DEATHS – Officials raise alarm over what they say caused over a million deaths-“climate change”[UNIQID]



DEATHS- Officials Raise Alarm Over What They Say Caused 


The WHO reports

see the video in the link

Officials raise alarm over what they saycaused over a million deaths

The World Health Organization (WHO) says that over 1.4 million deaths per year in Europe can be attributed to environmental factors like climate change. Hans Kluge, WHO regional director,joins CNN to discuss.


New York Times Archives original April 17, 1976
From Credit…The New York Times Archives

See the article in its original context from
April 17, 1976,

SANTA MONICA, Calif.— “From space one could control the earth’s weather, cause drought and floods, change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, make temperate climates frigid,” then‐Senator Lyndon B. Johnson told a joint session of Congress in 1957. Like many other legislators, he accepted Defense Department fantasies that the United States was in race with the Soviet Union to develop environmental weapons.

Mr. Johnson as President made the fantasies real by ordering rainmaking in Southeast Asia, Between 1967 and 1972 he and President Richard M. Nixon authorized at least $3.6 million annually on secret cloud‐seeding over North and South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in an attempt to muddy trails and slow enemy movements.

Although in one instance this enhanced rainfall by 30 percent, Pentagon officials call the operations failure. But the Pentagon defends them as humane, saying, “Raindrops don’t kill people; bombs do.” (The Department of Defense denies it was seeding over North Vietnam in 1971 when that nation suffered the heaviest rains since 1945. In 1945. a million Vietnamese died of flood and famine.)Can a nation that tampers with natural balances deny responsibility for what follows?

This question, together with recognition that United States policy condemns warfare aimed at civilians, prompted Senator Claiborne Pell in 1973 to introduce a resolution calling for an international treaty to prohibit environmental warfare “or the carrying out of any research or experimentation directed thereto.” The Senate voted 82 to 10 to approve the resolution, which lacks force of law.

Last August, at the 31‐nation United Nations conference of the Committee on Disarmament, in Geneva, the United States and Soviet Union jointly proposed a draft convention to ban “military or any other hostile use of environmental techniques.” Unfortunately it is far weaker than the Senate resolution. For example, it fails to prohibit military research or development of environmental‐modification techniques, and allows all “peaceful” work on such things.

The Pentagon says its Climate Dynamics program, formerly Project Nile Blue, is peaceful and needed to detect Soviet attempts to disrupt North American weather.

(Because the treaty appoints no inspection agency to enforce its ban, leaving nations to bring evidence of violations to the United Nations Security Council, treaty ratification would justify increased funding for Climate Dynamics monitoring.)

But Climate Dynamics researchers using computer models of oceans and atmosphere, have studied ways to melt the polar ice caps, generate destructive storms, and otherwise use “key environmental instabilities” to release huge amounts of energy. They have found how the United States, acting secretly from space, could inflict bad weather on the Soviet Union, thereby ruining harvests and keeping that country dependent on United States grain imports.
In the Soviet Union, engineers are reversing the Arctic‐flowing Pechora River and creating inland seas, actions that experts say will alter global climate. This is “peaceful.”

In 1975 the National Academy of Sciences reported that cooling in the Northern Hemisphere since the 1940’s makes the start of a new ice age within 100 years a small but real possibility. Scientists cannot determine whether the cooling is caused by humans or if one nation’s had weather is caused by another’s weather‐modification programs, so the potential for hostility arising from such programs is obvious. Global climatic changes will prompt many nations to use such modification techniques, but the world’s unstable political climate demands that such techniques be internationally regulated, with adequate safeguards and with reparations for those who suffer drought or storm damage.

The draft treaty could be a step toward such regulation. But the treaty allows some weather warfare by prohibiting only techniques having “widespread, long‐lasting or severe effects harmful to human welfare.” What does this mean? The tiniest tampering with natural balances can set off chain reactions with unforeseen consequences.Senator Pell and Representatives Gilbert Gude and Donald M. Fraser have proposed that all United States environmental‐modification research—by civilians, the military and the Central Intelligence Agency—he put under Congressional control. Until this is done and the United States amends the draft treaty to eliminate loopholes and cloudy language, few nations will believe we want environmental warfare banned.

Lowell Ponte is author of the forthcoming book “The Cooling,” about climatic change and modification.

Disguised as Climate Change

BUT We Know This, Right?


“Dead trees all over the city”

“Dead trees all over the city”

Where tree-planting efforts go wrong

Funding for tree planting is a necessary waste of tax payers hard earned money – WHY? 

Firstly, no one discusses the years of Aerosol spraying and how toxic the soils are along with heavy metals, EVERYWHERE. 



PLANT MATERIAL HELPS TO BLOCK 5G’s Deadly frequencies and the frequencies of neighborhood acoustic weapons when we are targeted in our communities and homes.

From coast to coast, cities are working toward tree-planting goals, and the White House is all in, announcing in April $1 billion in grants for communities to increase “equitable” access to trees and green spaces.  

Government GRANT funding for tree planting is only disbursed within a specific time  table and cities are desperately trying to get trees in the ground because the grant cycle which typicially ends in a year.

Your city wants to prove they are interested in taking your money and proving they want trees they are not able to maintain.

NOW cities, counties, states tell us we MUST REDUCE OUR OUTSIDE WATERING and some areas folks are fined and penalized if they water any outside landscaping.


GRANTS FOR TREE PLANTING is a necessary waste to keep an illusion of planting trees while killing plant life at the same time.

Geoengineering aka Chemtrail fallout, contaminated soil, Toxins added in many commercial foods and fertilizers, and high intensity EMF from ground transmitters similar in function to the old HAARP, and the use of cell phone systems. 

Some trees resonate with the EMF frequencies and die quickly, others like some evergreens are more resistant to EMF damage. Low voltage is often generated in the ground as eddy currents (when emf hits the ground and creates a second current that goes up the tree from the ground) form the EMF and this can retard growth or kill trees too.

We learned that the heavy metals from the aerosol spraying aka Geoengineering/Chemical Trails are taken up into the trees through the root system.  The tree roots clog similar to how plaque clogs human arteries and the trees are unable to absorb water which is blocked by the heavy metals.  ALL trees have been compromised.  Millions are standing dead in forest waiting to be sparked by fire causing weapons.

We are told all the dead and dying trees are due 

to Climate Change while Weather Weapons remain Unacknowledged. 




TREE planting sounds Nobel and environmentalists 

believe tree planting efforts will benefit communities and restore the sheer cutting of forests and in the Amazon, along with being a carbon sink to reduce CARBON which is OUR OXYGEN.  

Sadly, most folks are unaware of the real intentions behind all these wasted efforts.  


“Dead trees all over the city”: Where tree-planting efforts go wrong

As federal funds flow toward urban forestry, collaboration with residents and appropriate technical expertise can lead to more tree-planting success, one researcher says.

Ysabelle Kempe

Nature has emerged as a key partner for cities looking to advance environmental justice and prepare for and mitigate worsening climate change. From coast to coast, cities are working toward tree-planting goals, and the White House is all in, announcing in April $1 billion in grants for communities to increase equitable access to trees and green spaces.

While the funding presents a “tremendous opportunity,” achieving this goal is not as simple as planting as many trees as possible in underserved communities, said Lincoln Larson, an associate professor at North Carolina State University.

How communities can successfully develop and execute equitable tree-planting plans is the focus of Larson’s research, which is supported by the U.S. Forest Service. 

Permission granted by NCSU College of Natural Resources

Smart Cities Dive caught up with Larson to discuss the potential worst outcome of tree-planting efforts, whether trees are inherently valuable to society and why communities in most need of trees may not welcome more.

Editor’s note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

SMART CITIES DIVE: What opportunities and risks do communities face, with all the recent attention allocated to trees?

LINCOLN LARSON: While we’re pretty good at identifying where trees need to be planted, actually working with communities to get that done in a way that resonates with community members and aligns with their goals, preferences, concerns, all of the above becomes a lot more challenging, especially when you realize that you can’t just put a tree in the ground. You have to nurture it, you have to care for it and maintain it. 

The worst outcome — which is what we see in a lot of cities with tree-planting programs that don’t have resources and community buy-in to sustain themselves — [is] you end up with dead trees all over the city. That’s a worse outcome than no trees for a lot of people.

And those dead trees are due to a lack of maintenance?

Yeah. Sometimes, when you’re planting trees, especially in narrow right-of-ways or on private property, it’s hard to maintain them, with watering and tree pests. We see that nationally, with a lot of invasive [insect] species coming in and threatening urban tree species. If you don’t have a support team, with the technical expertise and the resources to support tree growth over the long term, you can run into challenges.

How can tree-planting programs avoid those unwanted outcomes?

A lot of tree-planting professionals and NGOs that focus on tree equity operate with the assumption that everybody views trees as this inherent good for society. But the reality is that many members of the public don’t. 

In a lot of communities, for a variety of reasons, trees are seen as a problem. They’re a maintenance issue. They create opportunities for perceived crime in densely forested settings. Sometimes trees fuel property [value] rises and [higher] property taxes, which is a good thing, but it also can catalyze green gentrification, which drives residents out of neighborhoods where they might have been for generations. 

Keep up with the story. Subscribe to the Smart Cities Dive free daily newsletter

Are there common pitfalls of tree-planting programs when it comes to developing an equitable urban forest?

The obvious one is don’t plant trees without public input and community involvement. Yet we do it so often. I think that happens a lot, too, when we’re desperately trying to get trees in the ground because the grant cycle ends in a year, or whatever the motivation may be. It’s often easier to just plant on public property. In a lot of cases, that may work. In others, it may be that if you want to increase canopy coverage in underserved neighborhoods, you have to find a way to do it on private property because there may not be a lot of public green spaces that exist in these areas where it’s ripe for the planting, if you will.

That dichotomy presents challenges, especially in a lot of these areas where you have predominantly renters with absentee landlords who may or may not allow this. Suddenly you have a strange dynamic again about who has access to trees. Do you have to be a homeowner to get trees? 

What do you recommend?

The solution to a lot of these problems is understanding that there are local community organizations and nonprofits embedded in those spaces already who are really engaged in social justice, environmental justice issues, and know what the community needs and is looking for. 

Work with these organizations [and] don’t think that your same practice that worked elsewhere is going to work in this place. Take a little bit of time to get to know the place, the key players, and work within their system and the organizations that are based there to make things happen. Yes, it takes time, but that is time well spent, if your goal is a healthy urban forest.

Comments and Article Distributed by

Goldman Sachs | Accelerating Transition – Our Approach to Climate

Goldman Sachs | Accelerating Transition  

Our Approach to Climate – Video 

Decarbonization in the real economy

Priority Sectors Targeted

Oil – Gas – Power and Auto Manufacturing

Accelerating Transition

Our Approach to Climate

The firm’s approach to accelerating climate transition is focused on those areas where Goldman Sachs can have a material impact, including working with clients to decarbonize their businesses and help drive progress towards net zero ambitions, engaging partners and broader stakeholders for impactful innovation and collaboration, and managing the firm’s own climate related risks.  

Read more “Goldman Sachs | Accelerating Transition – Our Approach to Climate”

Weaponized Weather Control Centers and More . . .

Congressional investigation asap on weather modification. #ConusOWSWeaponizedWeather  

Shaw air force base in Lyndsey grahams state of south carolina is the south conus ows weaponized  weather control center.  Offit airforce base near Omaha nebraska is the global Conus OWS weaponized weather control center. Scott air force base in bellview illinois is the ows weaponized weather control center for the North and north east all the way from the usa to the north pole.  Weapons of mass destruction #ConusOWSWeaponizedWeather List of Weather Modification Companies

Weather Modification Association (WMA) – Full Corporate Roster

Advanced Radar Corp

Aero Systems, Inc.

Aerotec Argentina

Colorado Water Conservation Board

Deepwater Chemicals

Direccion de Agricultura y Contingencias Climaticas (Argentina)

Droplet Measurement Technologies

Dynamic Aviation Group, Inc.

Electronic Systems Developement CC

General Aviation Applications – 3D s.a.


Ice Crystal Engineering LLC

Idaho Power Company

NASIC/DEKA – US Air Force Wright-Patterson AFB

North American Weather Consultants, Inc.

North Dakota Atmospheric Resources Board

Omni International, LLC

Radiometrics Corporation

RHS Consulting, Ltd

Sacramento Municipal Util Dist.

Santa Barbara County Water Agency

Snowy Hydro Limited

Southern California Edison County

National University of Technology – Mendoza, Argentina

Utah Division of Water Resources

Vaisala Oyj

Vaisala – Veriteq

Weather Modification, Inc.

Western Kansas Grndwater Dist 1

Western Weather Consultants, LLC

Wyoming Water Development

Texas Weather Modification Association (TWMA)

The TWMA is a WMA member –

TWMA Members

West Texas Weather Modification Association

Southwest Texas Rain Enhancement Association

South Texas Weather Modification Association

Panhandle GCD Precipitation Enhancement Program

Southern Ogallala Aquifer Rain Program (SOAR)

Seeding Operations and Atmospheric Research (SOAR) old website

The Edwards Aquifer

Colorado River Municipal Water District – Engineering WXMOD

Trans Pecos Weather Modification Association


USAF Reserve – Aerial Spray Unit – Youngstown AFB

NASIC/DEKA – US Air Force Wright-Patterson AFB


Aquiess / Drake International – Global Rain Project

Meteo Systems – Weathertec

Austrailian Rain Technologies – ATLANT

Ionogenics – ELAT

Evergreen Aviation: Supertanker

Kansas Water Office

Future of Weather Control

A Plan for the next phase in Weather Modification Science and Technology Developement – Raytheon addressing the Weather Modification Association 2005 | Link

Air Force Aims for Weather Control | Link

The work involves using plasma an ionized gas to reconfigure the ionosphere. MIRAGE would employ a microwave transmitter on the ground and a small rocket that shoots chaff into the air to produce about a liter of plasma at 60–100 km. (36– 60 mi.) in altitude, changing the number of electrons in a select area of the ionosphere to create a virtual barrier. Ionosphere reconfiguration offers two major applications of interest to the military: bouncing radars off the ionosphere, also known as over-the-horizon radar, and the ability to jam signals from the Global Positioning Satellite system, according to John Kline, the lead investigator for MIRAGE (Microwave Ionosphere Reconfiguration Ground based Emitter). | Link

Vision 2020 – US Air Force Space Command | Link

Over the past several decades, space power has primarily supported land, sea, and air operations–strategically and operationally. During the early portion of the 21st century, space power will also evolve into a separate and equal medium of warfare. Likewise, space forces will emerge to protect military and commercial national interests and investment in the space medium due to their increasing importance.

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 – US Air Force | Link

An Operational Analysis for Air Force 2025: An Application of Value-Focused Thinking to Future Air and Space Capabilities – US Air Force | Link

Which cities have declared climate emergencies? — Quartz

Last month, the cities of Barcelona, San Diego, Boston, and Nottingham all officially declared climate emergencies. They kick off a year that is likely to explode with similar civic pronouncements as cities grapple with responding to and mitigating the consequences of a warming world.

“We can no longer afford to say we need to act on climate for our kids and our grandkids. The effects are happening now,” Boston city councillor Matt O’Malley told Quartz. O’Malley put forward the climate emergency resolution passed by the city in January.

Globally, 1,330 governments have passed a binding motion declaring a climate emergency, according to Cedamia. The populations of those areas total more than 814 million, meaning nearly one in ten people live in a community that has made the statement.

While the first climate emergency was declared in 2016 by Darebin, Australia, 98% of subsequent statements were made in 2019. The places range from small locales to entire countries.

There is no shared definition of a climate emergency. For some it is a legal acknowledgement of an immediate disaster and a way to access money for combatting the effects; for some it signifies a commitment to measures meant to reduce the impact of climate change; and for others it is an official recognition of an existential threat.

In a public health context, emergency declarations have a specific meaning: imminent hazard to health. It can be a crucial step to allow local officials, or national agencies, to take immediate action.

“Climate has become the new emergency… It’s new ground for public health,” says Thomas A. Burke, director of the Johns Hopkins Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute. He says climate change is very different than a more classic public health emergency like the novel coronavirus discovered in Wuhan, China. “There can be catastrophic impacts but they’re very uncertain, very hard to model. But, the acknowledgement by declaring an emergency says we gotta do something and we gotta do it now.”

Some declarations are more symbolic. O’Malley says the purpose of Boston’s resolution was to underscore the importance of the problem and “set the tone and the lens for how we address issues on climate.”

According to Burke, such symbolic statements are an important part of addressing climate change: “Let’s face it—declaring an emergency is the polar opposite of declaring climate change a hoax.”

Communities in 25 countries have acknowledged the emergency, as of Jan. 28. The world’s most populous nations, however, have yet to get on board. Forty percent of the world lives in China or India. No municipalities in either have declared a climate emergency.

That doesn’t mean those areas aren’t feeling the effects. The lack of declarations is likely a symptom of politics. Some governments don’t want to make any strong public statements, others deny the problem altogether.

In the United States, the topic is particularly polarizing.

In the US, 76 governments have declared some sort of climate emergency. Compare that to 417 in the United Kingdom, and 491 in Canada. Only 8% of Americans live in an area that has made the statement.

“I think many other countries, particularly European countries, are ahead of the United States in not only accepting the fact that climate change is real and man-made and reaching catastrophic levels of impact, but also putting policies together to address it,” says O’Malley. “We are severely, and I mean severely, hindered by the fact that we have a climate-change denier in the White House.”

“There’s a political divide,” agrees Burke. “There shouldn’t be. The science is not partisan.”

The New York Times recently found that attempts by Republican states to get funding for climate-related disasters have required them to perform ‘linguistic acrobatics” in order to avoid mentioning climate change. And it appears the same is happening with climate emergency declarations.

Eighty-seven percent of American cities that have made an emergency declaration are in states Donald Trump lost in the 2016 presidential election.

That’s not a coincidence. “[Conservative states] are working toward adaption, they are clearly applying for disaster relief, but the word climate is not there,” Burke says. “If it’s seen as a major acknowledgement of climate change and a demand of the current administration to fund climate-related work, it’s probably dead on arrival.”

JPMorgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs back launch of climate finance center

JPMorgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs back launch of climate finance center