Go to Top
 

Stop Spraying California!

Spraying Biological & Chemicals Agents on U. S. Citizens is Illegal!
The only way to STOP CHEMTRAILS is to wake up others!
Visit our Chemtrail Survival Items Page

Why are They Spraying Us?
Saturday, July 4th, 2015 Geoengineering & Chemtrails 
 
Stop Spraying California!
Strontium - Chemtrails
 
Home  
Our Mission  
Contact Us  
  
Chemtrail Information Center  
  
What are they Spraying?  
What you can do to Stop Chemtrails  
How to Protect your Family  
Chemtrail Survival Items  
  
Chemtrail Alerts!  
Chemtrail Articles  
Chemtrails & Binary Chemical Weapons  
Chemtrail Documents  
Chemtrail Legislation  
Chemtrail Petitons  
Chemtrail Planes  
Chemtrail Posters  
Children & Chemtrails  
Contaminated Soil & Chemtrails  
Drinking Water & Chemtrails  
Elderly & Chemtrails  
ELF Waves & Chemtrails  
Geoengineering & Chemtrails  
Global Warming & Chemtrails  
GWEN Waves & Chemtrails  
HAARP Waves & Chemtrails  
Honey Bees & Chemtrails  
Morgellons Disease & Chemtrails  
Oceans & Chemtrails  
Operation Cloverleaf  
Tinnitus & Chemtrails  
Weather Modification & Chemtrails  
Rose Bowl Chemtrail  
Black Chemtrails  
SCALAR Waves and Chemtrails  
  
Toxic Chemicals & Metals in Chemtrails  
  
Aluminum Oxide Particles  
Arsenic  
Bacilli and Molds  
Barium Salts  
Barium Titanates  
Cadmium  
Calcium  
Chromium  
Desiccated Human Red Blood Cells  
Ethylene Dibromide  
Enterobacter Cloacal  
Enterobacteriaceae  
Human White Blood Cells-A  
Lead  
Lithium Salts and Chemtrails  
Mercury  
Methyl Aluminum  
Mold Spores  
Mycoplasma  
Nano-Aluminum-Coated Fiberglass  
Nitrogen Trifluoride  
Nickel  
Polymer Fibers  
Pseudomonas Aeruginosa  
Pseudomonas Florescens  
Radio Active Cesium  
Radio Active Thorium  
Selenium  
Serratia Marcscens  
Sharp Titanium Shards  
Silver  
Streptomyces  
Stronthium  
Sub-Micron Particles  
Sulfer Dioxide  
Unidentified Bacteria  
Uranium  
Yellow Fungal Mycotoxins  
  
Toxic Chemical List from U. S. Navy  
  
Aluminum Coated Fiberglass Particles (CHAFF)  
Acenaphthene  
Aromatic Hydrobarbons  
Barium Chromate  
Benzene  
Cadium  
Chlorides  
Chromium  
Copper  
Flouranthene  
Hydrogen Cyanide  
Iron  
Lead  
Manganese  
Naphitalene  
Potassium Perchlorate  
Perchlorate  
Rocket Fuels  
Toluene  
Jet Fuel Emissions  
Xylene  
Zinc  
  
California Counties Reporting Chemtrails  
  
Alameda County  
Butte County  
Contra Costa County  
El Dorado County  
Fresno County  
Humboldt County  
Imperial County  
Kern County  
Kings County  
Los Angeles County  
Madera County  
Marin County  
Mendocino County  
Merced County  
Monterey County  
Napa County  
Nevada County  
Orange County  
Placer County  
Riverside County  
Sacramento County  
San Bernardino County  
San Diego County  
San Francisco County  
San Joaquin County  
San Luis Obispo County  
San Mateo County  
Santa Barbara County  
Santa Clara County  
Santa Cruz County  
Shasta County  
Sierra County  
Solano County  
Sonoma County  
Stanislaus County  
Tulare County  
Ventura County  
Yolo County  
Yuba County  
  
States Reporting Chemtrails  
  
Alabama Chemtrail Reports  
Alaska Chemtrail Reports  
Arizona Chemtrail Reports  
Arkansas Chemtrail Reports  
California Chemtrail Reports  
Colorado Chemtrail Reports  
Connecticut Chemtrail Reports  
Delaware Chemtrail Reports  
Florida Chemtrail Reports  
Georgia Chemtrail Reports  
Hawaii Chemtrail Reports  
Idaho Chemtrail Reports  
Illinois Chemtrail Reports  
Indiana Chemtrail Reports  
Iowa Chemtrail Reports  
Kansas Chemtrail Reports  
Kentucky Chemtrail Reports  
Louisiana Chemtrail Reports  
Maine Chemtrail Reports  
Maryland Chemtrail Reports  
Massachusetts Chemtrail Reports  
Michigan Chemtrail Reports  
Minnesota Chemtrail Reports  
Mississippi Chemtrail Reports  
Missouri Chemtrail Reports  
Montana Chemtrail Reports  
Nebraska Chemtrail Reports  
Nevada Chemtrail Reports  
New Hampshire Chemtrail Reports  
New Jersey Chemtrail Reports  
New Mexico Chemtrail Reports  
New York Chemtrail Reports  
North Carolina Chemtrail Reports  
North Dakota Chemtrail Reports  
Ohio Chemtrail Reports  
Oklahoma Chemtrail Reports  
Oregon Chemtrail Reports  
Pennsylvania Chemtrail Reports  
Rhode Island Chemtrail Reports  
South Carolina Chemtrail Reports  
South Dakota Chemtrail Reports  
Tennessee Chemtrail Reports  
Texas Chemtrail Reports  
Utah Chemtrail Reports  
Vermont Chemtrail Reports  
Virginia Chemtrail Reports  
Washington Chemtrail Reports  
West Virginia Chemtrail Reports  
Wisconsin Chemtrail Reports  
Wyoming Chemtrail Reports  
  
NATO Countries Reporting Chemtrails  
  
Australia Chemtrail Reports  
Bulgaria Chemtrail Reports  
Canada Chemtrail Reports  
Czech Republic Chemtrail Reports  
Croatia Chemtrail Reports  
Denmark Chemtrail Reports  
France Chemtrail Reports  
Germany Chemtrail Reports  
Greece Chemtrail Reports  
Hungary Chemtrail Reports  
Iceland Chemtrail Reports  
Ireland Chemtrail Reports  
Italy Chemtrail Reports  
Latvia Chemtrail Reports  
Lithuania Chemtrail Reports  
Mexico Chemtrail Reports  
Netherlands Chemtrail Reports  
New Zealand Chemtrail Reports  
Norway Chemtrail Reports  
Poland Chemtrail Reports  
Portugal Chemtrail Reports  
Romania Chemtrail Reports  
Scotland Chemtrail Reports  
Slovakia Chemtrail Reports  
Spain Chemtrail Reports  
United Kingdom Chemtrail Reports  
 
 
Name: *
Email: *
City in USA : *
California County:
Your State:
Zip Code:
Your Country:

How often do you want to be notified?

When my County is being sprayed : Yes No
When my State is being sprayed: Yes No
When ANY state reports spraying: Yes No
When any Country reports spraying: Yes No
Comments :
“If we do not get back control of the air that we breathe, the very air that our children breathe, then we are no longer free and more tyranny will follow.” - California Chemtrail Resistance
 

STOP SPRAYING CALIFORNIA!
California Chemtrail Information - Geoengineering & Chemtrails


Geoengineering and Chemtrails


U.N. urged to freeze climate geo-engineering projects

SCIENCE NEWS


By Chisa Fujioka Posted 2010/10/21 at 3:55 am EDT

NAGOYA, Japan, Oct. 21, 2010 (Reuters) — The United Nations should impose a moratorium on "geo-engineering" projects such as artificial volcanoes and vast cloud-seeding schemes to fight climate change, green groups say, fearing they could harm nature and mankind.

An agricultural aircraft flies over Prachuab Khirikhan in a bid to seed clouds, about 300 km (186 miles) south of Bangkok, April 4, 2007. REUTERS/Sukree Sukplang

The risks were too great because the impacts of manipulating nature on a vast scale were not fully known, the groups said at a major U.N. meeting in Japan aimed at combating increasing losses of plant and animal species.

Envoys from nearly 200 countries are gathered in Nagoya, Japan, to agree targets to fight the destruction of forests, rivers and coral reefs that provide resources and services central to livelihoods and economies.

A major cause for the rapid losses in nature is climate change, the United Nations says, raising the urgency for the world to do whatever it can to curb global warming and prevent extreme droughts, floods and rising sea levels.

Some countries regard geo-engineering projects costing billions of dollars as a way to control climate change by cutting the amount of sunlight hitting the earth or soaking up excess greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide.

"It's absolutely inappropriate for a handful of governments in industrialized countries to make a decision to try geo-engineering without the approval of all the world's support," Pat Mooney, from Canada-headquartered advocacy organization ETC Group, told Reuters on the sidelines of the October 18-29 meeting.

"They shouldn't proceed with real-life, in-the-environment experimentation or the deployment of any geo-engineering until there is a consensus in the United Nations that this is okay."

Some conservation groups say geo-engineering is a way for some governments and companies to get out of taking steps to slash planet-warming emissions.

The U.N. climate panel says a review of geo-engineering will be part of its next major report in 2013.

SOLAR REFLECTORS

Some of the geo-engineering schemes proposed include:

-- Ocean fertilization. Large areas are sprinkled with iron or other nutrients to artificially spur growth of phytoplankton, which soak up carbon dioxide. But this could trigger harmful algal blooms, soak up nutrients and kill fish and other animals.

-- Spray seawater into the atmosphere to increase the reflectivity and condensation of clouds so they bounce more sunlight back into space.

-- Placing trillions of tiny solar reflectors out in space to cut the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth.

-- Artificial volcanoes. Tiny sulfate particles or other materials are released into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, simulating the effect of a major volcanic eruption.

-- Carbon capture and storage. Supported by a number of governments and involves capturing CO2 from power stations, refineries and natural gas wells and pumping it deep underground.

Mooney said the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) should expand its de-facto moratorium on ocean fertilization agreed in 2008 to all geo-engineering, although the proposal was resisted by some countries, including Canada, earlier this year.

Canada said in Nagoya that it would work with the CBD.

"Canada was simply concerned about the lack of clarity on definitions including what activities are included in 'geo-engineering'," Cynthia Wright, head of the delegation, said in an email response.

"Canada shares concerns of the international community about potential negative impacts of geo-engineering on biodiversity and is willing to work with other CBD Parties to avoid these impacts," she said.

Environmentalists said geo-engineering went against the spirit of the Nagoya talks, which aims to set new targets for 2020 to protect nature, such as setting up more land and marine protected areas, cutting pollution and managing fishing.

"We are certainly in favor of more (geo-engineering) research, as in all fields, but not any implementation for the time being because it's too dangerous. We don't know what the effects can be," said Francois Simard of conservation group IUCN.

"Improving nature conservation is what we should do in order to fight climate change, not trying to change nature."

(Reporting by Chisa Fujioka; Editing by David Fogarty)

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre69k183-us-geoengineering/


Atmospheric Geoengineering

Julian Rose, August 2010

I have drawn extensively upon a Global Research article by Radi Ananda of July 30th 2010, entitled “Atmospheric Geoengineering, Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails” in putting together this article.

Many of us have had our suspicions concerning the advent of unusual cloud formations and abnormal jet trails forming in the upper atmosphere over the past decade. I have personally witnessed hundreds of days of ‘engineered’ jet trails and clouds, both in the UK and in Poland. However, it has proved extremely difficult to obtain any information about this phenomena from official sources. When challenged, the normal answer is “nothing unusual is happening.”

This however, turns out to be very far from the truth, as we shall see from the evidence revealed in this paper. While I concentrate the majority of the article on just one recent example of professional research on this topic, there have, in practice, been hundreds of both official and unofficial documents exploring and exposing the military and civil aviation antics that are responsible for laying layer upon layer of toxic aerosol “chemtrails” in the sky above our heads on an almost daily basis for the last ten years.

These ‘events’ go unreported by mainstream media and governments remain silent. This collusion, prevents us, the general public, ever finding out that we are being subjected to a grand geoengineering experiment which has the effect of hobbling our health and severely disrupting the natural environment. Only by extensive use of the internet is it possible to unearth the facts and gain reasonable access to information about this vast and largely covert quasi-military operation in our sky’s.

We have the Belgium based Belfort Group to thank for bringing together more than seven years of research and fact finding on the activities that have become largely known as “Chemtrails.” At an international symposium at Delft University of Technology in Ghent, 29 May 2010, the Belfort Group enlisted Dr Coen Vermeeren, a senior aeronautics engineer, to address this issue. Dr Vermeeren took as the basis of his presentation, a 300 page scientific report entitled “Case Orange: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies.” (1) In his talk Dr Vemeeren frankly admits to the existence of ‘persistent contrails’:

“We also know that chemtrails do exist because we do the spraying; for crops, for example, and we know that they have been spraying for military purposes. So ‘chemtrails’ is not new. We know about it.”

The Case Orange report reveals the existence of publicly available material that shows that various forms of geoengineering have been going on for “at least 60 years.” Early examples include ‘cloud seeding’ UK war operations in Germany in World War Two and in Vietnam during US attempts to dislodge the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war. However, these pale into insignificance by comparison with the extensive nature of current activities.

Controversy over the detrimental effects of such activities on both the environment and man, led to ‘Environmental Modification’ (En Mod) weaponry being banned under the auspices of “The UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques” in 1987. It is not clear whether this ban was ever fully enforced. However, interest in En Mod soon gained prominence when ‘global warming’ warnings and accompanying environmental stress issues attracted global scientific interest.(2)

The Case Orange report cites a number of US patents for the invention of a “Specific contrail generation apparatus for producing a powder contrail having maximum radiation scattering ability for a given weight of material. The seeding material consists of 85% metallic particles and 15% Colloidial Silica and Silica gel in order to produce a stable contrail that has a residence period of 1 up to 2 weeks.”

Then, in 2009, the publication of a report entitled “Modification of Cirrus Clouds to Reduce Global Warming” put the case for further geoengineering strategies (3). These all had the stated intent of creating a layer of reflective cloud capable of bouncing back the sun’s rays to prevent unwanted terrestrial climate heating.

The report finds that The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change findings to be exactly the same as the Hughes Aircraft Patent 1991. Hughes was later bought by Raytheon, The US government’s private defence contractor. This is the same company that aquired the contract to build HAARP ‘The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program” in Gakona, Alaska.

HAARP is a large 180 antennae grid that projects powerful electro magnetic pulses to heat a specific point in the earth’s ionosphere. This has the effect of creating electromagnetic frequencies that can be bounced back to earth at desired locations, causing major disruption to weather and geophysical elements, even deep underground. Up to 3.6 billion watts can be generated by HAARP, heating the ionosphere to over 50,000 degrees and “lifting a 30 square kilometre area of the ionosphere, thereby changing localised pressure systems or even altering the route of jet streams.” (4)(5)

The Case Orange report cites evidence that Raytheon could develop the capacity to “Exercise a form of complete ‘weather control.’” A situation bearing a marked similarity to the Monsanto corporation’s stated ambition “to control the food chain.” It is noteworthy that there are currently more than 500 ‘climate ready’ genetically modified plant gene patents awaiting licensing approvals in Washington and Brussels. ‘Climate Ready’ GM seeds and plants are promised by their creators to be capable of producing a crop under both flood and drought conditions.

The human rights and environmental watchdog ‘ETC Group’ gives the following prognosis on atmospheric geoengineering developments: “The roll-out of ‘Plan B’ (a reference to the use of geoengineering if other efforts to curtail emissions should be deemed ineffective) is being skilfully executed:

Prominent high level panels sponsored by prestige groups, a spate of peer-reviewed articles in science journals and a line up of panicked politicians in northern countries, nodding nervously in agreement as scientists testify about the “need to research Plan B.”

Rady Ananda states (in the Global Research article cited at the end of this paper (6):

“Case Orange ties-in a 1996 report by top military personnel in the US entitled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” (7) with details such as – government spraying schedules, chemical orders, correct nomenclature used in airline operation manuals and calls for goeengineering by economists – to support its notion of “heavy involvement of governments at top level in climate control projects.” Ananda continues: “Owning the Weather in 2025 provides a specific time line for the use of En Mod technologies in cooperation with the Weather Modification Association, a business-government group promoting the ‘beneficial’ (my italics) uses of environmental modification (8):

2000-2025 Use chemicals for atmospheric seeding by civilian (as well as military) aviation

2004 Create smart clouds through nanotechnology, with exponential increase from 2010

2005 Introduce carbon black dust

In 2007, The World Meteorological Organisation (of the United Nations) published a statement that included “Guidelines for Planning of Weather Modification Activities.” This document clearly

implicates the UN in plans to conduct aerosol spraying activities on a wide scale.

In a section of the Case Orange report dealing with ‘the bare necessities of geoengineering through cloud generation for the survival of the planet’ the authors state:

“Our investigation team comes to the conclusion that climate control programs, controlled by the military but approved by governments, are silently implemented in order to avoid the worst case scenario they obviously do not want. The two basic instruments are temperature control through the generation of artificial clouds and manipulation of the ionosphere through ionosphere heaters.

Both remain basically military combat systems with the option to go into the offensive if deemed necessary. However, since several ionospheric heaters are installed at various places around the globe, one can assume that there is wide cooperation between governments in order to reach climate targets by 2025: controlling the weather and the planet.” (my emphasis).

The spraying schemes seem to be organised in a logical pattern so that the whole of Europe is covered in a 3 day period. Coloured maps of Europe indicate when each regime is to take place.

In the report’s section entitled ‘Recommendations’ the authors state:

“Persistent chemtrails have a devastating impact on eco-systems on this planet and to quality of life in general.” The authors call for the full disclosure of the current En Mod activities to the public, as well as for all civil aviation laws to be abided by.

One encouraging piece of information is that, in response to policy interest in geoengineering as a means to climate control, the sub committee of the United Nations Convention of Biodiversity, proposed, in May 2010, a moratorium of geoengineering activities (9). This proposal will be heard at the Tenth Conference of Parties to the UN Convention of Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan in October this year (2010).

The Case Orange report further states that the US permits open air testing of chemical and biological weapons – but not under the civil law mentioned earlier in this article. The authors paraphrase the permissive law thus: “The Secretary of Defense may conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological agents on civilian populations.” It seems that ‘national security’ concerns can be used by the President to overrule environmental and public health considerations. Is the same true of Europe?

I have tried to provide a basic outline of the main evidence arising from the Case Orange report. It makes an important contribution to opening up otherwise secretive agendas that have no place in any self declared democracy. Other significant reports that can be found via a web search, include an important paper by Dr Ilya Perlingieri, entitled “The Consequences of Toxic Metals and Chemical Aerosols on Human health” (Global Research). Dr Perlingieri states:

“Over the past decade, independent testing of Chemtrails around the county have shown a dangerous, extremely poisonous brew that includes: barium, nano-aluminium coated fibreglass (known as CHAFF), radioactive thorium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, dessicated blood, mould spores, yellow fungal mycotoxins, ethylene dibromide and polymer fibres. Barium can be compared to the toxicity of arsenic (10) and is known to adversely effect the heart. Aluminium has a history of damaging brain function.” I need hardly add that ethylene dibromide is a highly toxic agricultural pesticide.

In another report, Dr Hildegarde Staninger reports that “Exposure to aerial emissions of nano composite materials resulted in cholinesterase inhibition. (11). The chronic inhibition of this enzyme (that normally circulates in red blood corpuscles) caused by the spraying of these Chemtrail aerosols (for weather modification, but also for mosquito and other insect eradication) causes chronic poisoning. This exposure causes severe neurological disorders, including paralysis in humans.”

Now that we are party to this information we must to act on it. It is vital that we support the moratorium taking place in Japan this October. We must join together in calling for an immediate halt to this unprecedented form of covert genocide. Also, do write to your MP’s and tell them that these global activities are not ‘conspiracy theories’; and that they are taking place without consultation and without any attempt to warn of their likely repercussions.

References:

  1. Dr Coen Vermeeren symposium speech, Delft University of Technology, 29 May 2010, http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7299427 go 35 minutes in.

  2. Catherine Brahic: “Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, New Scientist, 1/9/2009

  3. David L Mitchell and William Finnegan, “Modification of Cirrus Clouds to reduce global warming” Environmental Research Letters Vol 4. No 4, 30/10/2009. Subscription only: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102

  4. ‘About HAARP’ from a paper by Belitsos, Radical Wisdom, 14/7/2010. http://radwisdom.com/2010/07/14/chemtrails-aerosol-madness-above-the-earth/

  5. For further reading on HAARP see Prof. Michel Chossudovsky: “Owning The Weather” Global Research website.

  6. Rady Ananda, “Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails” 30/07/2010. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20369

  7. Col Tamzy J.House, et al. “Weather as a Force Multiplier: “Owning the Weather in 2025”, Department of Defense U.S. Air Force, 17/06/1996. Publicly released August 1996. Reproduced at Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm

  8. Weather Modification Website: http://www.weathermodification.org/

  9. Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, “In-Depth Review of the Work on Biodiversity and Climate Change, Draft Recommendations, Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nationa Environmental Programme, UNEP/CBD/SBTTA/l.9, 15/05/2010. http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-14/in-session/sbstta-14-L-09-en.pdf

  10. See Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC41174

  11. Sept. 7, 2009: www.hildegarde-staninger.com/exposureto-aerial-emissions-html (site no longer available) See papers of Dr Hildegarde Staninger on her web site.

http://piotrbein.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/atmospheric-geoengineering/


Smattering of Activists Protest Geoengineering, 'Chemtrails'

by Eli Kintisch on 20 February 2010, 6:37 PM |

Protest holding 'Chemtrails' sign

SAN DIEGO —I wasn’t the only one underwhelmed by the size of the anti-geoengineering “rally,” as it was billed. The event, slated for this morning to coincide with one of three sessions on geoengineering at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes Science NOW), focused on the chemtrails conspiracy theory: the idea that the government is spraying particles into the sky in a clandestine program to reverse global warming. It was organized by California activists and held across the street from the convention center.

“This is the [blank] turnout?” said Ray Switzer, a local activist in sunglasses. “I’m appalled. This is a disease on our country. This is the wildest thing. I thought there would be people from all over the country here. The apathy is pathetic. They could care less if I’m getting sprayed like a cockroach.”

The advertisement for the event had blared:

“ALERT- Geo-Engineering Scientists to Meet in San Diego ACTIVISTS, STAY TUNED at this URL in THIS SECTION”

Protesters with masks

Beforehand, I’d spoken to the organizer, a mulitmedia producer and farmer named Mauro Oliveira. I’d asked him what chemtrails were. “The government or whoever” was adding compounds to certain aircraft exhausts, and evidence of its existence was found in elevated levels of aluminum particles recorded by activists using home test kits, he explained. The protest had attracted about a dozen people, about half of them with video or digital cameras.

A small prayer circle had convened off to the side; someone played a drum, and a long smoking wooden pipe was passed around. Several girls joined the protest and held signs on the periphery.

Handout: 'Are we the experiment?'

Oliviera used a megaphone to call to passersby. Among his allegations was that Ken Caldiera, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institution who has led much of the goeengineering research efforts, was a “weapons-optimization scientist” (more allegations here). “Geoengineering will reduce the effects of the [greenhouse] emissions, but it will do nothing to lower the emissions,” they said. Passersby were given handouts describing “Alarming Local Lab Tests Reveal Accumulated Contamination:

Another handout suggested that citizens check the skies for “persistent jet trails/man-made clouds,” and if any were seen, to “Protect Your Family and Pets” by using “a respirator mask designed to remove toxic chemicals from the air.”

“I worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory with Edward Teller and Lowell Wood,” Caldiera said later, citing the father of the H-Bomb and his acolyte. He feared the use of geoengineering as a weapon, not schemed to develop it as one. “They couldn’t get money for this work—I doubt anyone else can.”

More photos:

Protester holding 'This land is your land' sign

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/02/smattering-of-activists-protest.html


BILL GATES & CHEMTRAILS - Funding research for SEA WATER SPRAYING CLOUD MACHINES

5/11/2010 at 10:47 AM


link to technology.timesonline.co.uk

The first trials of controversial sunshielding technology are being planned after the United Nations failed to secure agreement on cutting greenhouse gases.

Bill Gates, the Microsoft billionaire, is funding research into machines to suck up ten tonnes of seawater every second and spray it upwards. This would seed vast banks of white clouds to reflect the Sun’s rays away from Earth.

The British and American scientists involved do not intend to wait for international rules on technology that deliberately alters the climate. They believe that the weak outcome of December’s climate summit in Copenhagen means that emissions will continue to rise unchecked and that the world urgently needs an alternative strategy to protect itself from global warming.

Many methods of cooling the planet, collectively known as geoengineering, have been proposed. They include rockets to deploy millions of mirrors in the stratosphere and artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide from the air. Most would be prohibitively expensive and could not be deployed for decades.

However, a study last year calculated that a fleet of 1,900 ships costing £5 billion could arrest the rise in temperature by criss-crossing the oceans and spraying seawater from tall funnels to whiten clouds and increase their reflectivity.

Silver Lining, a research body in San Francisco, has received $300,000 (£204,000) from Mr Gates. It will develop machines to convert seawater into microscopic particles capable of being blown up to the cloud level of 1,000 metres. This would whiten clouds by increasing the number of nuclei.

The trial would involve ten ships and 10,000sq km (3,800sq miles) of ocean. Armand Neukermanns, who is leading the research, said that whitening clouds was “the most benign form of engineering” because, while it might alter rainfall, the effects would cease soon after the machines were switched off.

Other types of geoengineering, such as mimicking volcanoes by using aircraft to spray reflective sulphate particles in the stratosphere, would have much longer effects on weather patterns.

Stephen Salter, Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design at the University of Edinburgh, said that there was no need to wait for regulations because the trials would not add chemicals to the atmosphere. But Sir David King, former chief scientific adviser to the Government, said that experiments with potential consequences beyond national borders needed international regulations. He told The Times: “I do not see any geoengineering solution which does not have unintended consequences or is not far too expensive.”


Geoengineering is defined as the deliberate modification of Earth's environment on a large scale, "to suit human needs and promote habitability". Wikipedia

Potential Geoengineering options from the IPCC:

Reforestation
Reforest 28.7 Mha of economically or environmentally marginal crop and pasture lands and nonfederal forest lands to sequester 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions.

Space Mirrors
Place 50,000 100-km2 mirrors in the earth's orbit to reflect incoming sunlight.

Stratospheric Dust
Use guns or balloons to maintain a dust cloud in the stratosphere to increase the sunlight reflection.

Stratospheric Bubbles
Place billions of aluminized, hydrogen-filled balloons in the stratosphere to provide a reflective screen.

Low Stratospheric Dust
Use aircraft to maintain a cloud of dust in the low stratosphere to reflect sunlight.

Low Stratospheric Soot
Decrease efficiency of burning in engines of aircraft flying in the low stratosphere to maintain a thin cloud of soot to intercept sunlight.

Cloud Stimulation
Burn sulfur in ships or power plants to form sulfate aerosol in order to stimulate additional low marine clouds to reflect sunlight.

Ocean Biomass Stimulation
Place iron in the oceans to stimulate generation of CO2-absorbing phytoplankton.

Atmospheric CFC Removal
Use lasers to break up CFCs in the atmosphere.


Weather modification, chemtrails, and geo-engineering what is happening in the sky?

August 31st, 2009 4:41 pm ET


It happens all over the world without any public approval. In Germany, Italy, the UK, China, America, airplanes are leaving ominous trails across the sky. These aerosol trails contain particles that linger for hours, get dispersed by the wind and eventually falling to earth.
Starting in WWII as a way to manipulate radar systems, the military would spread particle clouds in the sky containing aluminum, metallized glass fibers, or plastic. The particles would give a false echo on radar systems and proved to be perfect cover for airplanes over a battlefield. This program called CHAFF is still being used in American skies without any real explanation as to why.
Now this type of intervention in our stratosphere has been applied to geo-engineering in the form of weather modification. The most publicized event was the 2008 Olympics where the Chinese used chemicals to control rainfall in Beijing and this is happening all over the world without any regard to the leaching of chemicals into the environment.
In Germany a meteorologist has sued the military for chemtrails that he has repeatedly recorded on radar. The trails were so big he said that there must have been tons of particles dropped to create a cloud so huge that seamed to appear instantly on radars. All of those particles fall to the ground and absorbed into the environment.
In the US an Arkansas man recorded planes leaving trails in the sky and collected a sample of particles that floated down afterward. When he gave the sample to a news agency they had it tested and the results showed unusually high levels of Barium.
Mark Ryan a director of the center for disease control says that short term exposure to Barium can lead to anything from stomach to chest pains and long term exposure causes blood pressure problems and functions to weaken the immune system.
The Council on Foreign Relation (CFR) wrote in a briefing titled Unilateral Geo-engineering that despite great uncertainty and significant risks such as acidification of the ocean, the destruction of coral reefs, and changes in composition of terrestrial ecosystems geo-engineering might be needed to avert or reverse some dramatic change in the climate system.

The bottom line is that geo-engineering may not work as expected, impose large unintended consequences on climate systems as well as terrestrial ecosystems, and the public is not given a choice on the issue of usage.

http://www.examiner.com/environmental-news-in-new-york/weather-modification-chemtrails-and-geo-engineering-what-is-happening-the-sky


Geo-engineering: The radical ideas to combat global warming

Artificial clouds and creating colossal blooms of oceanic algae are among the ideas scientists say must now be considered

Alok Jha , science correspondent

guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 September 2008 09.54 BST

Artificial clouds to reflect away sunlight, creating colossal blooms of oceanic algae and the global use of synthetic carbon-neutral transport fuels are just three of the climate transforming technologies in need of urgent investigation, according to leading scientists. The eminent group argue that, with governments failing to grasp the urgent need for measures to combat dangerous climate change , radical – and possibly dangerous – solutions must now be seriously considered.

The idea of engineering on a planetary scale in a bid to control climate has been around for more than 50 years but, to date, has remained on the fringes. The potential for dramatic and beneficial change has hitherto been outweighed by the risk of unexpected side-effects in the complex climate system, with global consequences . Now, in a special edition of the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society , climate scientists and engineers have brought together the latest research and issued a call for a far-reaching assessment of a raft of geo-engineering techniques.

"We are now, or soon will be, confronting issues of whether, when and how to engineer a climate that is more to our liking," argues Ken Caldeira, a leading climate scientist based at the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California. If a decision is made to move ahead with climate engineering, he says, then it will be essential to understand the point at which the risks and costs of geo-engineering outweigh the impacts of global warming.

Not everyone is so unequivocally positive, however, including Stephen Schneider of Stanford University . In an overall assessment of the geo-engineering challenge, he notes that critics ask whether it is socially feasible to expect the many centuries of international political stability and co-operation that would be needed to operate global scale schemes. He adds that the potential also exists for conflicts between nations if geo-engineering projects go wrong.

Air

Some of the most extreme ideas for climate engineering involve reducing the sunlight falling on the Earth's surface, as a way to offset the increase in temperatures caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Caldeira calculates that reflecting just 2% of the Sun's light from the right places on Earth (mainly the Arctic) would be enough to counteract the warming effect from a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

One approach is to insert "scatterers" into the stratosphere. Caldeira cites an idea to deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide. Dispersing around 1m tonnes of sulphur dioxide per year across 10m square kilometres of the atmosphere would be enough to reflect away sufficient amounts of sunlight.

In a separate study, Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh proposes building 300-tonne ships that could spray micrometre-sized drops of seawater into the air under stratocumulus clouds. "The method is not intended to make new clouds. It will just make existing clouds whiter," he wrote. The ships would drag turbines in their wake, which would provide the power needed to spray the water.

Ocean

The growth of marine algae and other phytoplankton captures vast quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but growth is often limited by a lack of essential nutrients. Adding such nutrients, such as iron or nitrates, to stimulate growth was studied by a team led by Richard Lampitt of the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton. The organisms incorporate atmospheric CO2 as they grow and, when they die, sink to the bottom of the ocean, taking the carbon with them.

Lampitt argues for a large-scale experiments of an area of ocean measuring 100km by 100km and monitored by an independent team of scientists. "Once this research has been carried out, it will be the responsibility of the science community to perform appropriate cost-benefit-risk analyses in order to inform policy."

However, there is at present a moratorium around the world on iron-seeding experiments. "The idea is unpopular with the public because it is perceived as meddling with nature," writes Victor Smetacek of the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany and Wajih Naqvi of the National Institute of Oceanography in India. But they say rejecting seeding is premature as there have been no experiments to date that fully test the concept and the counter-arguments are based on worst-case scenarios.

Transport

More a fifth of the world's human-induced emissions of carbon dioxide come from transport. While technical fixes for these emissions might not count as geo-engineering by the strictest definition, their global effect means they can be considered alongside other options to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere. In the long term, experts believe people should be driving electric or hydrogen-fueled cars but those technologies will take too long to arrive for Frank Zeman of Columbia University and David Keith of the University of Calgary.

They propose the development of synthetic fuels called carbon-neutral hydrocarbons (CNHC) as a near-term alternative to petrol and diesel. Made by reacting together carbon dioxide and hydrogen, these fuels can be used in cars without the need for major modification of either vehicles or infrastructure. More importantly, burning them would not contribute to global warming, provided the component ingredients have been manufactured in a carbon-neutral way. The CO2 could come directly from the air, from plants or else from coal-fired power stations using carbon capture and storage technology (CCS). The latter method could also reduce the potential problems of the planned worldwide increase in the number of fossil-fuel power stations. The International Energy Agency predicts the world's use of power will increase by 50% by 2030, with 77% of that coming from fossil fuels; CCS holds the promise of preventing up to 90% of the carbon emissions from a power station escaping into the atmosphere.

Wild Card

Other ideas considered by scientists, though not in the papers published today, include scrubbing carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. Klaus Lackner of Columbia University has designed a machine that could, if built to full scale, take up the CO2 emissions of 15,000 cars. With around 250,000 such machines, it would be possible to remove as much CO2 from the atmosphere as the world is currently pumping into it. The gas could then be stored underground or used in a manufacturing process.

An idea further into the realms of the fantastic involves using shiny spacecraft to block sunlight. Scientists have suggested launching a constellation of free-flying craft that would sit between the Sun and Earth forming a cylindrical cloud around half the Earth's diameter and 10 times longer. "Approximately 10% of the sunlight passing through the 60,000 mile length of the cloud, pointing lengthwise between the Earth and the Sun would be diverted away from the Earth, which would uniformly reduce sunlight over the planet by approximately 2%," writes Stephen Schneider of Stanford University. The cost would be a dazzling $100bn (£55.5bn) a year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/01/climatechange.endangeredhabitats


Extreme and risky action the only way to tackle global warming, say scientists

· Geo-engineering 'better than doing nothing'
· Fake clouds among ideas in Royal Society papers

David Adam , environment correspondent

The Guardian, Monday 1 September 2008

Algae China

Scientists have suggested creating areas of oceanic algae to absorb carbon dioxide. Photograph: Associated Press

Political inaction on global warming has become so dire that nations must now consider extreme technical solutions - such as blocking out the sun - to address catastrophic temperature rises, scientists from around the world warn today.

The experts say a reluctance "at virtually all levels" to address soaring greenhouse gas emissions means carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are on track to pass 650 parts-per-million (ppm), which could bring an average global temperature rise of 4C. They call for more research on geo-engineering options to cool the Earth, such as dumping massive quantities of iron into oceans to boost plankton growth, and seeding artificial clouds over oceans to reflect sunlight back into space.

Writing the introduction to a special collection of scientific papers on the subject, published today by the Royal Society, Brian Launder of the University of Manchester and Michael Thompson of the University of Cambridge say: "While such geoscale interventions may be risky, the time may well come when they are accepted as less risky than doing nothing."

They add: "There is increasingly the sense that governments are failing to come to grips with the urgency of setting in place measures that will assuredly lead to our planet reaching a safe equilibrium."

Professor Launder, a mechanical engineer, told the Guardian: "The carbon numbers just don't add up and we need to be looking at other options, namely geo-engineering, to give us time to let the world come to its senses." He said it was important to research and develop the technologies so that they could be deployed if necessary. "At the moment it's almost like talking about how we could stop world war two with an atomic bomb, but we haven't done the research to develop nuclear fission."

Such geo-engineering options have been talked about for years as a possible last-ditch attempt to control global temperatures, if efforts to constrain emissions fail. Critics argue they are a dangerous distraction from attempts to limit carbon pollution, and that they could have disastrous side-effects. They would also do nothing to prevent ecological damage caused by the growing acidification of the oceans, caused when carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater. Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change dismissed geo-engineering as "largely speculative and unproven and with the risk of unknown side-effects".

Dr Alice Bows of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester said: "I'm not a huge fan of messing with the atmosphere in an geo-engineering sense because there could be unpredictable consequences. But there are also a lot of unpredictable consequences of temperature increase. It does appear that we're failing to act [on emissions]. And if we are failing to act, then we have to consider some of the other options."

In a strongly worded paper with colleague Kevin Anderson in today's special edition of the society's Philosophical Transactions journal, Bows says politicians have significantly underestimated the scale of the climate challenge. They say this year's G8 pledge to cut global emissions 50% by 2050, in an effort to limit global warming to 2C, has no scientific basis and could lead to "dangerously misguided" policies.

The scientists say global carbon emissions are rising so fast that they would need to peak by 2015 and then decrease by up to 6.5% each year for atmospheric CO2 levels to stabilise at 450ppm, which might limit temperature rise to 2C. Even a goal of 650ppm - way above most government projections - would need world emissions to peak in 2020 and then reduce 3% each year.

Globally, a 4C temperature rise would have a catastrophic impact. According to the government's Stern review on the economics of climate change in 2006, between 7 million and 300 million more people would be affected by coastal flooding each year, there would be a 30-50% reduction in water availability in southern Africa and the Mediterranean, agricultural yields would decline 15-35% in Africa and 20-50% of animal and plant species would face extinction.

Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, said: "It's not clear which of these geo-engineering technologies might work, still less what environmental and social impacts they might have, or whether it could ever be prudent or politically acceptable to adopt any of them. But it is worth devoting effort to clarifying both the feasibility and any potential downsides of the various options. None of these technologies will provide a 'get out of jail free card' and they must not divert attention away from efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases."

Mike Childs of Friends of the Earth said: "We can't afford to wait for magical geo-engineering solutions to get us out of the hole we have dug ourselves into. The solutions that exist now, such as a large-scale energy efficiency programme and investment in wind, wave and solar power, can do the job if we deploy them at the scale and urgency that is needed."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/01/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange2

Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails

A Review of the "Case Orange" report

by Rady Ananda

Global Research, July 30, 2010

At an international symposium held in Ghent, Belgium May 28-30, 2010, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a Deception in the Last Days.” It is “fully operational” with a solid sixty-year history. Though “hostile” environmental modification was banned by UN Convention in 1978, its “friendly” use today is being hailed as the new savior to climate change and to water and food shortages. The military-industrial complex stands poised to capitalize on controlling the world’s weather.

“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” ~World Meteorological Organization, 2007



Rainmaker Charles Hatfield, in 1915, destroyed much of San Diego.

The only conspiracy surrounding geoengineering is that most governments and industry refuse to publicly admit what anyone with eyes can see. Peer-reviewed research is available to anyone willing and able to maneuver the labyrinth of scientific journals. So, while there is some disclosure on the topic, full public explanation is lacking. A brief list of confirmed cloud seeding events is produced at bottom, starting in 1915.

Going under a variety of names – atmospheric geoengineering, weather modification, solar radiation management, chemical buffering, cloud seeding, weather force multiplication – toxic aerial spraying is popularly known as chemtrails. However, this is merely one technique employed to modify weather. The practice of environmental modification is vast and well funded.

Hosted by the Belfort Group, which has been working for the last seven years to raise public awareness of toxic aerial spraying, the Symposium included chemtrail awareness groups from Greece, Germany, Holland, France and the U.S. Belfort published five videos covering only May 29,[1] when filmmaker Michael Murphy (Environmental Deception and What in the world are they spraying)[2] and aerospace engineer Dr. Coen Vermeeren [3] gave the most dramatic presentations.

Dr Vermeeren, of the Delft University of Technology, presented [4] a 300-page scientific report entitled, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies.” [5]

Case Orange notes it was prepared for the Belfort Group by a team of scientists but presented anonymously. It was sent to embassies, news organizations and interested groups around the world “to force public debate.”

The report spends some time on HAARP, the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, [6] which is a military endeavor focused on ionospheric, electromagnetic, and global electrostatic field manipulation, and on other exotic weapon systems that manipulate the environment. While related, they go beyond this discussion of chemtrails.

In the interest of brevity, the health and environmental implications of cloud seeding is not discussed in any depth herein. Case Orange does go into it, as did most of the speakers at the Belfort Symposium. Cursory research reveals a debate among researchers as to chemtrail toxicity, but whether that’s a 50-50 or 99-1 argument is unknown.

Contrails Are Chemtrails

Case Orange rejects use of the term ‘chemtrails’ because it is associated with amateur conspiracy theorists. The only credible document it could find that uses it is the Space Preservation Act of 2001 introduced by U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). [7] H.R. 2977 sought to ban the use of exotic weapon systems that would damage climate, weather, tectonic and biological systems. “Chemtrails” are specifically listed. Though later removed, no version of the bill ever became law.

Instead, the writers prefer the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon since all contrails are chemtrails. ‘Persistent contrails’ distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes.

Case Orange also rejects misanthropic intentions behind persistent contrails. It shows that geoengineering is fully operational, but rejects it is used to sicken people on the assumptions that 1) public health agencies have the public interest at heart; and 2) the economy is consumer driven. The authors indicate no awareness of numerous reports of collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and government health agencies. This year, a significant conflict-of-interest report appeared in the prestigious British Medical Journal, which further heightened suspicions that the H1N1 flu and its vaccines were a scam.[8] Nor do the authors consider that sick people will spur economic growth in a capitalist (for profit) health system.



Dr. Vermeeren gave his own introductory remarks and conclusions, but spent the bulk of the hour presenting information from Case Orange. He frankly admitted the existence of persistent contrails.

“We also know that chemtrails do exist because we do spraying; for crops, for example, and we know that they have been spraying for military purposes. So, chemtrails is nothing new. We know about it.”



CLICK LINK Dr Coen Vermeeren Symposium speech,
Afternoon Part 1 video, (starting at about 35 mins.) (29 May 2010)
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7299427



“Weather manipulation through contrail formation … is in place and fully operational.”

Case Orange cites publicly available material that shows geoengineering has been ongoing for “at least 60 years.” Used as a weapon of war in Hamburg by the UK during World War II, it was also used in the Vietnam Conflict by the US. Controversy over its use, revealed by investigative reporter Jack Anderson, spurred Senate hearings in 1972. During those hearings, military officials denied the use of cloud seeding technology. Later, a private letter from Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird admitting that his testimony was false surfaced. He, again unbelievably, claimed he didn’t know what was happening. [9]

Environmental modification (EnMod) weaponry was finally banned by treaty in 1978. The UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques forced the end of such programs, overtly anyway.[10] (Case Orange authors seem unaware of this international ban, as it is one of their recommendations.)

However, with widespread reporting of rising global temperatures, increasing population, and degradation of water supplies, renewed interest in EnMod is now becoming broadly supported. (See, e.g., Top economists recommend climate engineering, 4 Sep 2009 [11] and similarly, Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, 1 Sep 2009.[12])





The crew in Operation Stormfury in 1963. Note the special belly on the Douglas DC6-B for cloud seeding purposes. (From Case Orange)

Building a case for old technology finding a new market, Case Orange discusses several U.S. patents. For example, authors describe a 1975 patent, “Powder Contrail Generation,” [13] for the invention of a:

“specific contrail generation apparatus for producing a powder contrail having maximum radiation scattering ability for a given weight [of] material. The seeding material … consists of 85% metallic particles and 15% colloidal Silica and Silica gel in order to produce a stable contrail that has a residence period of 1 up to 2 weeks.”

In 2009, researchers published “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global warming,” which proposed two methods of delivery for this same proportion of metallics to silica and the same staying power of one to two weeks.[14]

Case Orange also reveals a 1991 patent held by Hughes Aircraft Company [15] that:

“contains 18 claims to reduce global warming through stratospheric seeding with aluminum oxide… thorium oxide … and refractory Welsbach material ….”

The report notes that “the proposed scenario by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] in 2001 is identical to the claims” in Hughes Aircraft’s 1991 patent. Hughes was acquired by Raytheon, a private defense contractor, in 1997, “the same company that acquired E-systems and the HAARP contract.”

Case Orange presents evidence that Raytheon stands to control all weather, which the authors find repugnant given that it is a private corporation. The authors recommend suing private corporations instead of governments. But subcontracting is quite common for governments and agencies, especially the US military. The distinction between large, powerful corporations and governments is a fine line obscure to common folk. And, the effect is the same whether governments are spraying us with nano-sized metals, chemicals or biologicals, or whether corporations do. The authors’ protective posture toward governments is nonsensical.

Case Orange suggests that geoengineering found new life in the global warming scare. Old patents are being dusted off and private interests stand to make substantial sums now that Cap and Trade has been exposed as ineffective in reducing greenhouse gases. (Although, lawmakers are still considering it since substantial sums can be made from the scheme, to wit: Al Gore reportedly achieved billionaire status from it.)

Since 2007, billionaire Bill Gates has spent at least $4.5 million on geoengineering research. [16] Since reducing emissions is not popular with industry, ‘Plan B’ – geoengineering – is being touted as the answer to climate change and water shortage. A longer description of Plan B is: Add more pollution to the sky and water to offset industrial pollution, without reducing industrial pollution.

Human rights and environmental watchdog, ETC Group, describes the momentum [17]:

“The roll-out of geoengineering as Plan B is being skillfully executed: prominent high-level panels sponsored by prestigious groups, a spate of peer-reviewed articles this January in science journals, and a line-up of panicked politicians in northern countries, nodding nervously in agreement as scientists testify about the ‘need to research Plan B.’”

ETC reports that Gates’ top geoengineering advisor unveiled a plan to grow solar radiation management research “one-hundred-fold, from $10 million to $1 billion over ten years.”

Indeed, several watchdog groups recently ramped up calls to address clean water shortage. “At the end of July 2010, the United Nations General Assembly will vote on an important resolution, initiated by the Bolivian government, which would make clean water and sanitation a human right,” reports Food and Water Watch.[18]

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025



Case Orange ties a 1996 report by top military personnel in the U.S., “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” [19] to evidentiary details (like governmental spraying schedules, chemical orders, correct nomenclature used in airline operating manuals, and calls for geoengineering by economists) to support its notion of “heavy involvement of governments at top level in climate control projects.”

Owning the Weather in 2025 provides a specific timeline for the use of EnMod technologies in cooperation with the Weather Modification Association (WMA), a business-government group promoting the beneficial uses of environmental modification [20]:

2000 Introduce ionic mirrors, with a sharp increase from 2008;

2000-2025 Use chemicals for atmospheric seeding by civilian (as well as military) aviation;

2004 Create smart clouds thru nanotechnology, with exponential increase after 2010;

2005 Introduce ‘carbon black dust’.

Though Case Orange decries the paucity of research into EnMod, in 2009 WMA published its position statement on the safety of seeding clouds with silver-iodide, citing three dozen research papers from 1970 through 2006. [21] In 2007, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published a statement that included “Guidelines for the Planning of Weather Modification Activities.” Acknowledging that the modern technology of weather modification began in the 1940s, it is still “an emerging technology” today. [22] WMO indicated disappointment that research is being abandoned for operations.

Case Orange contains no reference to the WMA position statement citing all that research, although it cites the group. Nor does it mention the World Meteorological Organization, an agency of the United Nations, which has a link to its Weather Modification portal on its Index page.

At the end of the section, The bare necessity of geoengineering through cloud generation for survival of the planet (5.2.7), Case Orange states:

“[O]ur investigation team comes to the conclusion that climate control programs, controlled by the military but approved by governments, are silently implemented in order to avoid the worst case scenarios they obviously do not want. The two basic instruments are temperature control through generation of artificial clouds and manipulation of the ionosphere through ionosphere heaters.

“Both remain basically military combat systems with the option to go into the offensive if deemed necessary. However since several ionosphere heaters are installed on various places around the globe one can assume that there is wide cooperation between governments in order to reach the climate targets by 2025: controlling the weather and thus the planet.”

The report published the following images provided by a former meteorologist at the Ontario Weather Service, showing spraying schemes for Europe. For December 6, 2008:











“The spraying schemes seem to be organized in a logical pattern so that the whole of Europe is covered in a 3-day period,” the authors write. The following images cover January 3-5, 2010:

Case Orange agrees that climate change needs to be addressed. Regarding Climate-Gate, the authors suggest that the University of East Anglia deliberately manipulated the climate data to gradually prepare the global population for its future on a hotter planet.

They also cite research that supports the notion that climate change is real. During the three-day grounding of most aircraft after 9/11, scientists noticed an increase in temperature of 1.1 °C (2 °F). [23] This is an astounding increase in such a short time frame. The incidence of cloud seeding reports by the public increases exponentially after this.

The 1996 military piece, Owning the Weather in 2025, gives climate change skeptics “an insight in what to expect in the 21st century:

‘Current demographic, economic and environmental trends will create global stresses that provide the impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn weather modfication ability into capability. In the United States weather modification will likely become 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.’”

Recommendations

“Persistent contrails,” however, “have a devastating impact on eco-systems on this planet and quality of life in general.” Case Orange joins the call of Bill Gates’ geoengineering advisor and the WMO for new research measuring the impact on human health and the environment from EnMod programs.

Case Orange also recommends an immediate and full disclosure of current EnMod activities to the public; and that all civil aviation laws be abided.

Of note, in response to policy interest in geoengineering as a means to control climate change and enhance water supplies, on May 14, 2010, the science subcommittee of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity proposed a geoengineering moratorium. [24] This proposed ban on “friendly” EnMod programs will be heard at the Tenth Conference of Parties to UN Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan this October.

Case Orange reports that China and Russia openly admit to cloud-seeding, while the U.S. denies such activities. The U.S. does permit open air testing of chemical and biological weapons but not under the law the authors cited, which they paraphrased:

The secretary of defense may conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological agents on civilian populations.

Public law of the United States, Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977.

Codified as 50 USC 1520, under Chapter 32 Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, Public Law 85-79 was repealed in 1997 by Public Law 105-85. In its place, 15 USC 1520a provides restrictions (such as informed consent). 50 USC 1512, however, allows open air testing of chemicals and biologicals and allows presidential override of notices and of public health considerations for national security reasons. [25] Case Orange authors are thus correct in asserting that such programs are legal in the U.S.

Epilogue

Having heard enough conspiracy theories to last me a lifetime, I hesitated researching the subject of chemtrails, and maintained skepticism. That all changed in March when I personally observed two jets seeding clouds, along with about 30 other people in the parking lot at lunchtime. Someone took a picture from her cell phone:



The trails lasted for hours, and looked distinctly different from other clouds. Since then, I’ve been watching the skies and can now tell when they’ve been seeded. We often have a white haze instead of a deep blue sky, even when persistent contrails aren’t visible.

A few days ago, someone sent me a link to the Belfort Symposium videos. Four hours into it, I became riveted when Dr. Vermeeren began his presentation of the Case Orange report. That’s when I decided to seriously look into the subject. As informative as Case Orange is for the newcomer, any serious research into the subject reveals that what all those “conspiracy theorists” suggest is true: they are spraying the skies, and they’re not telling us.

Discovering that the World Meteorological Organization has a tab on its website called Weather Modification shocked me. Reading their disappointment that governments are going ahead with operations instead of doing more research confirmed all of it for me. And that was published in 2007!

So, while we’re not being told, the information is publicly available to any armchair researcher.

Being so late to the game on all this accords me sympathy for others. Military leaders have for centuries recognized that it rains after a heavy battle, but harnessing that power in a way that doesn’t cause a deluge like in San Diego in 1915 has been a task. I came upon other stories like that in my research – misdirected hurricanes, farm wars, massive flooding and mudslides. It’s no wonder there are so many books on the subject. It’s no wonder this turned into a 3,000-word essay.

Chemtrails are no hoax; I spent time going to as many original sources as I could find. The record is replete with mainstream news accounts of the early days of the modern EnMod program. If its birth can be marked by Britain’s successful use of chaff in 1943 to jam enemy radar, the program is 67 years old. That’s quite a history to keep under the radar of most people. That reflects most poorly on mainstream news sources, who are supposed to expose government shenanigans.

~~~

A Brief History of Cloud Seeding

Cloud seeding, as a US military research project, began as early as the 1830s, according to Colby College professor, James R. Fleming. [26] Verifiably successful rainmaking attempts did not occur until 1915.

1915 To end a prolonged drought, San Diego hired reputed rainmaker Charles Hatfield, who claimed that the evaporation of his secret chemical brew atop wooden towers could attract clouds. San Diego was rewarded with a 17-day deluge that totaled 28 inches. The deadly downpour washed out more than 100 bridges, made roads impassable over a huge area, destroyed communications lines, and left thousands homeless. [27]



Charles Hatfield's rain washes out dam 1915, San Diego. Dozens died.

1943 “The first operational use of chaff (aluminium strips which are precisely cut to a quarter of the radar’s wavelength) took place in July 1943, when Hamburg was subjected to a devastating bombing raid. The radar screens were cluttered with reflections from the chaff and the air defence was, in effect, completely blinded.” [28]

1946 General Electric’s Vincent Schaefer dropped six pounds of dry ice into a cold cloud over Greylock Peak in the Berkshires, causing an “explosive” growth of three miles in the cloud. [29]



New York dry ice seeding 1946 (Life Magazine)

1947 Australian meteorologists successfully repeated the process. [30]

1949 Project Cirrus: Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir and General Electric researcher Vincent Schaefer fed ten ounces of silver iodide into a blowtorch apparatus and brought down 320 billion gallons of rain across half of New Mexico from a desert near Albuquerque. [31]

1950 Harvard meteorologist Wallace Howell seeded New York City skies with dry ice and silver iodide smoke, filling the city’s reservoirs to near capacity. [32]

1952 The UK’s Operation Cumulus resulted in 250 times the normal amount of rainfall, killing dozens and destroying landscapes. [33]

1962-1983 Operation Stormfury, a hurricane modification program, had some success in reducing winds by up to 30%. [34]

1966-1972 Project Intermediary Compatriot (later called Pop Eye) successfully seeded clouds in Laos. The technique became part of military actions in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos from 1967 to 1972. Initially revealed by Jack Anderson in the Washington Post, 18 Mar 1971. [35]

1986 The Soviet air force diverted Chernobyl fallout from reaching Moscow by seeding clouds. Belarus, instead, was hit. [36]



China weather rocket (2008 by ImpactLab)

2008 Chinese government used 1,104 cloud seeding missiles to remove the threat of rain ahead of the Olympic opening ceremony in Beijing. [37]



2009 Moscow Halo. Case Orange cites this as evidence of cloud seeding, but others suspect it is electromagnetic in origin. Russian authorities said it was an optical illusion. [38]

This is by no means a comprehensive list; indeed, volumes are dedicated to the subject.


Notes:

[1] Belfort Group videos of International Symposium on Chemtrails, May 29, 2010 proceedings. http://www.ustream.tv/channel/belfort-test

[2] Michael Murphy website: http://truthmediaproductions.blogspot.com/

[3] Dr Coen Vermeeren, Delft University of Technology bio, n.d.

[4] Dr Coen Vermeeren Symposium speech, Afternoon Part 1 video, (starting at about 35 mins..) (29 May 2010)
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7299427

[5] Anonymous, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies,” 10 May 2010. PDF without appendices:
http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/case_orange-5-10-2010-belfort-chemtrails.pdf

[6] High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, Fact Sheet, 15 Jun 2007. http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/factSheet.html

[7] Space Preservation Act of 2001 , H.R.2977, 107th Congress, 1st Session. Introduced by U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich.

[8] Deborah Cohen and Philip Carter, “Conflicts of Interest: WHO and the pandemic ‘flu conspiracies,’” British Medical Journal 2010;340:c2912, 3 Jun 2010. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jun03_4/c2912

[9] The Sunshine Project, “The Limits of Inside Pressure: The US Congress Role in ENMOD,” n.d. Accessed July 2010. http://www.sunshine-project.org/enmod/US_Congr.html

[10] United Nations, “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,” Resolution 31/72, 10 Dec 1976, effective 1978. Geneva. http://www.un-documents.net/enmod.htm

[11] Copenhagen Consensus Center, “Top economists recommend climate engineering,” 4 Sep 2009. Press release [pdf]
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2fFiles%2fFiler%2fPress+Releases+2010%2fCC_PRESS_STATEMENT__4september2010_.pdf

[12] Catherine Brahic, “Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, New Scientist 1 Sep 2009.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17716-top-science-body-calls-for-geoengineering-plan-b.html

[13] Donald K. Werle, et al., “Powder contrail generation,” U.S. Patent 3,899,144, 12 Aug 1975. Assignee: U.S. Secretary of the Navy.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=3,899,144.PN.&OS=PN/3,899,144&RS=PN/3,899,144

[14] David L Mitchell and William Finnegan, “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global warming,” Environmental Research Letters Vol. 4 No. 4, 30 Oct 2009. Available by subscription: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102

[15] David B. Chang and I-Fu Shih, “Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming,” U.S. Patent 5,003,186, 26 Mar 1991. Assignee: Hughes Aircraft Company.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,003,186.PN.&OS=PN/5,003,186&RS=PN/5,003,186

[16] Eli Kintisch, “Bill Gates Funding Geoengineering Research,” Science Insider, 26 Jan 2010. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/01/bill-gates-fund.html .

[17] ETC Group, “Top-down Planet Hackers Call for Bottom-up Governance: Geoengineers’ Bid to Establish Voluntary Testing Regime Must Be Opposed,” 11 Feb 2010. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5073

[18] Food and Water Watch: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/world-water/right/

[19] Col Tamzy J. House, et al. “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,” Department of Defense U.S. Air Force, 17 Jun 1996. Publicly released August 1996. Reproduced at Federation of American Scientists:
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm

[20] Weather Modicaton Association website: http://www.weathermodification.org/

[21] Weather Modification Association, “Position Statement on the Environmental Impact of Using Silver Iodides as a Cloud Seeding Agent,” July 2009.
http://www.weathermodification.org/AGI_toxicity.pdf

[22] World Meteorological Organization, “WMO Statement on Weather Modification,” UN Commission for Atmospheric Sciences Management Group, 26 Sep 2007.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WM_statement_guidelines_approved.pdf

[23] Donald J. Travis, et al. “Contrails reduce daily temperature range,” Nature 418, 601, 8 Aug 2002. Reproduced in full by University of Washington, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~rennert/etc/courses/pcc587/ref/Travis-etal2002_Nature.pdf

[24] Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, “In-depth Review of the Work on Biodiversity and Climate Change, Draft Recommendation,” Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environmental Programme, UNEP/CBD/SBTTA/14/L.9, 15 May 2010. http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-14/in-session/sbstta-14-L-09-en.pdf

[25] United States Code, Title 50, Chapter 32, “Chemical and Biological Warfare Program.” http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C32.txt

[26] James Rodger Fleming, “The pathological history of weather and climate modification: Three cycles of promise and hype,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2006. Available at
http://www.colby.edu/sts/06_fleming_pathological.pdf

[27] Stephen Cole, “Weather on Demand,” American Heritage, 2005. http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2005/2/2005_2_48.shtml

[28] Monsignore Pizzafunghi Bosselese, “The History of Radar,” BBC, 14 Jul 2003. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A591545

[29] Fleming, citing New York Times, 15 Nov 1946, 24.

[30] Squires, P. & Smith, E. J., “The Artificial Stimulation of Precipitation by Means of Dry Ice,” Australian Journal of Scientific Research, Series A: Physical Sciences, vol. 2, p.232, 1949AuSRA…2..232S, 1949. Republished at Harvard University:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1949AuSRA…2..232S/0000244.000.html

Also see: Stephen Cole, “Weather on Demand,” American Heritage, 2005.
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2005/2/2005_2_48.shtml

[31] Life Magazine, “Solution to Water Shortage: Rain makers’ success shows how New York could fill its reservoirs,” p. 113, 20 Feb 1950.
http://books.google.com/books?id=FVMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA113&dq=Irving+Langmuir&as_pt=MAGAZINES&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Irving%20Langmuir&f=false

[32] Life Magazine, “U.S. Water: We can supplement our outgrown sources at a price,” 21 Aug 1950, p. 52.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wUoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=Irving+Langmuir+rainmaker&source=bl&ots=Ehqq8hZNsE&sig=
tkN51NoxqMsKVq6ClZU9Hvej8g0&hl=en&ei=9mhMTO3vG93llQfjpJHGDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[33] John Vidal and Helen Weinstein, “RAF rainmakers ’caused 1952 flood’: Unearthed documents suggest experiment triggered torrent that killed 35 in Devon disaster,” The Guardian, 30 Aug 2001.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/silly/story/0,10821,544259,00.html

Also see: BBC News, “Rain-making link to killer floods,” 30 Aug 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1516880.stm

[34] Jerry E. Smith, “Weather Warfare: The Military’s Plan to Draft Mother Nature,” Adventures Unlimited Press, 2006. pp. 47-54.
http://books.google.com/books?id=G7t260XD8AYC&pg=PA47&dq=stormfury&hl=en&ei=9wJ
OTOfVE4G88gbZ3IGaDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result& resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=stormfury&f=false

[35] ibid. pp. 54-60.

[36] Richard Gray, “How we made the Chernobyl rain,” Daily Telegraph, 22 Apr 2007.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549366/How-we-made-the-Chernobyl-rain.html

[37] Ian O’Neill, “The Chinese Weather Manipulation Missile Olympics,” Universe Today, 12 Aug 2008.
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/12/the-chinese-weather-manipulation-missile-olympics/

[38] Anonymous, “Moscow Halo,” cell phone video uploaded to YouTube, 7 Oct 2009. reposted at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXF9HSB627U


Rady Ananda is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Rady Ananda

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20369

 
Call for Immediate Investigation of Chemtrails on the City/County/State Levels

The people of California need to:

  • Demand public investigation of chemtrails spraying in California
  • Demand an immediate cease to all chemtrail spraying until we know the short and long term effects of chemtrails on the general population.
  • Introduce legislation to create “No-Chemtrail Spraying Zones” in California.
  • Give immunity and protection to anyone willing to blow the whistle on chemtrail operations.
  • Boycott products made by any companies who make or produce chemtrail related products.
  • Identify who is responsible for allowing us to be sprayed on the city/county/state/global level. 
  • Demand that each city/county/state be given a 72 hour warning before spraying so people can choose to protect themselves.
  • Demand an explanation for chemtrail spraying on the city/county/state/congress/senate levels and do not accept the denial that spraying is going on.
  • Prosecute anyone who continues to aid these illegal chemtrail operations and hold those companies responsible that produce toxic chemicals, toxic metals, biological toxins, and any other submicron particles that cause chemtrail related diseases that effect the general population.

Investigations and inquiries on the state level and above are being ignored and chemtrail spraying is being denied at the highest levels of our government. The only way to halt chemtrail toxic spraying on us is for the general population to wake up and demand that it stop.

When a free people no longer have a say in the air that they breathe, they are no longer free. Think about it, someone or some group of persons, non-elected, now have the power over the air we that we breathe in on a daily basis. They are now deciding what to put in the air and therefore are affecting our overall health and wellness. This means that we are potentially “one spray” away from a potential disaster that could kill/contaminate everyone in the U. S. and all NATO countries. What will happen if an enemy country gains control over these toxic sprays? If you see a chemtrail above your head you are now at risk. 

California Chemtrail Resistance

Stop Spraying California!
Report Chemtrail Spraying in California
LET'S MAKE CALIFORNIA A CHEMTRAIL FREE ZONE!

Fair Use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The views expressed herein are the writers' own and not necessarily those of this site or its associates.

Copyright Law 2009 Fair Use Limitations January 18, 2009.pdf

PRIVACY POLICY
 
(c) 2010 www.stopsprayingcalifornia.com. All Rights Reserved

 
Chemtrail Related Videos
 

0:57

Chemtrails | AAAS | Global Warming | SHOCKING VIDEO!! Visit: www.GeoEngineeringWatch.org "Geoengineering is going to kill millions of people around the world. This video will shock you to the core"

10:06 Why Is Aluminium In The Rainwater? Geo-engineer.

4:19 Geoengineering: Playing God With the Environment?

4:31 Geoengineering Is A WEAPON of MASS DESTRUCTION

10:23 Geo-Engineering & Chemtrails: Dr Kevin Barrett Interviews Michael Murphy. Part 1 ... Do scientific tests prove that someone is dumping massive quantities of toxins, including aluminum and barium into our atmosphere.

9:42 GeoEngineering Chemtrail Debate on DemocracyNOW (1 of 2)

Supporters of geoengineering (or Chemtrails ) have proposed radical ways to alter the planet to coverup the warming from greenhouse gas emissions ...

4:18 Atmospheric Geoengineering with Aluminum Aerosols

A covert taping of the Bill Gate's sponsored psychotic "experts" on climate change at the Geoengineering conference in California last Feb.

11:00 Geoengineering Scientist Explains Contrails

Saturday, February 20, 2010 - Annual AAAS Meeting (American Association for the Advancement of Science) at the San Diego Convention Center ...

6:50 CLIFFORD CARNICOM:"WHAT IS A CLOUD?" Carnicom

15:01

1 of 7 What in the world are they spraying? (Chemtrails)

1 of 7 What in the world are they spraying ? Video released October 22, 2010.

8:35 +

Danger In The Sky - The Chemtrail Phenomenon

Researchers discovered 6 different agendas or motives for these operations, some of which may overlap: environment or climate changes, biological, military purposes, electromagnetic, geophysical or global effects, and exotic propulsion systems.

8:46

Weather Modification Program

Weather Modification Program The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: Owning the Weather for Military Use by Michel Chossudovsky Environmental ...

1:12

Translate

TIMELAPSE CHEMTRAIL ATTACK http://new.petitiononline.com/t401/ ...

11:00 +

Chemtrails : on the trail of our assassins

Celia and Bill Abram, retired public school teachers, have been watching chemtrails since late 1998. Former meteorological observer with the Canadian Dept. of Transportation talks about dangers of Chemtrails.

8:43 Full Documentary- Discovery Channel-Best Evidence for chemtrails

9:32 CLOUDS OF SECRECY PT 1 GOVERMENT CHEMICAL SPRAY

BBC INSIDE OUT investigation.

Unsuspecting population in the East of England was sprayed covertly with Cadmium and other poisonous compounds at least 76 times.

9:55 1-5 Ex-Government Employee talks about chemtrails. Ex - Government Employee reveals shocking details behind aerosol spraying program.

10:10

CLIFFORD CARNICOM AND DAVE PETERSON-CHEMTRAILS PART 1 Clifford Carnicom interview on chemtrails.

0:54 THIS IS WHAT A CHEMTRAIL LOOKS LIKE!