According to various theories, it could prompt droughts, flooding, and catastrophic crop failures; some even fear that the technology could be weaponized […]. To challenge the US National Academies report, a Manifesto Against Weather Modification was signed by over 100 civil society and indigenous people’s groups, calling for a ban on all Geoengineering experiments due to “risks that weather modification poses to biodiversity, the environment and livelihoods.”
2022 – CNN published an article titled “Scientists in the US are flying planes into cloud seeding to make it snow more.”
2023 - Mexico announced the ban of solar Geoengineering experiments, after a US startup began releasing sulfur particles into the atmosphere in Baja California. The Mexican government said the experiment was carried out “without prior notice and without the consent of the Government and the surrounding communities.” J. Haywood, a professor of atmospheric science at Exeter University and co-writer of the recent UN report on stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), noted that “While many of the side-effects of SAI can be avoided if it is done properly, some are very difficult to avoid. For example, putting large amounts of Sulphur into the atmosphere is likely to increase winter rainfall over northern Europe and reduce it over southern Europe, particularly in Spain and Portugal.”

The plan involves using artillery to fire as much as 1 million tons of sulfate aerosols into the Arctic stratosphere in order to dull the sun’s rays and build up sea ice that could then cool the planet. Science historian J. Fleming likens Wood’s plan to “declaring war on the stratosphere.”
2008 - Four hours before the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Beijing, Chinese authorities launch more than 1,000 rockets containing silver iodide into the sky outside the city to keep rain cloud seeding away from the “Bird’s Nest” stadium. A storm that was forecast to hit on August 8 holds off until the 10th, keeping the crowd of 91,000 dry for the evening’s pageantry. That same year, Scientific American publishes an editorial titled “The Hidden Dangers of weather modification” that calls out the risks of trying to tinker with the weather. What used to be “fringe science,” the editors write, has “gained respectability,” but it could damage the ozone layer, reduce precipitation, or make rainfall more acidic. “And those are just the foreseeable effects.”
2009 - President Obama’s science advisor, J. Holdren, says the US doesn’t have the “luxury” of taking weather modification options “off the table.” “Deliberate efforts to counter global warming”, Holdren says, have “got to be looked at.” That same year, R. Jackson, director of Duke University’s Center on Global Change notes that “playing with the Earth’s climate is a dangerous game with unclear rules.”
2010 - The UN convention on Biological Diversity established a moratorium on Geoengineering in the absence of enough scientific data and regulations. That same year, The MCB Project, launched with seed funding from philanthropist Bill Gates, received a fierce backlash as media articles talked of “cloud-wrenching cronies” and warned of the potential for “unilateral action on weather modification.”
2011 - A British academic consortium called Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering attempts to carry out the world’s first large-scale Geoengineering field test aimed at reversing global warming. But the experiment, a smaller version of the group’s grand plan to pump reflective particles into the atmosphere through a 20-kilometer-long hose held aloft by a hot-air balloon, never gets off the ground for political reasons.
2012 - The National Natural Science Foundation of China, which distributes research funds on behalf of the Chinese government, lists Geoengineering as a scientific research priority. Already, China is spending at least $100 million per year on weather modification schemes—mostly to induce rain and prevent hailstorms.
2013 - The US intelligence agency partners with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to fund a 21-month, $630,000 “technical evaluation” of various Geoengineering techniques, including proposed solar radiation management and CO2 removal schemes. It is the first NAS Geoengineering study funded by the intelligence community. That same year, the New Yorker‘s N. Thompson opined on the “dangerous, fraught, and potentially essential prospect of weather modification.” He wrote, “It’s dreadful but it may be the only way to prevent mass calamity.”
2014 - The IPCC’s working group for policy responses to climate change evaluated Geoengineering options—including the use of aerosols, iron fertilization, and lighter-colored crops—, marking the first time that the UN actively considered invasive measures like these ones. That same year, Oceanos Marine Research Foundation (Canada) was founded in Chile to release up to 10tns of Iron off its coasts. A group of local scientists criticized the plan: “The iron fertilization experiment could seriously endanger national marine ecosystems and, furthermore, various fisheries.”
2019 – the BBC published an article titled “How artificially brightened cloud seeding could stop climate change.” At the end of the article, it notes that “The potential side-effects of solar weather modification on the scale needed to slow hurricanes or cool global temperatures are not well understood.

A brief history of weather modification (or “Geoengineering”).

1841 - American meteorologist J. Pollard Espy publishes The Philosophy of Storms, in which he lays out his thermal theory of storm formation and details a method through which “rain may be produced artificially in time of drought.”
1896 - Swedish chemist S. Arrhenius investigates the impact of rising carbon dioxide (C02) levels on global temperatures; he calculated how doubling the amount of C02 in the atmosphere would affect the climate and suggested that by increasing the amount of “carbonic acid” in the atmosphere, “we may hope to enjoy ages with more equitable and better climates.”
1932 - The USSR established the Institute of Rainmaking in Leningrad, setting the stage for decades of experimentation with cloud seeding as a means of altering the weather. The US followed suit in 1946, when researchers at the GE Research Laboratory in Schenectady, NY, discovered that dry ice stimulates ice-crystal formation. In the Cold War’s early years, both superpowers carry out hundreds of experiments using solid CO2, dioxide, silver iodide, and other particulate matter to trigger precipitation.
1958 – “If an unfriendly nation gets into a position to control the large-scale weather patterns before we can, the result could even be more disastrous than nuclear warfare.” — H. Orville, President Eisenhower’s weather advisor.
1965 - President L. B. Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee issues a landmark report, “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment,” that raises the possibility of “deliberately bringing about countervailing climatic changes,” including by “raising the albedo, or reflectivity, of the Earth.”
1967-1972 - The US Air Force flies more than 2,600 Cloud seeding sorties over Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia as part of a covert effort to extend the monsoon season and inhibit North Vietnamese troop movements. Dubbed Operation Popeye, the program is the first known instance of hostile weather manipulation in military history. When columnist J. Anderson reveals its existence in the WaPo in 1971, the public is outraged. The subsequent scandal soon becomes known as the “Watergate of weather warfare.”
1974 - Soviet climatologist M. Budyko floats the idea of reversing global warming by burning sulfur in the stratosphere, thereby creating a reflective haze he describes as “much like that which arises from volcanic eruptions.” Solar radiation management—or attempts to reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth’s surface—goes on to become one of two major branches of Geoengineering (the other being CO2 removal). In subsequent years, scientists propose everything from injecting particles into the stratosphere to lobbing great mirrors into space to reflect the sun’s rays.
1976 - Moved to act by the US’s cloud-seeding activities in Vietnam, the UN approves the Environmental Modification Convention, which bans weather warfare and other hostile uses of climate manipulation “having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.” The treaty goes into effect a little less than two years later and is eventually ratified by 76 countries.
1998-2004 – A Cloud seeding project is conducted in Mendoza, Argentina, to suppress hail. The program used a contracted aircraft for seeding and monitoring activities. In 2005, the provincial government fired the contractor and started implementing the anti-hail program with its own means, using ground generators, aircraft, and rockets.
2004-2010 – Saudi Arabia implemented a Cloud seeding program to increase rainfall with the help of the US company WM Inc.
2006 – P. Crutzen, winner of the 1995 Nobel Prize in chemistry for his research on ozone, advocates for additional Geoengineering research, especially into the possibility of using reflective aerosols to decrease the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth’s surface. That same year, at a NASA conference in Silicon Valley, L. Wood, a former top weapons designer at the Pentagon, lays out an “instant climatic gratification” scheme.

Former UK PM Tony Blair (TB) has recently advocated for the introduction of digital IDs (d-ID) as a measure to control immigration. Even though the new Labour government had initially indicated that it would consider “various sources of advice” on the matter, it later rejected TB’s proposal.

Critics point out that while the concept of d-IDs could be potentially beneficial in streamlining immigration control, it also comes with significant drawbacks: (1) Privacy invasion and surveillance: d-IDs enable extensive tracking of individuals’ activities, movements, and transactions, potentially leading to pervasive government/corporate surveillance; (2) Data breaches: Centralized storage of personal data makes d-ID systems vulnerable to hacks; (3) Discrimination: Algorithmic decision-making based on d-IDs can perpetuate and amplify existing biases and discrimination; (4) Social control: When linked to social c-reddit systems, d-IDs can be used to reward or punish citizens’ behaviors, restricting freedoms and access to services; (5) Lack of transparency: The algorithms and scoring methods used in d-ID and social credit systems are often opaque, making it difficult for individuals to understand or challenge decisions; (6) Potential for abuse: Authoritarian regimes could exploit d-ID systems to suppress dissent and control populations; (7) Exclusion: Those unable to obtain or use d-IDs may be denied access to essential services and opportunities; (8) Technical failures: Glitches or errors in d-ID systems could have severe consequences for individuals’ lives and livelihoods; and (9) Mission creep: d-ID systems implemented for limited purposes could expand to cover more aspects of citizens’ lives over time.

The synchronicity of the UK holding elections on July 4th, America’s Independence Day, while the US holds elections on November 5th, Guy Fawkes Day in the UK, will weave a tapestry of cosmic significance that transcends mere coincidence. This temporal alignment speaks to the interconnectedness of these two nations’ destinies and the cyclical nature of freedom and sovereignty.

July 4th, a day that symbolizes the birth of American independence, now serves as a crucible for Britain’s path. Whether UK citizens cast their votes or abstain, their souls will participate in a ritual of rebirth, echoing the spirit of revolution that once severed their colonial ties. Consciously or unconsciously, this act of civic expression will become a phoenix rising from the ashes of political stagnation, embodying the seeds for the death of the old order and the emergence of new paradigms. Regardless of the results, the polling stations will transform into alchemical chambers, where the lead of public discontent with the prevailing agendas will be transmuted into the gold of the future system’s regeneration.

Similarly, the American electoral process unfolding on Guy Fawkes Day carries profound allegorical weight. Just as Fawkes sought to challenge edicts of an unbalanced system, the American electorate will wield the energies present on election day as fuel for the unwinding of the status quo and lasting change. This day, traditionally marked by bonfires in the UK, will become a beacon of awakening and illumination across the Atlantic.

From a metaphysical standpoint, the flames of these two metaphorical pyres will serve as a lighthouse, guiding ordinary people through these tumultuous times, and will be visible to nations around the globe seeking their own path to liberty and self-determination. In this cosmic dance of dates and destinies, the people of both nations will reaffirm their souls’ commitment to the eternal values of freedom and sovereignty, standing as twin pillars of inner power in the face of dark global structures, which are destined to crumble.

Last Sunday, France headed to the polls in a high-stakes snap parliamentary election. This image I took during a recent rally in Paris reminded me of the illusion of choice.

In the grand play of democracy, a majestic bird soars above the landscape, its wings spread wide to embrace the horizon. This creature, born from the ideals of freedom and representation, casts a shadow across nations, its feathers gleaming with promises of prosperity and justice. Yet, as we gaze upon this magnificent beast, we begin to discern a curious truth: the bird’s two wings, though seemingly distinct, beat in uncanny synchronicity.

The right wing, adorned with the plumage of tradition and conservative values, flaps with vigor, speaking of self-reliance and limited government. The left wing, resplendent in the hues of progress and social justice, beats with equal fervor, championing equality and collective responsibility. To the casual observer, these wings appear locked in an eternal dance of opposition, each striving to steer the great bird in its preferred direction. But look closer, and you’ll see that both wings are anchored to the same body, guided by the same brain, and ultimately serving the same master—the system. Like a skilled illusionist, the bird presents us with the spectacle of choice, a dazzling display of political plumage that distracts from the reality that, regardless of which wing seems ascendant, the bird’s trajectory remains largely unchanged.

We, the people perched below, watch this aerial ballet with rapt attention, convinced that our cheers for one wing or the other will alter the bird’s course. Yet, as we squabble over the merits of right versus left, the bird continues its predetermined flight path, soaring ever onward towards horizons shaped by forces far removed from the will of those it claims to represent.

Can you see through the trick? Have you noticed how, all around the world, “right” and “left” always coalesce around certain issues? Do you believe that your vote counts? Will you vote? In France? The UK? The US? Other countries?
__

Translation of banner: “We are democracy defending itself.”

The “spiral of silence” theory is a political science and mass communication proposition, which states that people’s perception of public opinion influences their willingness to express their own opinions. This theory claims that individuals are more confident and outward with their opinion when they notice that their personal views are shared throughout a group. On the contrary, when people notice that their opinion is unpopular, they are more inclined to be reserved and remain silent. From an individual’s perspective, not isolating themselves is more important than following their own judgement and self-expression (i.e., how others perceive them in the group is more important to them than the need for their opinion to be heard). In summary, the spiral model describes a process of formation, change, and reinforcement of public opinion.

According to this theory, the major components of the spiral of silence include (1) an issue of public interest; (2) divisiveness on the issue; (3) an individual’s perception of the prevailing and minority opinions; (4) fear of isolation from social interaction; and (5) an individual’s belief that a minority (or different) opinion will isolate oneself from others.

The me-dia’s effects on public opinion are central to this theory. The “agenda-setting theory” asserts that the public importance of an issue depends on its salience in the media: reality is what the me-dia tells us it is, and people tend to go with that reality to achieve a sense of belonging.

Also, the results of a recent study on whether the use of social media increases people’s motivation to express their opinions about certain issues suggest that social media users who have received a strong negative reaction to their posts are likely to zenzor themselves, exemplifying the spiral of silence effect.

I’m currently in Buenos Aires, where thousands of people took to the streets to demand increased funding for public universities after Javier Milei vowed to take a chainsaw to public spending and justified the cuts by calling state-run universities centres of socialist indoctrination.

The scenes I witnessed reminded me of the “illusion of choice” (IoC) and its role in Western democracies. The IoC is a cognitive bias that causes us to believe we have more control over our decisions than we actually do.

According to this theory, choices can be forced or avoidable, and every dilemma based on a complete logical disjunction, with no possibility of not choosing, is a forced choice. We feel happier if we believe that we have control over our own actions and can exercise free will. When we’re deprived from free choice, we become rebellious, even if the choice forced upon us is identical to the one we’d select voluntarily. In reality, the IoC gives us a false sense of control based on incomplete information that can lead to suboptimal decision-making.

A seminal study about the “paradox of choice” found that we are more likely to purchase products, and are more satisfied with our purchases, when we’re given fewer choices. The IoC can also be created by a “false dichotomy”: an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available (i.e., someone is presented with two options as if they were the only ones, when in reality there are other).

This fake binary model is used in marketing to make people feel like they are in control of their decisions; the same techniques may also be applied in political campaigns to make voters feel more confident in their voting choice (right vs. left). Ultimately, the IoC is used to keep people from challenging the status quo: if people believe they have choices, then they’re less likely to question the system that gives them those choices. This can hinder meaningful dialogue, suppress alternative viewpoints, prevent the exploration of more complex and inclusive solutions, and create a false sense of freedom that ultimately benefits top-down structures of power, instead of the people “choosing.”

Translation of protest signs:
Image 1: “Why so much fear of educating people?”
Image 6: “University of Buenos Aires”
Image 9: “People’s education is not for sale; it’s to be defended”
Image 10: “Animal Farm”