Geoengineering Our Skies While Telling Us Lies

Our Country Our Choice
By Greg Taylor with Mary Otto-Chang HBA,MES,PhD (Candidate)

In Part One of this Mini Series, the history of geoengineering was covered and now in Part Two, we continue on this journal looking at recent developments.

PART TWO: Recent Developments From Clandestine Tests to State Bans (2024–2025)

Anomalies as Engineered Mayhem

DARPA’s Atmosphere as a Sensor program (AtmoSense), which began in late 2020, set out to understand the fundamentals of energy propagation from the Earth’s surface to the ionosphere to determine whether the atmosphere can be used as a sensor. In 2025, AtmoSense testing the atmosphere as a “global sensor”, would appear to be a harmless scientific activity, but the Guardian newspaper warned back in 2015 of “non-benign” geoengineering interests, in something like AtmoSense’s use. RFK Jr.’s strontium claims in May 2025 were debunked by mainstream dishonest media, but DARPA’s secrecy fuels doubt.

Dane Wigington’s The Dimming lays bare the architecture: satellite-confirmed spray grids, high-altitude tests revealing nanoparticles, historical documents proving intent. Yet government denials persist, and media labels it all a hoax. As weather grows more erratic, the silence becomes deafening. Consensus isn’t truth. It’s a mask. And it’s time we tore it off. These roots didn’t wither; they metastasized into 2024–2025 brazen experiments, where anomalies scream engineered.

Demanding Transparency

These aren’t isolated cries, they’re a growing chorus of credible whistleblowers and experts uniting under banners like No2Globalism.com’s newly planned American World Coalition Against Geoengineering, pooling lab data, declassified docs, and testimony for a single objective: full atmospheric sovereignty.

Globally, Indigenous leaders from the Arctic to the Andes (via Geoengineering Monitor coalitions) amplify the alarm, linking aerosol fallout to cultural erasure, all converging on one truth: No more alterations of the skies.

The past two years have transformed geoengineering from whispered speculation into legislative warfare. What was once dismissed as fringe paranoia now appears in state statutes, congressional hearings, and scientific protests. Yet through Wigington’s lens, these developments aren’t progress, they’re escalation.

A weather war is underway, and “climate change” may be its camouflage.

In April 2024, the Alameda salt-spray experiment, conducted from the decommissioned aircraft carrier USS Hornet marked a turning point. Trillions of salt particles were released into the atmosphere to brighten marine clouds and reflect sunlight. The Biden administration denied involvement, but NOAA’s funding trail tells a different story.

Globally, the pattern repeats. Australia paused its marine cloud brightening trials amid ecological concerns. Israel deployed high-altitude aerosol dispersal systems reaching 60,000 feet. Massachusetts dumped sodium hydroxide into coastal waters – all under NOAA and EPA oversight, yet the long-term risks remain clearly unstudied. These operations echo Wigington’s warnings in The Dimming: untested interventions with irreversible consequences.

Yet, some states have rebelled. Tennessee banned geoengineering in 2024. By mid- 2025, eight more followed with similar actions banning or towards banning including, Louisiana, Texas, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Florida, Montana, and New Hampshire among them.

The law doesn’t mention “chemtrails,” but the term surfaced repeatedly in legislative debates and social media posts by bill sponsors. Critics call it political theater. Supporters call it accountability. Either way, the symbolic shift is seismic: the state of Florida has codified what was once dismissed as conspiracy.

Wigington calls it a “mind-war shield,” where consensus becomes a tool of suppression. The anomalies, heat waves flipping into blizzards, stalled ocean currents, biblical floods, scream engineering. Wigington’s lab tests link aerosol spikes to chaos.

The official narrative? Still insists it’s all natural. China conducting brazen ops expose U.S. hypocrisy, but amid the race, a chorus of scientists cries halt, the Non-Use Agreement.

The Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement – Scientific Caution Amid the Hype – A Counter to Consensus Blindness

In a world increasingly seduced by techno-fixes, the Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement stands as a rare act of restraint, a collective refusal to play God with the climate. Launched in January 2022, by over 60 senior climate scientists and governance scholars, and now endorsed by more than 575 signatories, the agreement calls for a global ban on Solar Radiation Modification(SRM) technologies.

These include stratospheric aerosol injections designed to reflect sunlight and cool the planet, a concept that, while theoretically effective, carries catastrophic unknowns. The architects of the agreement include prominent figures like Louis J. Kotzé and Chukwumerije Okereke, who emphasize the disproportionate risks SRM poses to the Global South. Monsoon disruptions, agricultural collapse, and geopolitical coercion are not hypothetical, they’re probable. The agreement is backed by scholars from institutions across Europe, Africa, and Latin America, including the Stockholm Environment Institute, Wageningen University, and the United Nations University. Yet conspicuously absent are endorsements from major Western governments, the IPCC, and supranational entities like the European Union or the World Bank, those most likely to fund or deploy SRM under the guise of climate urgency.

The agreement outlines five core commitments:

No Public Funding – National agencies must not finance SRM research or deployment.
No Outdoor Experiments – Field trials are banned, regardless of scale.
No Patents – Intellectual property rights for SRM technologies are prohibited.
No Deployment – Nations must not use SRM, even if developed by third parties.
No Support in International Institutions | Global bodies must not endorse or normalize SRM as a policy option.

Critics argue that banning SRM stifles innovation. But innovation without governance is a recipe for disaster. With China, Russia, the U.S., Australia, and others conducting their own experiments, often in secrecy, the risk isn’t just scientific. It’s existential. The impact of a single SRM trial is unknown. Multiply that across continents, and you don’t get mitigation. You get mayhem. The agreement is a good thing, but only if it’s enforced. Without binding international law, it remains a principled plea in a world addicted to control. And as history shows, from Operation Popeye to Alameda’s salt spray, principles are often the first casualty. Yet restraint rings hollow without confronting the tools already in play, like HAARP—the enigma at geoengineering’s heart.

To Be Continued.

SOURCES:

Recent Developments: From Clandestine Tests to State Bans (2024–2025)