As wildfires raged in California
last month, The Drudge Report mocked Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor
Greene's suggestion to "make it rain" with cloud seeding.
Days later, the news aggregation website contradicted itself with the
headline, "AI Drones to 'Make It Rain' in Weather-Control
Breakthrough.”
The dichotomy highlighted a little-known war over climate technology,
in which billions are being invested not only in cloud seeding (Utah,
for example, spends about $700,000 annually spraying silver iodide to
make it snow and enhance its water supply), but also more controversial
practices.
At the top of the list are “geo-engineering” techniques like Solar
Radiation Management (SRM) and Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) –
each designed to reduce global temperatures by reflecting a portion of
the sun’s energy back into space.
While geo-engineering isn’t a secret, there’s not yet a consensus as
to whether it will do more harm than good. And the processes are
expected to undergo more scrutiny as Elon Musk’s Department of
Government Efficiency (DOGE) is reportedly delving into the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which has funded research
into geoengineering, even though it says it is not yet conducting
experiments in the atmosphere.
In fact, climate scientists can’t even agree about whether
geo-engineering is already in use or not by any entity, let alone the
NOAA. And if it is going on, is it visible? Chemtrail activists, often
dismissed as conspiracy theorists, certainly believe so.
The Political Divide
According to recent polls, approximately 85% of Democrats see climate
change as a major problem, thus they are generally supportive of
aggressive action. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a porgressive
Democrat, said at the recent World Economic Forum, "We must explore all
avenues to combat climate change, even those that seem science fiction."
Conversely, only about 30% of Republicans view climate change with the same urgency.
At a recent conservative think-tank event, Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan
said, "Playing God with our weather systems could lead to unintended
consequences, affecting not just our environment but our sovereignty.”
Some lawmakers are taking notice.
Tennessee recently banned geoengineering, cloud seeding and other
technologies aimed at controlling the climate, and at least 10 other
states are considering similar action.
Seemingly siding with conservatives are many environmentalists and
the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) crowd who fear the potential for
misuse.
In addition to that are the so-called "chemtrail" activists who have
warned for years that something nefarious is afoot, pointing to
suspicious patterns in the sky that most scientists say are long-lasting
condensation trails created by aircraft.
Environmentalist and health activist Nicole Shanahan posted to X on
Jan. 24 that “Chemtrails are tagged as a conspiracy theory, but
geoengineering, weather modification, atmospheric manipulation, etc. are
the terms used in practice. Using the colloquial word ‘chemtrails'
triggers gaslighting.”
Shanahan, who was Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s. running mate before he
ended his campaign and endorsed Donald Trump for president (he was sworn
in as secretary of Health and Human Services this month), linked to her
post a 2018 study dubbed, “California Wildfires: Role of Undisclosed
Atmospheric Manipulation and Geoengineering.”
The study hails from a couple of scientists not easily dismissed as
promoters of mere conspiracies: Dr. Mark Whiteside, the recently
retired medical director for the Florida Department of Health in Monroe
County, and J. Marvin Herndon, a doctor of nuclear chemistry, once
dubbed a “maverick geophysicist” by The Washington Post.
Their study suggests that aerosolized coal fly ash, used in
geoengineering, could increase combustibility by drying out vegetation
and altering weather patterns, leading to more intense fires and
droughts.
Unlike many in the scientific community, the study does not present
geo-engineering as theoretical, but as ongoing. Activities include jets
spraying particulates into the atmosphere to suppress solar radiation.
Whiteside has delved into what he describes as a covert operation affecting global climate: tropospheric aerosol geoengineering (TAG). He and Herndon have spent years documenting the environmental and health implications of these activities.
Geo-engineering, Whiteside told this reporter, involves large-scale environmental manipulation intended to mitigate global warming.
Contrary to mainstream narratives presenting geoengineering as a future
strategy, Whiteside asserts that such practices have been in operation
for 75 years, evidenced by historical efforts like Project Cirrus and military operations during the Vietnam War.
He argues there's a deliberate cover-up, pointing to patents, military documents and the 1978 UN ENMOD treaty, which he describes as a "Trojan Horse” that enables environmental modifications.
The funding for these operations, he speculates, might come from
misallocated public funds, including billions unaccounted for in the Pentagon's budget, which is being audited by DOGE.
Whiteside says that geo-engineering is sold as “sunscreen for the
Earth,” and that the public is “bombarded with lies, misinformation, and
distraction to the point they believe they are not seeing what they are
seeing, and conditioned to cry ‘conspiracy theory’ when shown an
obvious particulate trail.”
In a lengthy study at the European Journal of Applied Sciences
published last year, he and Herndon noted that President Lyndon Johnson
spoke about controlling the weather in 1962.
They say in the study that the ozone layer has been damaged and
ultraviolet radiation now penetrates the Earth’s surface, adding: “This
situation has been made unimaginably worse by the deliberate, covert
planetary modification, euphemistically called geongineering.”
The mainstream media and the masses “look the other way and ignore the obvious atrocities,” Whiteside says.
Contrails vs. Chemtrails
The science behind “contrails” isn’t in dispute, described as
line-shaped clouds of condensed water vapor made from aircraft engines.
Chemtrails, though, are typically dismissed as the stuff of conspiracy
theorists who say that aircraft are purposely dispersing chemicals.
While Whiteside and Herndon say the concept of chemtrails are
real, and central to the discussion of geo-engineering, they appear at
odds with most of their colleagues, and with official pronouncements
from NASA and the NOAA, both of which say chemtrails are scientifically
illegitimate.
Professor David Keith, who helped develop Harvard University’s Solar
Geoengineering Research Program before moving to the University of
Chicago, told this reporter that chemtrail theories are “so
implausible.”
Given satellites, cell phones and open-source intelligence, evidence
of chemtrails “would be trivially easy to expose,” he said. “Yet nothing
remotely credible has come to light.”
Keith and his colleagues are focused on solar geo-engineering, or
albedo modification, which could – in the future – enable people to add
materials to the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight into space.
But on a Harvard blog, he notes that he is confident there’s no
currently active program to test or implement albedo modification
outdoors. Those linking the technology to chemtrails are wrong to do so,
he writes
"We receive many letters and emails about chemtrails, often with
threats, showing how deeply this issue affects people,” he writes. "The
confusion arises because there's been a lot of real research on geoengineering, but this is open, peer-reviewed science, not secret spraying."
Researcher Peter Kirby, known for his YouTube content on
geo-engineering and his book, "Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan
Project,” told this reporter that those who object to climate-altering
technologies are among the most passionate activists he’s encountered.
He argues that chemtrails are the result of “hydroscopic particles”
sprayed into the atmosphere that “attracts moisture, dries plantation,
puts toxins in soil and leads to wildfires.”
“They’re spraying us with death,” Kirby says, adding that President
Trump should release all government documentation pertaining to climate
control.
“In most people’s minds it’s a crazy conspiracy theory,” he said. “In
time, these things will be addressed, especially if MAHA wants to put
something together with subpoena power, maybe a congressional
investigation.”
There are myriad documentaries about chemtrails that feature
acclaimed scientists from the likes of Harvard and California Institute
of Technology, along with retired U.S. Air Force pilots and government
agents.
The documentary, “What in the World Are They Spraying?” begins with
clips of journalists from NBC News, Fox News and others. Some are seen
years ago delivering ominous reports about the suspected origins of
chemtrails, while others reporter are seen focusing on modern
descriptions of climate technology.
“It is called ‘geoengineering.’ Fighting global warming, by putting a
chemical dust in the atmosphere,” one reporter says in a clip used in
the film. A former science adviser to President Barack Obama is shown
confirming the validity of the report.
“They’re absolutely not contrails. Contrails do not linger,” says
retired U.S. Air Force Brigadier Gen. Charles Jones in “The Dimming,” a
documentary that hails from geoengineeringwatch.org.
Who’s Behind Weather Control?
At Americans4acleanatmosphere.com, Dhanasree Jayaram, a professor in
the Department of Geopolitics and International Relations at India’s
Manipal Academy, speculates that China will use weather-modifying
technology “more aggressively and more unilaterally, and the truth is we
really don’t know what that means for various ecosystems.”
At Zeroengineering.com, Stanford University climate scientist Ken
Caldeira is cited saying that “geoengineering is not a plan B; it’s more
like a plan Z, something you do when everything else has failed and,
even then, it’s fraught with risks.”
Nevertheless, venture capitalists are poring money into several
companies that are developing the technology, presumably to turn a
profit while saving the planet.
While SRM research typically focuses on planes delivering sulfur
dioxide, a company called Make Sunsets is using balloons to do so,
perhaps settling the debate as to whether geo-engineering is happening
or not (though Keith, the science professor, disagrees, claiming Make
Sunsets is engaging in a “stunt”.)
“It’s semantics. Ivory tower folks keep changing the terminology,” counters Luke Iseman, the co-founder of Make Sunsets.
In an interview, Iseman told this reporter that his company has
launched 110 balloons in the past three years, each of which dispersed
roughly 1,500 grams of sulfur dioxide, about what a Boeing 747 emits
every 10 seconds.
The difference between harmful and useful sulfur dioxide is in the
altitude, Iseman says. “We’re going much higher, so we generate a lot
more reflectivity with a lot less sulfur dioxide.”
Make Sunsets is a for-profit company that has raised $1.7 million
from prominent venture capitalists like Boost VC, Draper Associates and
Pioneer Fund.
Its business model involves selling “cooling credits” to anyone
hoping to reverse climate change; some have have given just $1, others
give thousands of dollars on a monthly basis.
On December 2, Make Sunsets told some of those who purchased cooling
credits that their money paid for three balloons that were sent about 20
kilometers into the stratosphere, where they exploded while disbursing
4,845 grams of sulfur dioxide.
The balloons, usually launched in Northern California, are
biodegradable and the sulfur-dioxide particles remain in the atmosphere
for about two years before falling.
Iseman doesn’t buy into the notion that governments are using planes
to spray particles, thus creating chemtrails, and notes that the
particles distributed by his balloons are too hight to be visible.
He acknowledges that his efforts aren’t nearly enough to reverse
climate change, because to drop the temperature by a half-degree celsius
— “enough to get us out of species-going-extinct” mode — he’d need to
launch much larger balloons from six locations globally, thousands of
times annually.
Highlighting the political divide over his efforts, he calls himself
“far-left of Bernie Sanders,” and he laments that climate-change
activist Al Gore lost his presidential bid 25 years ago and that Trump
has again initiated the process to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement.
Make Sunsets reports its activities to the NOAA. But given that its
balloons burst at twice the altitude of a commercial jet, it’s
unresolved whether it is using any country’s territory, thus regulations
are minimal, akin to cloud-seeding or even snowmaking at ski resorts.
And the balloons are small enough that the FAA isn’t concerned.
Conversely, an experimental project unrelated to Make Sunsets was abruptly terminated by the Alameda City Council last year. The project, which involved spraying artificial seawater into the air from the decommissioned USS Hornet aircraft carrier reportedly lasted about 20 minutes before being shut down.
The decision was driven by a failure to communicate the plans
directly to city officials, opting instead to reveal their work through a
New York Times article. "You didn’t start out on the right foot," Mayor
Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft told the group of University of Washington scientists who were behind the effort, along with a non-profit called SilverLining.
Thus, public distrust fueled by the secretive nature of the project
led to its demise, though only until an alternative location might be
identified.
One person with knowledge of the experiment who spoke on the
condition of anonymity said the episode has harmed legitimate climate
research into geo-engineering, including Marine Cloud Brightening (MRC),
which seeks to increase the reflective nature of clouds over the ocean.
SilverLining didn’t respond to a request for comment.
There’s also an Israeli company called Stardust Solutions that is
focused on SRM that has raised $15 million, according to Bloomberg.
And a spokesperson for Bill Gates told Bloomberg last year that the
founder of Microsoft has invested billions in emissions-cutting
technology and adaptation.
“Given the realities of the pace and potential impact of climate
change, he’s also spending a small fraction to support basic research
into interventions, including geoengineering, to ensure we fully
understand the risks,” the spokesperson told Bloomberg.
