Futurism and Chemtrails

MikeG

Senior Member.
Dane Wigington recently posted another one of his revelations about the past history of geoengineering.

Climate Engineering And Polar Meltdown, How Long Has It Been Going On?

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...polar-meltdown-how-long-has-it-been-going-on/


His evidence in this case focuses on a 1958 article featured in Popular Science entitled "Weather as a Weapon".

Many threads have addressed Wigington’s penchant for interpreting old theories, studies, speculation, or U.S. patents as iron-clad evidence of ongoing geoengineering efforts by the “global power structure.” The Popular Science article falls into the same category and is a fairly easy assertion to debunk.

I wanted to dwell on this part of history to add a little more context to the discussion.

People were fascinated by the possibilities offered by technology after World War II. Paul Boyer wrote a great book, By the Bombs Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age (Pantheon Books, 1985) that discusses this particular topic.

In the forties, we were captivated by the possibilities of atomic power. Theorists speculated that pea-size power plants could run cars and planes for years.

Atomic powered car and plane.png

In the fifties, the helicopter was the new wonder weapon.

xlg_helicopter_cavalry_1.jpg
Frank Tinsley, “Let’s Use Helicopter Cavalry,” Mechanix Illustrated (April 1956): 72-77.

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/lets-use-helicopter-cavalry/


Robert B. Rigg wrote War—1974 in 1958 and offered a host of new innovations to combat, from flying tanks to resupply missiles.

Flying Tanks.jpg

Fuel Missiles.jpg

Some future predictions applied to the weather. H.T. Orvilled penned “Weather Made to Order?” for Collier’s Weekly in May 1954. The cover has appeared on Metabunk and other CT websites.

1954 May 28 Colliers Cover paleofuture.jpg


I supposed that my point is fairly simple. At a time when the polio vaccine was conquering a chronic disease and the Mercury Program was just getting started, there was a much greater sense of optimism about how science and technology would affect the future than there is today.

It is sad to see this history shoe-horned into a chemtrail agenda the way it appears on geoengineeringwatch.org
 

Attachments

  • Atomic powered car and plane.png
    Atomic powered car and plane.png
    377.8 KB · Views: 392

deirdre

Senior Member.
I think you might be better off debunking/explaining some of Geoengineering Watch's specific claims in the article you link. To more specifically debunk/explain the truth behind the articles intentional fear mongering.

Quick examples, Dane says
Many sources now admit this cooling was due to atmospheric aerosols, though no mainstream source will admit to geoengineering as the primary source of the aerosols
Content from External Source
But his link is to Skepticalscience.
upload_2015-12-27_2-16-45.png



If Dane actually read the article he would see the answer he cites has absolutely nothing to do with intentional geoengineering

bold mine

So what caused the cooling period that interrupted the overalltrendin the middle of the century? The answer seems to lie in solar dimming, a cooling phenomenon caused by airborne pollutants.

The main culprit is likely to have been an increase in sulphateaerosols, which reflect incoming solar energy back into space and lead to cooling. This increase was the result of two sets of events.

  1. Industrial activities picked up following the Second World War. This, in the absence of pollution control measures, led to a rise inaerosolsin the lower atmosphere (the troposphere).
  2. A number of volcanic eruptions released large amounts of aerosols in the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere).
Content from External Source

or here where Dane misleadingly claims (bold mine):

Dr. Joseph Kaplan (chairman of the International Geophysical Year) stated the following in the Popular Science article:

"This so-far accidental result (rapid warming of Earth) is already serious, and we must find a means to counteract it. Melting polar ice will make ocean levels rise at least 40 feet, and inundate vast areas in the next 50 or 60 years unless atmospheric temperatures are controlled."

Again, it is important to understand who Kaplan was, the chairman of the "International Geophysical Year", an exceptionally important event that gathered scientists from around the world to discuss the state of the planet.

The global geoengineering card was played many decades ago. The campaign of total deception to hide this fact has been carried out for many decades.
Content from External Source


Total deception to hide this fact? The Popular Science article 1958 Dane cites seems to debunk that, no? Scientists have been talking about (and publishing about) Climate Change and what to do about it since early 20th century. "First calculations of human-induced climate change, 1896"

Was not Popular Science an extremely popular, mainstream newssource esp. back in 1958? How is that "hiding" anything?

As early as 1974, Russian expert Mikhail Budyko suggested that if global warming became a problem, we could cool down the planet by burning sulfur in the stratosphere, which would create a haze. Paul Crutzen suggested that this would cost 25 to 50 billion dollars per year.[9][10]

A preliminary study by Edward Teller and others in 1997 presented the pros and cons of various relatively "low-tech" proposals to mitigate global warming through scattering/reflecting sunlight away from the Earth via insertion of various materials in the upper stratosphere, low earth orbit, and L1 locations.[11]
Content from External Source
 

MikeG

Senior Member.
I think you might be better off debunking/explaining some of Geoengineering Watch's specific claims in the article you link. To more specifically debunk/explain the truth behind the articles intentional fear mongering.

Quick examples, Dane says
Many sources now admit this cooling was due to atmospheric aerosols, though no mainstream source will admit to geoengineering as the primary source of the aerosols
Content from External Source
But his link is to Skepticalscience.
upload_2015-12-27_2-16-45.png



If Dane actually read the article he would see the answer he cites has absolutely nothing to do with intentional geoengineering

bold mine

So what caused the cooling period that interrupted the overalltrendin the middle of the century? The answer seems to lie in solar dimming, a cooling phenomenon caused by airborne pollutants.

The main culprit is likely to have been an increase in sulphateaerosols, which reflect incoming solar energy back into space and lead to cooling. This increase was the result of two sets of events.

  1. Industrial activities picked up following the Second World War. This, in the absence of pollution control measures, led to a rise inaerosolsin the lower atmosphere (the troposphere).
  2. A number of volcanic eruptions released large amounts of aerosols in the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere).
Content from External Source

or here where Dane misleadingly claims (bold mine):

Dr. Joseph Kaplan (chairman of the International Geophysical Year) stated the following in the Popular Science article:

"This so-far accidental result (rapid warming of Earth) is already serious, and we must find a means to counteract it. Melting polar ice will make ocean levels rise at least 40 feet, and inundate vast areas in the next 50 or 60 years unless atmospheric temperatures are controlled."

Again, it is important to understand who Kaplan was, the chairman of the "International Geophysical Year", an exceptionally important event that gathered scientists from around the world to discuss the state of the planet.

The global geoengineering card was played many decades ago. The campaign of total deception to hide this fact has been carried out for many decades.
Content from External Source


Total deception to hide this fact? The Popular Science article 1958 Dane cites seems to debunk that, no? Scientists have been talking about (and publishing about) Climate Change and what to do about it since early 20th century. "First calculations of human-induced climate change, 1896"

Was not Popular Science an extremely popular, mainstream newssource esp. back in 1958? How is that "hiding" anything?

As early as 1974, Russian expert Mikhail Budyko suggested that if global warming became a problem, we could cool down the planet by burning sulfur in the stratosphere, which would create a haze. Paul Crutzen suggested that this would cost 25 to 50 billion dollars per year.[9][10]

A preliminary study by Edward Teller and others in 1997 presented the pros and cons of various relatively "low-tech" proposals to mitigate global warming through scattering/reflecting sunlight away from the Earth via insertion of various materials in the upper stratosphere, low earth orbit, and L1 locations.[11]
Content from External Source

Fair enough. I'll make another pass through the Wigington article.
 

MikeG

Senior Member.
I took Deidre’s advice and went back through the geoengineeringwatch.org article cited in the original post. I did not cover all the mistakes and omissions, but here are a few representative samples.

Wigington is selective with his use of excerpts from the article.

"Control of Earth's weather and temperature is within the realm of practicability now" says Dr. Joseph Kaplan, chairman of the International Geophysical Year
Content from External Source
However, he fails to cite the preceding paragraph, which notes testimony from Edward Teller before the Senate Military Preparedness Committee (my emphasis):

He wouldn’t be surprised, Dr. Teller told the committee, if the Russians did achieve such control during the next five years—or if it took fifty.
Content from External Source
In other words, no one had any idea when or if such programs were possible.


Wigington follows with this:

The next excerpt from the Popular Science publication is extremely important to consider.

Air Force scientists are already experimenting with sodium vapor , ejected from jet planes, to intercept solar radiation (solar radiation management).
Content from External Source
It is interesting that the article also lists a number of other types of options beyond sodium vapor.

Scientists believe that if we could break up the continuity of the reflective sea surface with patches of dye, floating islands or marine growth or burning oil slicks, such a colossal overall buildup of energy could be avoided.
Content from External Source
Aerial spraying is only one of a host of options being discussed in the fifties. They ranged from controlled thermonuclear reactions to “spreading heat-absorptive substances on the polar ice caps.” (page 56 of the Popular Science article). Dane is cherry picking the one option that fits his website.

Following the Popular Science article, Wigington offers additional evidence of the polar meltdown.

The historical photographs below show the already profound early signs of Arctic warming and polar meltdown as far back as 1959.
Content from External Source
USS Skate.png

This is recollection is attributed to a crewman aboard the USS Skate in 1959

“the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up. The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet.”
Content from External Source
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/

Here is a reference for the term polynyas, a naturally occurring phenomena.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/polynyas.html


Finally, Wigington creates a correlation with a document he posted earlier this year.

The power structure deployed the first large scale geoengineering efforts immediately after WWll. Massive historical congressional reports and presidential reports prove climate engineering has been conducted since the mid 1940s.
Content from External Source
This report was covered in another thread

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-m...lobal-weather-modification.t6916/#post-167402

I mentioned this in an earlier post, but Dane Wigington cannot seem to make the distinction between climate and weather. Cloud seeding to increase rainfall or provide hail abatement is not the same as geoengineering.

In fact, cloud seeding is mentioned on page 56 of the Popular Science article.

Cloud seeding, the first method that comes to mind for controlling the weather, is of little importance because it is effective only in limited areas under favorable conditions.
Content from External Source

Deidre covered a good number of other faults in the geoengineeringwatch.org piece and I thank her for the nudge to add more. ;)
 
Top