zones, weather forecasts, and climate > >change" with data relayed from satellites. (13) > > > >POLICY INERTIA OF THE UNITED NATIONS > > > >According to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) > >signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro: > > > >"States have... in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations > >and the principles of international law, the (...) responsibility to > >ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not > >cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond > >the limits of national jurisdiction." (14) > > > >It is also worth recalling that an international Convention ratified > >by the UN General Assembly in 1997 bans "military or other hostile > >use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, > >long-lasting or severe effects." (15) Both the U.S. and the Soviet > >Union were signatories to the Convention. The Convention defines > >"'environmental modification techniques' as referring 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." (16) > > > >Why then did the UN --disregarding the 1977 ENMOD Convention as well > >as its own charter-- decide to exclude from its agenda climatic > >changes resulting from military programs? > > > >EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ACKNOWLEDGES IMPACTS OF HAARP > > > >In February 1998, responding to a report of Mrs. Maj Britt Theorin > >--Swedish MEP and longtime peace advocate--, the European > >Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense > >Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the HAARP program.(17) > >The Committee's "Motion for Resolution" submitted to the European > >Parliament: > > > >"Considers HAARP... by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the > >environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, > >ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an > >international independent body...; [the Committee] regrets the > >repeated refusal of the United States Administration... to give > >evidence to the public hearing ...into the environmental and public > >risks [of] the HAARP program." (18). > > > >The Committee's request to draw up a "Green Paper" on "the > >environmental impacts of military activities", however, was casually > >dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacks the > >required jurisdiction to delve into "the links between environment > >and defense". (19) Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with > >Washington. > > > >FULLY OPERATIONAL > > > >While there is no concrete evidence of HAARP having been used, > >scientific findings suggest that it is at present fully operational. > >What this means is that HAARP could potentially be applied by the US > >military to selectively modify the climate of an "unfriendly nation" > >or "rogue state" with a view to destabilizing its national economy. > > > >Agricultural systems in both developed and developing countries are > >already in crisis as a result of New World Order policies including > >market deregulation, commodity dumping, etc. Amply documented, IMF > >and World Bank "economic medicine" imposed on the Third World and > >the countries of the former Soviet block has largely contributed to > >the destabilization of domestic agriculture. In turn, the provisions > >of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have supported the interests > >of a handful of Western agri-biotech conglomerates in their quest to > >impose genetically modified (GMO) seeds on farmers throughout the > >World. > > > >It is important to understand the linkage between the economic, > >strategic and military processes of the New World Order. In the > >above context, climatic manipulations under the HAARP program > >(whether accidental or deliberate) would inevitably exacerbate these > >changes by weakening national economies, destroying infrastructure > >and potentially triggering the bankruptcy of farmers over vast > >areas. Surely national governments and the United Nations should > >address the possible consequences of HAARP and other "non-lethal > >weapons" on climate change. > > > >NOTES > > > >1. The latter calls for nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions > >by an average of 5.2 percent to become effective between 2008 and > >2012. See Background of Kyoto Protocol at > >http://www.globalwarming.net/gw11.html . > > > >2. The Times, London, 23 November 2000. > > > >3. Intelligence Newsletter, December 16, 1999. > > > >4. Ibid. > > > >5 Air University of the U.S. Air Force, > ><http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/>AF 2025 Final Report > > > >6 Nicholas Begich and Jeane Manning, > ><http://www.xyz.net/~nohaarp/earthlight.html>The Military's > >Pandora's Box, Earthpulse Press. See also the > ><http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/>HAARP home page. > > > >7. See Briarpatch, January, 2000. (emphasis added). > > > >8 Quoted in Begich and Manning, op cit. > > > >9. Air University, op cit. > > > >10. Rosalie Bertell, > ><http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/weapons.htm>Background > >of the HAARP Program, 5 November, 1996. > > > >11. Begich and Manning, op cit. > > > >12. Don Herskovitz, Killing Them Softly, Journal of Electronic > >Defense, August 1993. According to Herskovitz, "electronic warfare" > >is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as "military action > >involving the use of electromagnetic energy..." The > ><http://www.jedefense.com/>Journal of Electronic Defense has > >published a range of articles on the application of electronic and > >electromagnetic military technologies. > > > >13. Military Space, 6 December, 1999. > > > >14. <http://www.unfccc.de/resource/conv/conv_002.html>UN Framework > >Convention on Climate Change, New York, 1992. > > > >15. See Associated Press, 18 May 1977. > > > >16. Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed, States > >Parties Declare, UN Chronicle, July, 1984, Vol. 21, p. 27. > > > >17. European Report, 7 February 1998. > > > >18. European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and > >Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999. > > > >19. EU Lacks Jurisdiction to Trace Links Between Environment and > >Defense, European Report, 3 February 1999. > > > >Copyright by Michel Chossudovsky, CRG 2002. > > > >To discuss this Article and other issues please visit the > ><http://www.guerrillanews.com/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/wwwthreads.pl?Cat=&C=1>Gue rrilla > >News Forum > > > > > > > >............................................... > > > >Be the change > >you want to see in the world. > >-- Mahatma Gandhi > > > > > > > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the > ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service. >
