 Hello again, we're back with Ian Baldwin. We're still here, haven't gone anywhere. And we're going to go back to the beginnings of geoengineering, how it all started, and why it all started, and even where it all started. And something happened after Kennedy expressed the benefits of geoengineering and President Johnson did the same. It turned out that there were some dangers in geoengineering. And a certain reporter named Will Thomas discovered what they were because of anecdotal reports. At first, people flooding into the emergency rooms because of damage to them as a result of something that they noticed. Literally, they could see falling out of the sky. So that was a little extreme. But indeed, since he was a real journalist and not a fake journalist, he thought that was worth covering. And he was allowed to do so. And these reports became nationwide information until, and we'll turn it over to Ian now, because he has the story on what happened and why it happened in the middle of what was apparently a very successful geoengineering move. And then hopefully, we will have time to explain the real word for those things that were up in the sky, which we call chemtrails today. And some people faint when they hear the term and sort of go after you. But that's what they are. They're trails in the sky made of chemicals. And Will Thomas discovered that. And so Ian Baldwin, take it away. All right, Jim. Your listeners may have heard of the term geoengineering, because it's entered our vocabulary only in recent years. Yes, military planners have used the word long before us. And in the context in which most people read and hear about the term, it is a future event that is supposed to help us cope with global warming or climate change. So they then point us to Mount Pinatubo, which exploded in 1991, sent tons of material into the stratosphere. Now, the stratosphere is a huge band above the lower atmosphere called the troposphere. The stratosphere will stretch roughly, roughly, 30,000 feet or 33,000 feet, way, way up, 100,000 feet. 60,000 feet is where most geoengineers, academic blackboard geoengineers, say, reflective metals like aluminum or sulfites, spades, should be put to just like the volcano, Mother Nature did, reflect the sun's incoming rays back into space. And that 1% of total energy reflected back results in an offsetting cooling to the ongoing global warming. But what people have observed over the last 70 years, and especially the last 20, is that a secretive geoengineering that isn't blackboard, it's actually up there, has been happening with increasing prevalence. And that is taking place, I'm going to give rough measurements, 10 to 35,000 feet. So primarily in the upper troposphere and lowermost stratosphere, where it behaves, those particulates behave differently. And the ones in the stratosphere. The stratosphere. So they act to cool, I mean, to heat. They cool way, way, way up. But closer to Earth, they act to heat. Why? Because there are a lot of reasons, and I'm not going to take the time to go into all of them. But they're partially permeable to incoming heat and impermeable to radiated back heat. And you will see that nighttime temperatures have increased more than daytime temperatures. That's part of the reason for that. So the US military used aluminum, or I think copper, chaff, no, it was aluminum, I believe, to disorient the Germans' radar systems. So the military started playing around with this stuff in the 40s. And in 1947, a young scientist working for GE, Vincent Schaefer, who worked with Bernard Vonnegut, Kurt's brother, the two of them discovered, hey, we can fly into a potential snowstorm and throw out, you're going to have to help me. I'm blanking on the word. It's just an ordinary coalescer of H2O. Anyway, I'm blanking. Let's not get hung up on that. And you can call us a snowstorm. Indeed, they put it out. Indeed, the snowstorm happened. And they were working for a Nobel laureate. So he was definitely being watched by the army. Within three months, that's connected to the GE office belong to the army. And the army was on its way to steering hurricanes, one of which got aborted off of Savannah, which backed them off of hurricane research. And in the 50s, there are plenty of documents from high, powerful government people, federal government people, saying, weather is the next warfare weapon. Fast forward a decade, and you have the Ho Chi Minh trail and rain being forced over the Ho Chi Minh. Make mud, not war. Was this when the French were? No, no, no, it was in the 60s. We were doing this. The 60s after the Americans took over from the French. So when all of that was exposed, because it was top secret, no one knew about it, when I say no one, I mean no one, as you need to know, you know. Like the Manhattan Project. Like the Manhattan Project. So when this got exposed around the same time as the Pentagon Papers, it was part of the Pentagon Papers, Congress had all sorts of reactions and held meetings. And the international community was in an uproar. And they passed something called NMOD. And I've forgotten what NMOD. I'll just mess it up. But it's a UN law that says you cannot modify the environment. And N environment, mod, modify. You cannot do it. The 2001 proposal that I have, Congress in session, HR2977, I believe Kucinich had something to do with that. Space Preservation Act of 2001 introduced in the House. That strikes me as the same kind of thing that you're talking about from the UN. And it acknowledged what was happening. Yes. Well, you have to remember when NMOD came along, this vast machinery of the military plugged into by the scientific university and industrial complex. Where do we go now? We've got some big projects here. We're not going to let the UN shut us up. So then came Star Wars. Edward Teller was always on the forefront of these things. And Reagan listened to Teller. And so they went ahead, despite Kennedy and others belittling it. And Kennedy was the one who, Edward Kennedy was the one who derided it as Star Wars. Because the movie had just come out two years before. But Star Wars was serious. And the fruit came in the 90s. This gets, I don't know how much detail to go into for your listeners. But they may remember the Cold War ended between 1989 and 1990 war. It ended. We got a problem, Houston. Who's our enemy? That was half of it. The other half was, this is our opportunity. Let's dominate the whole Earth and everyone in it. Full spectrum dominance. Full spectrum. We didn't invent the term. No, we did not. It was invented by Paul Wolf, who it's working as a deputy for Dick Cheney, who was then, in Bush One's administration, Secretary of Defense. And David Ray Griffin covers this beautifully in his book, How Bush and Cheney Ruin the World. The US and the world. I get a program about that with Claudia, by the way. The question is a little more complicated than pinning it down a whole Bush Cheney. Cheney is one of my favorite villains. But it is a little more complicated than that. So you have a decision at a very strategic level that then pops up in a lot of military documents, saying, how do we get full spectrum dominance over all physical media? Outer space, atmosphere, oceans, Earth, communications, computers, how do we dominate the whole matrix? And this is one of the ways that they instructed their personnel. Well, this is very interesting. I don't know whether we can get. Well, we'll get it on my camera or your camera. Give it to me, and I will take it up there. Don't forget your microphone. Yeah, I won't. I'll try not to. So we'll there. That is a manual from the US by the Air Force. The US Air Force? So in 1990, yes, that's correct. The first entity to use the word chemtrails was the US Air Force. And they used it on the front jacket of their introduction to chemistry. Chem 131 for the US Air Force Academy students, very smart students. So that's worth bearing in mind because when Will Thomas came along, first of all, it wasn't his idea. Will Thomas worked in the Gulf during Gulf War I, Iraq War I. And he worked specifically on the environmental and human health damages done from the variety of weaponry used. So he had a reputation. He was an on-the-ground reporter, a freelance reporter for the environmental news service, which was a fairly new worldwide news service. So they knew him. They got a video, ENS got a video, Environmental News Service, got a video from a guy in rural Washington state showing very strange patterns of aircraft over his part of the world. And that would have been in 1997. So his editor, Thomas's editor, said, would you take a look at this video? Because Thomas was also trained as a fighter pilot. OK? So he said, sure, send it. So he started looking at it with a friend and started laughing. He said, these are just chemtrails. And then he said, no, he got deeper into it. He said, wait a minute. Those are not chemtrails. The patterns are too close. And they're cross-hatching. They're doing other things. This is not chemtrails. So he then accepted the assignment to follow up on this guy's evidence. And he never used the word chemtrail. That was invented by the Air Force. So then he went out and he interviewed through the guy William Wallace was his name, said, you got to go talk to this dentist in Bakersfield, California. You got to go talk to this ex-Ratheon guy down in Tennessee. And he pulled together out of 400 interviews, two short stories. All they did was report on massive health complaints all over the country, crowded emergency rooms, as you said earlier, respiratory problems, memory loss problems, temporary ones, and other kinds of problems. And that is when, because those stories were published by a reputable out-of-the-ghetto source, they had to get dealt with. And that's where Jay Reynolds shows up. But in the meantime, it was broadcast and distributed, disseminated all over the country. Art Bell got hold of Will Thomas roughly at the same time. I don't know how that happened. And he went on Art Bell and became Art Bell's, he says, most popular guest, but certainly one of his most popular guests, which took everyone by surprise. Now, Art Bell's show, what is it called? I don't remember. Coast to coast. Oh, yeah. 15 million viewers, listeners, late night. And that blew it. That was the crack. That was the pinnitubo of the anti-geoengineering movement. There are many other players. It's not just Will Thomas. People are curious, and they want to read at Vermont Independent my latest story on this. They will see who the people are who brought it up as an issue. And that's so important that I want to congratulate Rob Williams for his work in working with you and getting this out there to the public. And anybody paying attention today would realize why it's at Vermont Independent on the positive side because we believe in research, we believe in science, we believe in getting the truth out there. So that's why it's there. And the other hand, you may be wondering, why isn't it anywhere else? Well, from what you've heard today, you hopefully have figured out why it isn't anywhere else. And so please, if you are curious about this, look at all nine of Ian Baldwin's historic papers at vermontindependent.net. And they're all published there. I'm not the way that you use the search has changed a bit, but they're all there. Yeah, I think it's not a problem. If I want to access one of them, I just say Ian Baldwin, geoengineering, point up at Commons. Well, it's harder for all of my articles because they're all on a completely different topic. So there's the banking history, there's 9-11 history, they're all those. Anyway, so yes, please go there and take a look at that. And I also want to thank Claudia for her work in helping us. Claudia Stalbert. Claudia Stalbert, whose channel is Cabin Talk on YouTube. So that will be a companion piece to the two programs that we're doing today. And it will fill in, actually, it goes a little bit more into some of the villains in the story. And some of you may be wondering, those of you watching on local probably believe that Bill McKibben has been a big help to the environmental movement. But if he's only covering one-tenth of the problem, and he's not looking at real solutions, like solutions by Abe Collins, who understands the carbon cycle and how you take care of the carbon problem through agriculture. And we also have to touch today on, before I forget, the global warming aspect of geoengineering and chemtrails. We don't have much time, but that's a biggie. That's a very, very big subject. The particulate matter in the New York Times story and how that is actually contributing not to cooling the planet by reflecting solar, but making the planet well. On January 19, 2017, the New York Times on the front page, spread across the top, was a graph, a really interesting graph that had a curve that went something like that. And the bump, if you weren't used to looking at such graphs, you might miss the bump. Well, a researcher named Gottschalk at Harvard saw the bump, saw the dates correlated with it, and decided to play with it. And in a sense, make that noise get less staticky and clear. So he then pre-published two science papers. So if you do a science paper, a serious piece of work, you can put it up somewhere on the internet. Again, I've lost the exact provenance, but all scientists use it before it gets accepted for publication. Because the acceptance process or rejection process can take months. In the meantime, scientists in the same field want to know what's going on now, not five months from now. So he put it up there. And Herndon, being a scientist, perused it, found it, got in touch with Gottschalk and said, may I reprint your two figures? And Gottschalk gave him permission, provided he printed them exactly as he had them, and that he stated what his conclusions were and differentiated his own. So Herndon did that. And I think it's, from Gottschalk's point of view, what it shows is that air particulate pollution has been rising steadily for a century, but most graphically, in the 1940, 45, you get a bump out of the curve up. You get a bump like a dinosaur's hump. And that's World War II, when huge amount of particulates were spewed out over the globe on that two-front global war. Explosions, expenditure of energy beyond anything seen before. And it took quite a while to catch back up to the top of the pump. We were way past it now. And we're way past it now. Now one of the things these particulates do, as I said in the first show, they trap infrared heat when they're in the troposphere and lower stratosphere. They trap it. They don't let it escape. So they enter fear with Earth's thermal balance. The focus on CO2, it's a little like a chicken and an egg, which came first. But according to Herndon, who's a geoscientist who has many theories about how Earth formed and so forth, the gas follows the heat, not the other way around. Well, that should be easy to verify. It's not so easy. It's not so easy. But one thing is known. If the heat the oceans through what, sub-oceanic volcanism, 80% of volcanism is happening at the bottom of the ocean. If you heat the oceans, they are going to release CO2. And they're the main storehouse of CO2 on Earth. So heat definitely will drive CO2 up. Will CO2 cause heat through the trapping medium that science talks about? Yes, it does. So the exact interaction, I'm not qualified to explain. OK, well, I'm glad you opened that wound. But we are in a conundrum. Herndon is in a conundrum over. He's just published a grippingly important potentially paper. It's in the Science Ghetto. It's published by a very good Indian journal. But it's not in nature. It's not in science, which is AAAS. It's not in the Royal Society or the proceedings where it should be. This may seem arcane to people. But this is like life and death stuff. So I am very concerned about how to get this paper discussed. It's not a proof, but it is very interesting data. And people like our friend Bill McKibben are not going to welcome it, because I'm guessing. Because carbon dioxide is the villain. And everyone knows it's the villain. And that's his career. So they're not prepared to get off the consensus science horse, which Herndon says is bullshit, because science is not about consensus. It's about argumentation, backfinding, thesis proving, digging, counterargument, and debate. So I assume Dane Wiggington and Ilana will kind of, Ilana Freeland will somehow maybe help once this paper. I mean, Ilana reads stuff like that. Whoa, we've got to go. We've got to go. So this is the second half of a one-hour discussion of geoengineering with Ian Baldwin. And thank you very, very much for listening. The companion piece is on Cabin Talk. This will be on, those of you looking at it at Orca. This will be on House at Two Corner with Jim Hogue.