The History Of Aircrafts And Jet Based GeoEngineering And Weather Modification

Aircrafts and jets based GeoEngineering and Weather Modification has been going on since 1950 within actual knowledge of all stakeholders, including United Nations (UN). Even if we ignore the chemical and metallic composition of aerosols emitted by these aircrafts and jets still it is very clear that their role as GeoEngineering and Weather Modification methods was well known to scientists and politicians world over.

The scope of  this article is not to discuss whether these emissions were contrails or chemtrails as we would cover this aspect seperately. In the present  article we are proving that world at large was aware of the GeoEngineering and Weather Modification role of aircrafts and jets emissions still  nothing was done to prevent them for almost 70 years.

In 2019 nations are claiming that these contrails may have “inadvertently” resulted in GeoEngineering and Weather Modfication. But we at PTLB firmly believe that this was not inadvertent but a deliberate act to allow aircrafts and jets emissions based GeoEngineering and Weather Modification that has brought disastrous results in our present times.

Let us start the discussion on this topic. In 1958, protests were raised against emissions from jets above as the tourist trade was severely effected due to clouds coverage by such jets emissions.

In 1963, Walter Orr Roberts opined that jet airplane contrails are modifying the climate.

In 1963, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) got an Air America Beechcraft and had it rigged up with silver iodide. There was another demonstration by people in Vietnam and U.S. seeded the South Vietnam area and created rain.

In 1968, Reid A. Bryson said that jet aircraft contrails were one of the more recent types of cirrus clouds, which are comprised of ice crystals at high altitude. Where jets are operating today, cirrus clouds have increased by 5% to 10%, Bryson said. He estimated that if the day came when 300 supersonic transports were in the air at one time, the region of operation of most SST’s “might easily be 100% covered with cirrus clouds.” The net effect of this would be further to reduce the heating of the earth, and blue skies might become a rarity.

In 1970, Illinois and New Jersey officials decided not to settle pollution suits against the nation’s major airlines out of court, despite an agreement between the airlines and the federal government to lean up the jet aircraft exhaust.  Representatives of 31 major domestic airlines agreed to install “burner cans” to eliminate most of the smoke from their nearly 1,000 aircraft by 1972.

In 1970, during the Ninety-first Congress, second session, on S. 3229, S. 3466 and S. 3546 hearing, Secretary John A. Volpe of Transportation informed that airline representatives and govt officials met and obtained their agreement to retrofit the present fleet of planes that produces the largest amount or smoke. He informed that instead of being completed in 1974, as had been originally suggested, they agreed to complete this retrofit operation by 1972. Under the plan, the devices were required to be installed on engines whenever they were “down” for routine overhaul after about 5,000 flying hours each on the average. An estimated 3,000 Pratt & Whitney JT8D engines, mostly on Boeing 727, 737 and McDonnell Douglas DC9 short haul craft, required modification. The devices were improved combustors (the chambers in which the fuel is ignited) and were manufactured by Pratt & Whitney.”

In 1971, a study revealed that a jet air plane in one landing and takeoff drenches the environment with as much soot as 2,500 automobiles produce in a entire day.

In 1974, direct manufacture of carbon dust (Pdf) on aircraft or from carbon particle generating sources on ships or at surface sites was encouraged. This was done to avoid the clumping, packing, and logistical problems of obtaining the carbon particles from the factory.

If carbon particles are dispersed directly from carbon generating burners, they would convert liquid hydrocarbon fuel to CO2. This reduced logistical hurdles and ensured that right sized CO2 particles were dispersed in 1974 without anybody noticing.

By slightly modifying readily available jet engines of 1974, carbon dust particles could have been produced and dispersed into air at a rate of 20-30,000 pounds per hour per engine. Lies were also spread to support climate change and global warming rhetoric.

Use of afterburner type jet engines to generate carbon directly was suggested in 1974. This was cheapest, most convenient, and secretive alternative for GeoEngineering,  global cooling and criminal climate change purposes.

On April 1990 Hughes Aircraft Company suggests GeoEngineering jet fuel.  The United States Patent 5003186  was granted to it for Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for that it claimed could reduce global warming. The particles could have been seeded by dispersal from seeding aircraft; one exemplary technique may be via the jet fuel as suggested by prior work regarding the metallic particles. Once the tiny particles were dispersed into the atmosphere, these particles remained in suspension for up to one year.

For history from 1991 to 2015, please see this website.

After much protests from people challenging the contrails theory of politicians, nations have started accepting that emissions from aircrafts are producing strong GeoEngineering and Weather Modification changes since 1950. Keeping in mind the widely know impact of such emissions since 1950 to all stakeholders, the “Inadvertent GeoEngineering” theory of nations is another lie to fool people. The nations have to accept that they knew about the happening of this GeoEngineering and Weather Modification since 1950 and they deliberately failed to curb the same.

Views Of WHO On Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) And Their Effect On Health

This is one of the most controversial topics of present times. People and scientists are divided on the ill effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated by man-made actions and technologies. Further, there are also some gaps in the scientific study of impact of man-made EMFs upon health of humans, plants, animals, etc. We are writing this article as an introductory discussion covering views of World health Organisation (WHO) as it is usually cited in various discussions. Please see this work for complete discussion of WHO in this regard.

We would add more aspects of EMFs in our subsequent articles as the discussion of WHO is basic discussion and it has not discussed many crucial questions. Further, the discussion of WHO is based on many assumptions that must be independently verified by latest scientific studies. We do not accept or deny the observations of WTO in this article and our independent opinion would be shared in subsequent articles.

Let us start the discussion with a brief discussion about electric fields and magnetic fields. Electric fields are created by differences in voltage: the higher the voltage, the stronger will be the resultant field. Magnetic fields are created when electric current flows: the greater the current, the stronger the magnetic field. An electric field will exist even when there is no current flowing. If current does flow, the strength of the magnetic field will vary with power consumption but the electric field strength will be constant.

Besides natural sources the electromagnetic spectrum also includes fields generated by human-made sources. The electricity that comes out of every power socket has associated low frequency electromagnetic fields. And various kinds of higher frequency radiowaves are used to transmit information – whether via TV antennas, radio stations or mobile phone base stations. One of the main characteristics which defines an electromagnetic field (EMF) is its frequency or its corresponding wavelength. Fields of different frequencies interact with the body in different ways. One can imagine electromagnetic waves as series of very regular waves that travel at an enormous speed, the speed of light. The frequency simply describes the number of oscillations or cycles per second, while the term wavelength describes the distance between one wave and the next. Hence wavelength and frequency are inseparably intertwined: the higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength. The more waves you generate (higher frequency) the smaller will be the distance between them (shorter wavelength).

It is very important to understand the difference between non-ionizing radiation and ionising radiation. Wavelength and frequency determine another important characteristic of electromagnetic fields: Electromagnetic waves are carried by particles called quanta. Quanta of higher frequency (shorter wavelength) waves carry more energy than lower frequency (longer wavelength) fields. Some electromagnetic waves carry so much energy per quantum that they have the ability to break bonds between molecules. In the electromagnetic spectrum, gamma rays given off by radioactive materials, cosmic rays and X-rays carry this property and are called ‘ionizing radiation’. Fields whose quanta are insufficient to break molecular bonds are called ‘non-ionizing radiation’. Man-made sources of electromagnetic fields that form a major part of industrialised life – electricity, microwaves and radiofrequency fields – are found at the relatively long wavelength and low frequency end of the electromagnetic spectrum and their quanta are unable to break chemical bonds.

Magnetic fields arise from the motion of electric charges. The strength of the magnetic field is measured in amperes per meter (A/m); more commonly in electromagnetic field research, scientists specify a related quantity, the flux density (in microtesla, µT) instead. In contrast to electric fields, a magnetic field is only produced once a device is switched on and current flows. The higher the current, the greater the strength of the magnetic field. According to WHO, like electric fields, magnetic fields are strongest close to their origin and rapidly decrease at greater distances from the source. However, magnetic fields are not blocked by common materials such as the walls of buildings.

Magnetic fields are created only when the electric current flows. Magnetic fields and electric fields then exist together in the room environment. The greater the current the stronger the magnetic field. High voltages are used for the transmission and distribution of electricity whereas relatively low voltages are used in the home. The voltages used by power transmission equipment vary little from day to day, currents through a transmission line vary with power consumption.

A static field does not vary over time. A direct current (DC) is an electric current flowing in one direction only. In any battery-powered appliance the current flows from the battery to the appliance and then back to the battery. It will create a static magnetic field. The earth’s magnetic field is also a static field. So is the magnetic field around a bar magnet which can be visualised by observing the pattern that is formed when iron filings are sprinkled around it.

In contrast, time-varying electromagnetic fields are produced by alternating currents (AC). Alternating currents reverse their direction at regular intervals. In most European countries electricity changes direction with a frequency of 50 cycles per second or 50 Hertz. Equally, the associated electromagnetic field changes its orientation 50 times every second. North American electricity has a frequency of 60 Hertz.

The time-varying electromagnetic fields produced by electrical appliances are an example of extremely low frequency (ELF) fields. ELF fields generally have frequencies up to 300 Hz. Other technologies produce intermediate frequency (IF) fields with frequencies from 300 Hz to 10 MHz and radiofrequency (RF) fields with frequencies of 10 MHz to 300 GHz. The effects of electromagnetic fields on the human body depend not only on their field level but on their frequency and energy. Our electricity power supply and all appliances using electricity are the main sources of ELF fields; computer screens, anti-theft devices and security systems are the main sources of IF fields; and radio, television, radar and cellular telephone antennas, and microwave ovens are the main sources of RF fields. These fields induce currents within the human body, which if sufficient can produce a range of effects such as heating and electrical shock, depending on their amplitude and frequency range. (However, to produce such effects, the fields outside the body would have to be very strong, far stronger than present in normal environments.)

Mobile telephones, television and radio transmitters and radar produce RF fields. These fields are used to transmit information over long distances and form the basis of telecommunications as well as radio and television broadcasting all over the world. Microwaves are RF fields at high frequencies in the GHz range. In microwaves ovens, we use them to quickly heat food.

At radio frequencies, electric and magnetic fields are closely interrelated and we typically measure their levels as power densities in watts per square metre (W/m2).

The key points from the abovementioned discussions are as follows:

(1) The electromagnetic spectrum encompasses both natural and human-made sources of electromagnetic fields.

(2) Frequency and wavelength characterise an electromagnetic field. In an electromagnetic wave, these two characteristics are directly related to each other: the higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength.

(3) Ionizing radiation such as X-ray and gamma-rays consists of photons which carry sufficient energy to break molecular bonds. Photons of electromagnetic waves at power and radio frequencies have much lower energy that do not have this ability.

(4) Electric fields exist whenever charge is present and are measured in volts per metre (V/m). Magnetic fields arise from current flow. Their flux densities are measured in microtesla (µT) or millitesla (mT).

(5) At radio and microwave frequencies, electric and magnetic fields are considered together as the two components of an electromagnetic wave. Power density, measured in watts per square metre (W/m2), describes the intensity of these fields.

(6) Low frequency and high frequency electromagnetic waves affect the human body in different ways.

(7) Electrical power supplies and appliances are the most common sources of low frequency electric and magnetic fields in our living environment. Everyday sources of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are telecommunications, broadcasting antennas and microwave ovens.

Tiny electrical currents exist in the human body due to the chemical reactions that occur as part of the normal bodily functions, even in the absence of external electric fields. For example, nerves relay signals by transmitting electric impulses. Most biochemical reactions from digestion to brain activities go along with the rearrangement of charged particles. Even the heart is electrically active – an activity that your doctor can trace with the help of an electrocardiogram.

Low-frequency magnetic fields induce circulating currents within the human body. The strength of these currents depends on the intensity of the outside magnetic field. If sufficiently large, these currents could cause stimulation of nerves and muscles or affect other biological
processes.

Heating is the main biological effect of the electromagnetic fields of radiofrequency fields. In microwave ovens this fact is employed to warm up food. The levels of radiofrequency fields to which people are normally exposed are very much lower than those needed to produce significant heating. The heating effect of radiowaves forms the underlying basis for current guidelines. Scientists are also investigating the possibility that effects below the threshold level for body heating occur as a result of long-term exposure. To date, no adverse health effects from low level, long-term exposure to radiofrequency or power frequency fields have been confirmed, but scientists are actively continuing to
research this area.

Biological effects are measurable responses to a stimulus or to a change in the environment. These changes are not necessarily harmful to your health. For example, listening to music, reading a book, eating an apple or playing tennis will produce a range of biological effects.

Nevertheless, none of these activities is expected to cause health effects. The body has sophisticated mechanisms to adjust to the many and varied influences we encounter in our environment. Ongoing change forms a normal part of our lives. But, of course, the body does not possess adequate compensation mechanisms for all biological effects. Changes that are irreversible and stress the system for long periods of time may constitute a health hazard.

An adverse health effect causes detectable impairment of the health of the exposed individual or of his or her offspring; a biological effect, on the other hand, may or may not result in an adverse health effect.

It is not disputed that electromagnetic fields above certain levels can trigger biological effects. Experiments with healthy volunteers indicate that short-term exposure at the levels present in the environment or in the home do not cause any apparent detrimental effects. Exposures to higher levels that might be harmful are restricted by national and international guidelines. The current debate is centred on whether long-term low level exposure can evoke biological responses and influence people’s well being. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research.

As far as cancer hazard is concerned, it is clear that if electromagnetic fields do have an effect on cancer, then any increase in risk will be extremely small. The results to date contain many inconsistencies, but no large increases in risk have been found for any cancer in children or adults. A number of epidemiological studies suggest small increases in risk of childhood leukemia with exposure to low frequency magnetic fields in the home. However, scientists have not generally concluded that these results indicate a cause-effect relation between exposure to the fields and disease (as opposed to artifacts in the study or effects unrelated to field exposure). In part, this conclusion has been reached because animal and laboratory studies fail to demonstrate any reproducible effects that are consistent with the hypothesis that fields cause or promote cancer. Large-scale studies are currently underway in several countries and may help resolve these issues.

The key points from the above discussions are as follows:

(1) A wide range of environmental influences causes biological effects. ‘Biological effect’ does not equal ‘health hazard’. Special research is needed to identify and measure health hazards.

(2) At low frequencies, external electric and magnetic fields induce small circulating currents within the body. In virtually all ordinary environments, the levels of induced currents inside the body are too small to produce obvious effects.

(3) The main effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields is heating of body tissues.

(4) There is no doubt that short-term exposure to very high levels of electromagnetic fields can be harmful to health. Current public concern focuses on possible long-term health effects caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields at levels below those required to trigger acute biological responses.

(5) WHO’s International EMF Project was launched to provide scientifically sound and objective answers to public concerns about possible hazards of low level electromagnetic fields.

(6) Despite extensive research, to date there is no evidence to conclude that exposure to low level electromagnetic fields is harmful to human health.

(7) The focus of international research is the investigation of possible links between cancer and electromagnetic fields, at power line and radiofrequencies.

Countries set their own national standards for exposure to electromagnetic fields. However, the majority of these national standards draw on the guidelines set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). This non-governmental organization, formally recognized by WHO, evaluates scientific results from all over the world.

The WHO has recently launched an initiative to harmonize exposure guidelines worldwide. Future standards will be based on the results of the WHO’s International Electromagnetic Field Project. See the exposure limits for low-frequency fields (public) data by country and exposure limits for radio-frequency fields (public) data by country too. We could not find the data about India there and would appreciate if any person or organisation can provide the same.

Sun Has A Direct And Substantial Impact Upon Warming And Cooling Of Earth

Fake news, false propaganda and public opinion manipulations are going on since ages. There is virtually no area where these tactics have not been used. But when it comes to global warming hoax, these tactics have taken shape of even mass scale brainwashing of public. Wherever critical thinkers challenged the obvious lie of gloabl warming due to CO2, these thinkers were labelled as conspiracy theorists, skeptics, etc. Nevertheless, public spirited individuals and many scientists kept on telling the truth. Because of these wonderful human beings we are in a position to discuss about the ways and methods to save our environment and the future of our planet earth. Unfortunately, even the United Nations (UN) got swayed away by this false propaganda and it wasted many precious decades upon incorrect, inappropriate and even dangerous options like GeoEngineering and Solar GeoEngineering.

There are many reasons for warming and cooling of earth and scientists have closely observed periods of Solar Minimum and Solar Maximum for ages. We are not discussing these reasons for warming of earth here as the scope of this article is to analyse whether sunlight or solar radiation can create global warming or not?

Why this point and subject is important at all? Because if sun is creating global warming, then the global warming hoax created against CO2 emissions by road transports would be busted. That is why it is of paramount importance that solar radiation or sun heat must be removed from the equation of global warming.

There is no uniformity of opinion in this regard. The proponents of CO2 induced global warming are denying effect of sun while many other scientists are simply not convinced. They belive sun is the true source of global warming/cooling and they have validly proven this fact using data and analysis of Solar minimum and Solar Maximum periods of many centuries.

The Solar Minimum period witnessed global cooling while Solar maximum period witnessed global warming. Those who believe that global warming is a hoax frequently cite these scientific opinions and literature. Irrespective of what pro and anti global warming people say, we have analyse the situation and position on our own.

On the face of it the argument that fossil fuels generated CO2 is responsible for global warming is absurd and against common sense. Even this argument has been twisted and misrepresented multiple times and has lost its appeal due to dishonesty and suppression of other factors and facts.

For instance, the lie that 97% climate scientists believe that global warming is caused by CO2 has done more damage that proving the point. The truth is that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. In fact, the scientists who were claimed to be part of this 97% lies openly rejected this false assumption. Even the very greenhouse gases that are frequiently blamed for global warming consist of other gases too besides CO2.

So what the most dedicated 1.6% supporter of global warming are saying is that along with various gases, CO2 is one of the gas that has produced at least 50% of global warming.  The remaining 50% cannot be attributed to solar radiation by the proponents of global warming otherwise the very foundation of CO2 being the culprit would collapse.

“Variations in solar energy output have far more effect on Earth’s climate than soccer moms driving SUVs,” Southwestern Law School professor Joerg Knipprath, writes in his ‘Token Conservative’ blog. “A rational thinker would understand that, especially if he or she has some understanding of the limits of human influence. But the global warming boosters have this unbounded hubris that it is humans who control nature, and that human activity can terminally despoil the planet as well as cause its salvation.”

Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change. Because when sunspot numbers rise and fall, there is more going on than simply changes in solar brightness. Periods of reduced sunspot activity correspond to periods of reduced magnetic activity on the sun, and reduced outflows of charges particles from the sun (the so-called solar wind). The solar wind whizzes past the Earth and deflects cosmic rays from deep space from hitting our atmosphere. A recent proposal from Danish scientists suggest that when cosmic rays strike our atmosphere, they create tiny aerosol particles that lead to increased cloud formation and less sunlight hitting the Earth. So it’s a double whammy, fewer sunspots mean a dimmer sun, which also means more cosmic rays into the atmosphere and more cloud cover which further cools the Earth. And vice-versa when there is more solar activity.

Computer models of the climate do not take these indirect effects of solar activity into account when calculating the change in global climate. And while human activity counts for only 5% of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere each year, the sun accounts for ALL the energy striking the Earth and driving its dynamic and enormously complex ocean currents and atmosphere.

For many years, solar scientists considered variation in solar irradiance to be too small to cause significant climate changes. However, Svensmark has proposed a new concept of how the sun may impact Earth’s climate (Svensmark and Calder, 2007; Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997; Svensmark et al., 2007). Svensmark recognised the importance of cloud generation as a result of ionization in the atmosphere caused by cosmic rays. Clouds highly reflect incoming sunlight and tend to cool the Earth. The amount of cosmic radiation is greatly affected by the sun’s magnetic field, so during times of weak solar magnetic field, more cosmic radiation reaches the Earth. Thus, perhaps variation in the intensity of the solar magnetic field may play an important role in climate change.

Man-made carbon dioxide is cited as a cause to produce global warming. However, in an article entitled “Does Carbon Dioxide Drive Global Warming?” Larry Vardiman presented several major reasons why carbon dioxide is probably not the primary cause. But if carbon dioxide is not the cause, then what is? Evidence is accumulating that cosmic rays associated with fluctuations in the sun’s electromagnetic field may be what drives global warming. A new theory called cosmoclimatology that proposes a natural mechanism for climate fluctuations has been developed by Henrik Svensmark, Head of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center.

Edward L. Maunder reported in 1904 that the number of spots on the sun has an 11-year cycle.  Sunspots can be observed in real time online at www.spaceweather.com. Figure below shows a 400-year record of the monthly number of sunspots. Note the low number of sunspots in the period from 1645 to 1715. This period is called the Maunder Minimum and coincides with the Little Ice Age, the coldest period of temperature during the last 1,000 years.

In 1995, Henrik Svensmark discovered a startling connection between the cosmic ray flux from space and cloud cover. He found that when the sun is more active-more sunspots, a stronger magnetic field, larger auroras, stronger solar winds, etc.-fewer cosmic rays strike the earth and cloud cover is reduced, resulting in warmer temperatures.

For the 22-year period from 1983 to 2005, the average amount of low-level cloud follows the flux of cosmic rays very closely. In fact, Svensmark claims that the correlation coefficient is 0.92, a very high correlation for this type of data. In addition, when looking at various longer periods of record using proxy data for these two variables, he also found good correlations and similar trends. In particular, he suggested that during the Little Ice Age when the sun was inactive, cosmic ray flux from space was high, cloud amount was greater, and global temperatures were cooler. As the sun became more active after 1750, cosmic ray flux decreased, cloud amount decreased, and global temperatures warmed. Svensmark proposed that the global warming we’ve experienced for the past 150 years is a direct result of an increase in solar activity and attendant warming.

A potential change in cloud cover of 3-4 percent caused by changes in cosmic ray flux is sufficient to explain global temperature changes of several degrees due to the change in the reflectivity of clouds. The reason the variation in direct radiation from the sun was rejected earlier is because it has been found to vary only by a few tenths of a percent. This is insufficient to explain observed global warming.

These statistical correlations are intriguing, but many critics are skeptical of Svensmark’s theory until he can explain the mechanism by which cosmic rays create more clouds. This led him to design a laboratory experiment to demonstrate that cosmic rays produce more cloud nuclei on which cloud droplets can form. In 2007, Svensmark et al published the results of an experiment which confirmed his theory that cosmic rays increase the number of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). [ See Svensmark, H. et al. 2007. Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions. Proceedings of the Royal Society A. 463 (2078): 385-396.]

Svensmark’s theory of cosmoclimatology is now complete. He has discovered a complete chain of events that explains the variations in global temperature that have puzzled climatologists for so many years, and that has now led to an explanation for the recent global warming episode. It starts with cosmic rays coming to earth from exploding supernovas and collisions of remnants of stars with nebula in space. Many of these cosmic rays are shielded from striking the earth by the electromagnetic activity of the sun. When the sun is active, the solar wind prevents cosmic rays from entering the earth’s atmosphere by sweeping them around the earth. When the sun is inactive, more of them penetrate the atmosphere. Upon reaching the lower atmosphere where more sulphur dioxide, water vapor, and ozone is present, the cosmic rays ionize the air, releasing electrons that aid in the formation of more CCN and form more dense clouds. This increase in low-cloud amount reflects more solar energy to space, cooling the planet. Variations in electromagnetic activity of the sun and fluctuations in cosmic ray intensity from space result in the periodic warming and cooling of the earth.

Solar-modulated cosmic ray processes successfully explain the recent global warming episode. It would be prudent for the political leadership in the U. S. and the world/UN to look more closely at Svensmark’s theory of cosmoclimatology for an explanation of global warming before restructuring our entire economic system to eliminate carbon dioxide. If, in fact, Svensmark is correct, reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide will have little impact, anyway.

UN Blatantly Lied About Global Warming Due To CO2 Emissions By Fossils Fuels

The tussle between global cooling and global warming has been going on even before 1960’s. Upto 1962 we were discussing ways to warm up the Arctic but with the death of Harry Wexler in 1962 things changed forever. In the 1963 GeoEngineering proposals to warm the Arctic took a largely unexplained U-turn when oceanographer, Roger Revelle’s research concluded that carbon dioxide was already warming the climate for free and without the need for expensive and risky geoengineering projects. The worst part was that the lies, hoax and false propaganda of global warming was spread by those having vested interests. There was neither any agreement nor any global consensus among the stakeholders involved in this field in 1970.

Even after almost 50 years the lie of global warming is not only shamelessly peddled but it has even been supported by United Nations (UN). Instead of scientific and conclusive studies in this field, UN preferred to rely upon lies, presumptions, conjectures and surmises. As a result nations imposed carbon emissions tax and other financial penalties that were utilised for even worst sinister purposes .i.e. GeoEngineering and manipulation of earth’s climate using earth based and space based technologies.

A big lie was also spread that 97% of the climate scientists believe that global warming is a man-made disaster. Firstly, there is nothing like “global warming” as even within a country one place may be having a snowfall while other may be facing severe heat. So UN and its so-called scientists used data fudging and labelled “regional warming” as “global warming” to continue its global warming hoax.

Secondly, 97% scientists, climate scientists, physicists, etc have never claimed that global warming is a result of man-made actions like CO2 emissions of fossil fuels. On the contrary, only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. In fact, the scientists who were claimed to be part of this 97% lies openly rejected this false assumption.

In their process to continue to peddle this lie UN and its scientists are doing greater damage to our environment and earth. They are trying to justify GeoEngineering and manipulation of earth’s environment using unscientific, untested, dangerous and irreversible technologies. This time we should not let the climate criminals manipulate us and our earth to suit their own commercial interests.