June 27, 2024 / Joseph P. Farrell

Climate engineering off US coast could increase heatwaves in Europe, study finds

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/21/climate-engineering-off-us-coast-could-increase-heatwaves-in-europe-study-finds

Now you may be wondering why I find this article so very significant. It seems straight forward enough. Indeed, the reason I find it so significant is its' very straighforwardness, its' willingness to state the obvious. What most people will overlook is that this very obviousness is really telling you something very significant. So permit me to focus on but two paragraphs - indeed but two sentences - of this article, and draw out all that poisonous obviousness like a drawing salve draws out infections:

A geoengineering technique designed to reduce high temperatures in California could inadvertently intensify heatwaves in Europe, according to a study that models the unintended consequences of regional tinkering with a changing climate.

The paper shows that targeted interventions to lower temperature in one area for one season might bring temporary benefits to some populations, but this has to be set against potentially negative side-effects in other parts of the world and shifting degrees of effectiveness over time.

So what's so significant about that? Well, number one, that this is appearing in The Guardian at all. For those who do not know or are unaware, the three main national newspapers in Great Britain are widely known for their political leanings: The Guardian being a left-globalist leaning publication, accepting of the whole climate change narrative she-bang, and so on. Definitely not on the side of Mr, Farage, in other words. The Times of London would be center-right, but still globalist, and what used to be called more or less "Tory wet", leaving the Daily Telegraph (or as we used to call it in my Oxford days, The Daily Torygraph) being the more national-right or "Tory Dry/Thatcherite" component of the party. Obviously, these characterizations are a bit shop-worn and irrelevant by now with the near complete irrelevance of the Tory party itself which long since has lost its soul to the witless globalist meanderings of the likes of John Major, David Cameron, Liz Truss, Boris "Bojo" Johnson, and Rishi Sunak, but the essential core remains: the Guardian is more or less the paper of record for the cultural political globalist left in Great Britain.

So notice what The Guardian has just done, and it is highly significant: it has admitted that a component of climate change is not due to the demonstrably silly notion of cow farts, or carbon dioxide (which all plants need in order to breathe and live), nor even due to normal human activities like farming, but is due rather to the deliberate efforts of mankind to engineer and manipulate the weather itself. In doing so, it has also admitted something else that I and other observers of the geoengineering-weather manipulation scene have been arguing for a number of years: weather systems are complex and interlocked systems such that to engineer a change here is also to effect and engineer a change there, and that change there may be an unintended consequence. Complex systems are, after all, complex, and are probably not going to perform exactly as expected. You might be able to steer a tornado or hurricane here, but you might create a monsoon or typhoon over there that you did not wish nor intend to happen.

In short, weather systems, being open systems, are interlocked, and of planetary scale. And thus the ability to engineer them, as I've often pointed out, constitute an actual ability to engineer systems on a planetary scale.

So why would The Guardian be interested in admitting something that, at first glance, appears to be completely at variance with the standard narrative of climate change that so exercise the fantasies of screaming and indignant Swedish girls? Weather manipulation, after all, is quite a different thing from cow farts or farming or plants being able to breathe "greenhouse gases" like carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen(which they do, and which animals breathe... funny how that symbiosis works; funny too is the fact that it is almost never mentioned by the climate change screamers).

Here's The Guardian's answer, and this too should make you sit up and take notice, because what it is signaling, I believe, is The Next Big Thing to be Pushed By Mr. Globalooney and His Ilk:

The authors of the study said the findings were “scary” because the world has few or no regulations in place to prevent regional applications of the technique, marine cloud brightening, which involves spraying reflective aerosols (usually in the form of sea salt or sea spray) into stratocumulus clouds over the ocean to reflect more solar radiation back into space.

Experts have said the paucity of controls means there is little to prevent individual countries, cities, companies or even wealthy individuals from trying to modify their local climates, even if it is to the detriment of people living elsewhere, potentially leading to competition and conflict over interventions.

In other words, what the World Needs Now is a global weather regulatory structure to limit, and ultimately to plan and manipulate weather on a truly global scale. Getting everyone to agree to give up their own corporate and/or national weather manipulation technologies will be, I imagine, about as difficult as it has been to get them to give up their nuclear weapons to a global sovereignty. It's a pipe dream, but, like it or not, both remain Mr. Globalooney's goal, and weather manipulation has one advantage that nukes do not: it is possible to entice corporations and/or nations into joining such a scheme, if the resulting disaster capitalism it makes possible could be demonstrated to return even bigger profits to those involved.