Proposé par LES LUCINDAS.






Pour mieux comprendre le contexte politique, scientifique et commercial qui entoure l'avènement de la géoingénierie (et autres technologies à risques), la swedish society for nature conservation (SSNC) a demandé au Groupe ETC, qui est l'organisation de société civile qui l'a suivi avec le plus d'assiduité, de lui fournir un rapport pouvant l' éclairer sur ce qui est en train de se passer.



L' ETC Group (Erosion, Technologie et Concentration) , le collectif d' auteurs de ce rapport nous parle, depuis trente ans, de TOUT ce qui nous inquiète actuellement : de la politique des semences jusqu'à la géoingénierie, en passant par les nano-particules...

Retrouvez leurs travaux, sur leur site : http://www.etcgroup.org/ et leur blog : http://etcblog.org/ .



Pour résumer un peu leurs activités pendant ces trente dernières années, nous avons choisi ce portrait sonore de Pat MOONEY, le directeur du groupe canadien ETC dans l'émission "Terre à Terre" sur France Culture du 23 janvier 2010, à 7H05.

Durée : 55 min
Le télécharger en mp3: ici 
L'écouter en ligne: ici





Et apparemment ça bouge (enfin, ça frétille dans un coin sombre) au sein des nations unies; un moratoire a été posé sur l'ensemencement des océans et on travaillerait à en faire un pour celui des nuages...










Le communiqué de Presse: RÉFLÉCHIR AVANT D’AGIR! :
Date: 10 décembre 2009
Télécharger-le pdf en français.


LES NÉGOCIATEURS sont invités à RÉFLÉCHIR AVANT D’AGIR !
La société civile alarmée face aux solutions technologiques miracles au changement climatique proposées à Copenhague

Copenhague, le 10 décembre 2009 – Plus de 160 groupes de la société civile, englobant des mouvements sociaux et des organisations non gouvernementales (ONG), ont rendu publique aujourd’hui une déclaration conjointe portant sur la technologie, intitulée « Réfléchissons avant d’agir ! ». La déclaration vise à alerter les gouvernements devant l’absence, dans le projet d’entente sur les technologies de Copenhague, de toute mention d’un mécanisme d’évaluation environnementale et sociale fondé sur le principe de précaution. On y affirme également que l’approche actuelle présente de graves menaces à la santé humaine, aux droits de la personne, au mode de vie rural, à la diversité des écosystèmes et à la stabilité climatique.

Les textes de négociation de Copenhague font à plusieurs reprises référence à la nécessité de développer et de déployer rapidement des technologies soi-disant « respectueuses de l’environnement ». Toutefois, le texte d’entente ne fait aucune mention de l’importance d’évaluer au préalable les nouvelles technologies controversées qui se prétendent sans effet sur le climat, mais qui sont en réalité nuisibles. Les groupes de la société civile sont de plus en plus inquiets, car bon nombre des technologies qui seront déployées rapidement par l’entremise de ce nouveau système présentent des risques et n’ont pas été testées, et sont susceptibles de donner lieu à une nouvelle vague de problèmes environnementaux et sociaux qui viendront aggraver la crise climatique. La déclaration, rendue publique aujourd’hui, mentionne des technologies telles que la géoingénierie, le génie génétique, les agrocarburants (biocarburants) et le biochar à titre d’exemples de technologies risquées ou dangereuses qui pourraient bénéficier d’une promotion indue à la suite d’ententes prises à Copenhague.

« En plus d’être les victimes de la crise climatique, nous ne voulons pas devenir les cobayes de nouvelles technologies non éprouvées ou de technologies dangereuses plus anciennes comme l’énergie nucléaire, sous prétexte qu’il faudrait une intervention technologique plus musclée afin de régler le problème climatique », a dit Ricardo Navarro des Amis de la Terre International. « Il est totalement irresponsable que les négociateurs discutent du développement et du transfert de technologies sans prévoir aucun mécanisme visant à distinguer celles qui pourront être utiles de celles qui engendreront plus de problèmes pour les populations et l’environnement. Il nous faut inclure et appliquer immédiatement le principe de précaution », a ajouté M. Navarro.

Parmi les solutions technologiques miracles proposées pour contrer le changement climatique qui pourraient être mises de l’avant dans le cadre du présent texte figurent des manipulations climatiques à grande échelle connues sous le nom de géoingénierie. Les partisans de la géoingénierie comptent dans leurs rangs des sceptiques du climat proches à l’industrie comme Bjorn Lomborg, qui affirment que la mise en œuvre de solutions techniques à grande échelle permettrait d’éliminer la nécessité d’entreprendre des actions visant la réduction des émissions. « Lutter contre les changements climatiques en ayant recours à la géoingénierie équivaut à combattre un incendie avec de l’essence », explique Silvia Ribeiro, du bureau mexicain de l’ETC Group. « Les propositions telles que le déversement de tonnes de fer dans nos océans ou l’injection de sulfates dans la stratosphère afin de refléter les rayons solaires sont extrêmement dangereuses. Elles risquent d’aggraver certains problèmes existants, comme la diminution de la couche d’ozone et les sécheresses en Afrique subsaharienne, sans compter que leurs impacts se feront sentir dans des pays et sur des populations qui n’auront même pas la chance d’exprimer leur opinion à propos de ces idées. La géoingénierie, c’est de la géopiraterie, et ce type de jeu dangereux avec Gaia ne doit sous aucune considération faire partie des négociations sur le climat. »

Paul Nicholson de La Via Campesina, mouvement paysan international représentant les petits agriculteurs de 69 pays, a rappelé aux délégués que les nouvelles technologies introduites au cours des dernières décennies, comme les cultures génétiquement modifiées et les monocultures arboricoles, ont eu d’importants impacts négatifs sur les agriculteurs et l’environnement. « Nous, petits agriculteurs et paysans du monde, possédons déjà une diversité de technologies qui ont fait leurs preuves et qui contribuent à refroidir la planète et à nourrir la majorité des populations du globe. Ces méthodes doivent être soutenues et non pas menacées par l’introduction de nouvelles technologies dangereuses risquant de compromettre la diversité des récoltes et des cultures qui représentent une solution réelle tant à la crise climatique qu’à la crise alimentaire. »


« Quelle que soit l’entente en matière de technologie qui résultera de cette rencontre, elle ne doit pas simplement constituer un mécanisme permettant de soutenir des exercices d’écoblanchiment financés par du capital de risque », a dit Chee Yoke Ling du Third World Network. « Dans le contexte de l’échange de droits d’émission de carbone, les “technologies respectueuses de l’environnement” ne font souvent que jeter de la poudre aux yeux. Nous avons besoin d’une entente qui facilitera l’accès à des technologies réellement respectueuses de l’environnement et à des énergies propres, et qui n’entraînera pas la concrétisation de mauvaises idées à l’échelle internationale. Les gouvernements reconnaissent déjà la nécessité de l’évaluation préalable des solutions dans le Protocole international de Carthagène sur la prévention des risques biotechnologiques. Il nous faut des règles encore plus strictes dans une entente sur les technologies liées au climat », a-t-elle ajouté.

« Dans un contexte où le lobby de la géoingénierie manœuvre pour obtenir du financement et accroître son influence et son pouvoir, une entente ouverte facilitant l’expansion rapide de solutions technologiques est suicidaire », a rappelé Silvia Ribeiro de l’ETC Group. « Les partisans de la géoingénierie répondront qu’il est trop tard pour appliquer des mesures d’atténuation, et que l’humanité s’oriente inévitablement vers la manipulation du climat par le recours à des technologies extrêmes. Les géopirates attendent dans les coulisses et font de plus en plus entendre leur voix, et espèrent que cette conférence se soldera par un échec pour pouvoir s’imposer et proposer leur solution miracle de pacotille », a conclu Ribeiro.

La déclaration « Réfléchissons avant d’agir ! » exige l’adoption d’une approche claire et cohérente à l’échelle internationale pour toutes les nouvelles solutions technologiques proposées au changement climatique : les États présents à la conférence COP 15 doivent faire en sorte que des mécanismes de précaution rigoureux en matière d’évaluation des technologies soient institués et rendus juridiquement contraignants, pour que les risques et les impacts probables, ainsi que le bien-fondé de ces nouvelles technologies, soient évalués de manière adéquate et démocratique préalablement à leur déploiement. Tout nouvel organe voué à l’évaluation et au transfert des technologies doit prévoir une représentation équitable des communautés les plus affectées par le changement climatique, en plus d’assurer en son sein un équilibre entre les hommes et les femmes et les représentants des différentes régions, ainsi que la participation des paysans et des Autochtones pour que leurs points de vue soient pris en compte.



La déclaration « Réfléchissons avant d’agir ! » et la liste des organisations qui l’ont signée jusqu’à maintenant peuvent être téléchargées en français, en anglais,
en espagnol, en italien et en chinois à :

http://www.etcgroup.org
Pour obtenir plus d’information :
Ricardo Navarro (FOEI),  cesta@cesta-foe.org
Paul Nicholson (La Via Campesina),  idelforge@viacampesina.org
Silvia Ribeiro, ETC group,  silvia@etcgroup.org
Diana Bronson, ETC group,  diana@etcgroup.org
Chee Yoke Ling, Third World Network,  yokeling@thirdworldnetwork.net







LE RAPPORT :
Date: 14 décembre 2009

Retooling the Planet: Climate Chaos in a Geoengineering Age, by ETC group

• Report: Retooling the Planet?
• Full report from the seminar

• La traduction du rapport par Les Lucindas :
http://supahumandignity.blogspot.com/2010/03/traduction-du-rapport-detc-group-sur-la.html
Dernière mise à jour : le 22 mars 2010.





• Le communiqué de presse, en français, sur la géoingénierie du groupe-ETC.
http://supahumandignity.blogspot.com/2010/02/les-partisans-de-la-geoingenierie.html•
Datant du 12 février 2010.






• Grâce à l'ACSEIPICA, nous avons appris qu'ETC group avait rédigé une lettre ouverte à l'intention des organisateurs de la Conférence d'Asilomar sur les interventions climatiques qui vise à établir les grandes lignes de programmes de géoingéniérie planétaire, se tient du 22 au 26 mars 2010 à Asilomar en Californie.
http://supahumandignity.blogspot.com/2010/03/non-la-planification-mondiale-de-la.html

Article vu sur  Yale environement 360. 
Déniché  par  Les Lucindas.

As the world weighs how to deal with warming, the idea of human manipulation of climate systems is gaining attention. Yet beyond the environmental and technical questions looms a more practical issue: How could governments really commit to supervising geoengineering schemes for centuries?

by Dianne Dumanoski
17 Dec 2009


In the summer of 2006, geoengineering — the radical proposal to offset one human intervention into planetary systems with another — came roaring out of the scientific closet. Deliberate climate modification, as climate scientist Wally Broecker once noted, had long been “one of the few subjects considered taboo in the realm of scientific inquiry.”

Two things spurred this dramatic reversal: growing alarm because climate change was hitting harder and faster than expected and the abysmal failure of political efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Indeed, since world leaders signed the Rio Convention on Climate Change in 1992, global emissions climbed from 6.1 billion metric tons of carbon a year to 8.5 billion tons in 2007. Dismayed by the inaction, Paul Crutzen, a Nobel laureate, published a controversial paper in August, 2006 that opened the door to the hitherto unthinkable. Since timely and sufficient reductions appeared to be, in his words, “a pious wish,” he urged serious investigation of technological proposals to offset rising temperatures.

For some, geoengineering seemed to hold out another hope: that technology might provide an escape not only from growing heat, but also from the thorny realm of hard choices and difficult international politics. Those politics were on vivid display in Copenhagen this week, as nations have agreed on the gravity of the threat but little else.

Since the release of Crutzen’s influential paper, many have voiced concerns about possible hazards posed by geoengineering schemes. For example, the artificial volcano projects, which would inject sulfate particles into the stratosphere to deflect incoming sunlight, might reduce the symptom of excess heat, but experience from past volcanic eruptions and climate models indicates that this approach would likely alter rainfall patterns and intensify drought in many regions. And because such sunshade schemes only treat a symptom rather than tackle the cause, this technofix would do nothing to prevent another dire consequence of rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — increasing acidity in ocean waters. This acidity jeopardizes coral reefs, shelled marine life, and a tiny plankton Emiliania huxleyi, which plays a key role in the transfer of carbon from the atmosphere to long-term storage in deep ocean sediments.

But the biggest hitch in sunshade remedies involves politics and questions of governance, for they would require an unflagging commitment of centuries: five hundred years or so, or, if we do not make major emissions cuts, even as long as a millennium. If anything were to interrupt this geoengineering effort, which would have to keep replenishing the sulfates every few years, the world would quickly confront a doomsday scenario: Temperatures would suddenly soar upward at a rate 20 times faster than they are rising today, causing unimaginable havoc in human and natural systems and with it, the real danger of human extinction. This institutional challenge is without question a far greater obstacle than any technological difficulties. It is hard to imagine that anyone with even a passing knowledge of human history would think this long-term commitment could be a prudent gamble.

The moral and political hazards of geoengineering are altogether as formidable as the physical dangers. However inviting the prospects shimmering on the technological horizon, geoengineering “solutions” and the promise of a technofix down the road lead us easily into temptation. Indeed, these speculative technologies are already figuring in the political debate and hover in the background of diplomatic discussions, since it will be impossible to limit future warming to 2 degrees C, as G-8 leaders pledged in July, without something like a new technology to suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It is easy to forget that these are proposals, not proven technologies. There is no assurance that any will actually work as imagined.

Even more troubling, these tantalizing prospects can encourage neglect of what can be done now. Former President George W. Bush often used future technology as an excuse for inaction, touting research on hydrogen fuel-cell “freedom cars” while rejecting proposals to improve the efficiency of today’s vehicles. One energy economist quipped, the freedom car “is really about Bush’s freedom to do nothing about cars today.”



In one geoengineering scheme, scientists are studying the idea of ships that would spray droplets of saltwater into the atmosphere, making cloud cover thicker and whiter, thus reflecting more sunlight back into space.


If Lomborg and his allies in conservative think tanks tout such technofixes as a better “solution” to the climate change, others such as Crutzen and Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, see it as an insurance policy in the event of full-blown emergency. They advocate research to distinguish the merely risky geoengineering schemes from the manifestly mad. It is hard to object to a backup plan, especially as the world has not yet halted emissions, much less embarked on the deep reductions that are required.

Insurance, however, often has a perverse effect: The promise that something will be there to bail you out if the worst happens encourages imprudent behavior. The number of mountain rescues has increased because hikers carry cell phones. The National Flood Insurance Program for people living in coastal communities aimed to discourage development in high-risk areas by providing subsidized insurance if the local government agreed to guide development away from flood-prone areas, but the program instead has increased development in these danger zones. Similarly, geoengineering schemes foster the notion that technology can rescue us from climate hell, if it comes to that, and thereby discourages early, prudent action to head off the worst danger.

The political hazards of deliberate planetary manipulation are as formidable as the moral pitfalls. The technologies that scientists and engineers regard as “insurance” to safeguard the human future may precipitate new kinds of international conflict and the possibility of an arms race in geoengineering technology.

If geoengineering becomes the chosen response, the obvious question is, Who is going to make decisions that are truly global in scope, and how? Who, if anyone, will be approving, overseeing, and policing any use of geoengineering? If the time comes when the Earth needs a sunshade, there must be a guarantee, once started, that it will continue for centuries. If the monsoon fails following some geoengineering effort, there must be some authority to mediate the dispute about what caused it or compensate those who claim damages. As Stanford climate scientist Stephen Schneider has suggested, such claims are inevitable, so it would be unwise to do this without some plan for “no-fault climate disaster insurance” to provide compensation.

And how is it going to be possible to distinguish plain old bad weather from climatological warfare? In a geoengineered world, a catastrophic hurricane or devastating drought can generate suspicion, paranoia, and conflict.

The problems of the planetary era clearly require some manner of global governance, but our first attempts at this have failed miserably. Gus Speth, the former dean of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies and an early leader on global problems, describes the current state of affairs bluntly: “The climate convention is not protecting climate, the biodiversity convention is not protecting biodiversity, the desertification convention is not preventing desertification, and even the older and stronger Convention of the Law of the Sea is not protecting fisheries.”

The planetary system binds us more tightly in a common destiny than the economic system. No one will be secure in a world with runaway warming. Yet governments that willingly concede some of their sovereignty to promote economic expansion will not do the same to protect planetary systems.

In the absence of some means to arrive at a collective decision and provide oversight, all sorts of conflicts and tensions are almost inevitable. What happens if a single country decides to opt for planetary manipulation instead of reducing its emissions? What if other countries object that the project is too risky? If it becomes possible to scrub carbon dioxide from the air and reduce carbon dioxide levels, the question of who gets to choose what kind of climate we want and whether nations should pay to remove their share of past emissions could spark serious disputes.

Until a shift in their rhetoric on climate change six months ago, Russian leaders, for example, were inclined to an upbeat assessment of the benefits of climate change and quick to claim land along with any oil, gas, and minerals lying beneath the no-longer-icebound Arctic. Even if their new-found concern about future warming proves genuine, the Russians might balk at a plan to reduce carbon dioxide levels to 280 to 300 parts per million — a target that would return CO2 levels to what is indisputably the safe range for the climate system. Climate scientist Ken Caldeira judged that it isn’t far-fetched to imagine “some kind of arms race of geoengineering where one country is trying to cool the planet and another is trying to warm the planet.”

The greatest temptation is the naïve hope for a quick fix that will spare us from the difficult challenges of cutting greenhouse gas emissions or finding a way to live together on a shared planet. Even if one of these geoengineering schemes does pan out, be assured that it isn’t going to prove either simple or a “solution.”


Source: Yale environement 360. 

Archivage de 2 articles en anglais, 
vus sur http://www.eutimes.net 
le  03 Janvier 2010

 

image by Jon Reinfurt / www.reinfurt.com

 

 

Global Warming: An Effect of Weather Manipulation?

We are being told to reduce our carbon footprints in an attempt to reduce the catestrophic effects of global warming. Will this do any good? Until we know the past and future effects of Global Governmental weather manipulation on our climate we cannot take steps to save our planet.

For the past twenty plus years, the planet has been subject to increasingly unusual weather patterns.

Governments are encouraging companies and individuals to reduce their carbon footprints to tackle “global warming” – caused by modern-day energy expenditure.

Is this the whole truth?



Chinese Weather Rockets

Weather control is not sci-fi, it is a reality, yet very little is publicised about it and the long term effects of weather manipulation are an unknown.

In the knowledge that if a country can control the weather, they can control the world, an Environmental Modification Treaty was signed or ratified by 70 of the world governments in 1977 to prevent hostile weather manipulation.

Actions that would contravene the treaty would be: triggering earthquakes, manipulating ozone levels, alteration of the ionosphere, deforestation, provoking flood or drought, use of herbicides, setting fires, seeding clouds, introduction of invasive species, eradication of species, creation of storms, destruction of crops.

Weather control is the ultimate weapon.

Forget nuclear weaponry, bombs, rockets and guns – weather control technology is the new weapon of mass destruction, the technology is the ultimate state / terrorist weapon and / or deterrent.

To assume that in signing the treaty, Governments would completely disregarded weather control research – the ultimate weapon – would be naïve to say the least.



Chinese Weather rockets at the Olympic Games held in Beijing in 2008

In June 08, the LA Times reported that in response to criticism of the 2008 Olympic Games being held in Beijing, China, during the rainy season, the Chinese Meteorological Bureau’s of weather modification had assured the public that they had set aside, 30 aeroplanes, 4000 rocket launchers, 7000 anti-aircraft guns to modify the weather to prevent rain.



Chinese preparing a rocket launcher

The Chinese weather control would not be in contravention of the treaty, as it would be done without hostile intent, however, it proves that governments have invested in the research and development of weather control techniques.
The above picture is HAARP in Alaska – High frequency Active Aural Research – this is one of at least seven research facilities around the globe.
These facilities were built by the US to monitor the ionosphere, the outer defence of earths atmosphere.
The ionosphere retains the globes warmth and protects the planet from the suns solar flares – variations on any point of the ionosphere can severely affect the weather.
The facility can gather valuable information in respect of the earth’s atmosphere.
However, more worryingly, the facilities have an active capability to superheat specific points of the ionosphere, creating holes or incisions, which then allow solar flares to enter the atmosphere – thus significantly affecting weather conditions below.
Under the remit of serious research, the facilities do not contravene the Environmental Modification Treaty, however the technology has the potential to used as a weapon of mass destruction on a global scale.
Details are available on http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/ion4.html
The Government website noted above, confirms that the HAARP facility has been actively tested.
An environmental study was carried out on the Alaskan facility in 1992 which concluded “all of the significant environmental impacts associated with HAARP Alaska can be mitigated to an acceptable level. Some insignificant potential impacts such as loss of habitat, socioeconomic and wildlife impacts may not be mitigated.”


Further explanation of the ominous wording highlighted above, the immediate and long term effects of the use of the facility upon the environment / weather patterns and the military potential of the HAARP system are not listed on the website.
The Russian government have also developed Project Woodpecker- Electron Cyclotron Resonance Heating Method.
The system was developed from experiments carried out by Nickola Tesla into electro magnetism and the potential to use the planets natural electromagnetism as an energy source which could be further developed for use as a powerful weapon.
Woodpecker transmitters emit ELF – extreme low frequency elecro-magnetic pulses.
The transmitters, positioned in facilities around the globe generate an electro-magnetic grid which circumnavigates the globe using natural high density water vapour trails as conductors (essentially five water vapour rivers which naturally occurring in both the North and South Hemispheres of the Earth’s atmosphere).
Disruption in their frequency acts as an early warning system for incoming missiles or aircraft.
Convergence of transmissions on the grid, at any pre-determined point, will disrupt the ionosphere, the release of electromagnetic energy pulses by the transmitters can either be used as a weapon and disrupt weather conditions
The Woodpecker system has the capability to disrupt the path of the Northern Hemispheres Jet Stream Flow – Which can, and may already have had cataclysmic effects upon the world’s weather patterns.
It was reported in the Wall Street Journal on 2nd October 1992, that a Russian Company called “Elite Intelligent Technologies” were selling weather control Technology with the slogan “Weather made to Order”. They claimed to be able to fine tune the weather over a 200 square mile radius for $200.00 per day.
This article only touches upon some of the technology involved in weather control / manipulation. There are many internet sites where weather manipulation and control is being discussed – Please take a look for yourself.
In conclusion, we cannot and must not trust the propaganda regarding global warming – until we are given the full facts regarding the short and long term effects of planetary weather manipulation/ weaponry.
The past and future consequences of weather manipulation cannot no longer be ignored or brushed off as conspiratorial sci-fi.
Until the public takes the time to research this topic for themselves, spreads awareness, loses the apathy and demands answers from who are elected to govern on our behalf, we, our children, and our planet will continue to hang on a precipice of oblivion.

SOURCE
+
BONUS :  Documentary Confirms Global Warming Caused by Chemtrails and HAARP

Methods of Artificial Weather Manipulation(AWM) help agriculture, devastate the enemy and control the world economy 

 

Engineers and Space Specialists are working towards something that can change human civilization forever! It is the methods of artificial weather modification.
The process when perfected, can help in agriculture, getting rid of droughts, floods and avoid cyclones and typhoons.
It is also the process by which the enemy can be devastated, artificial floods, cyclones and typhoons created.
It can allow controlling the world economy and agricultural commodity markets.
In ancient religions and legends, weather control, creation of cyclone, rain, flood, drought were nothing new. In the modern age the Scientists and technologists are busy perfecting the weather control sciences. It is shaping up as the most vibrant area of research and development.
Many countries are mastering the science of weather control. As a matter of fact many experts predict that a war game is being played by major powers in the world to demonstrate their capabilities of weather control. Most of these initiatives are classified and shoved off from the public. The only way one can track these initiatives is to look at countries taking actions to shield against weather control experiments.
Recently, scientists and engineers have started unveiling the actual methods of weather control. Some primitive methods like Cloud-top seeding can confuse you and point you to a wrong direction. Cloud-top seeding is usually performed between the temperatures of -5°C and -10°C. The greatest amount of super-cooled liquid water is usually found within this range. This corresponds to an altitude range of 15,000 to 22,000 ft depending upon location. Dropping or ejecting silver iodide flares into the growing cloud turrets dispenses seeding agent. The seeding agent is placed into the super-cooled clouds where nucleation is desired, so the updrafts in these cases are relied upon only to provide a continuing source of condensate. This delivery technique requires less anticipation on the part of those directing the seeding operations and may have a more immediate effect.
The more modern methods involve artificial ionization of earth’s atmosphere between 15,000 and 30,000 ft. and above. Manipulating the ionosphere and use of controlled solar-terrestrial interactions can create much larger effects. Scientists are realizing that the earth’s weather is controlled by Sun’s natural Electromagnetic Radiation reaching the earth. The Sun’s Radiations and Ultraviolet Rays have to cross the ionosphere to reach the earth.
There are early indications that the solar radiations and flares are directly responsible for planetary weather changes. And Solar flares and levels of radiations are caused by bombardment of cosmic rays on the Sun from either a distant massive black hole or a star-cluster caused by the collapse of thousands and thousands of stars in a small space.
Computer models obviously focused on the ionosphere, which acts as a filter for the solar radiations to reach the earth. If one can manipulate and control the filter, it becomes a potential source of massive weather modification. That is what the computer simulation models found. Controlling the ionosphere potentially allows weather control. The algorithmic variation of ionosphere can create the magic in a massive scale.
There are many methods of controlling the ionosphere. It is the process of artificially manipulating ion density in the ionosphere. High power transmitter and antenna array operating in the HF(High Frequency) range is one of the methods. There are lots of literature on that in the Internet and declassified scientific research journals.
However, the recent trend is in using super conductors in space satellites to generate intense high intensity electromagnetic flux.

SOURCE

Vue sur http://aworldalert.com/







Illustration by Michael Morgenstern

HACKING THE SKY

Since the scale of the climate crisis became clear, the strategy for fixing this glitch has focused on remediation. To maintain the atmosphere’s equilibrium, we need to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. Our chief goal should be to return the climate to something approximating the pre-industrial status quo.
But what if such a return isn’t possible? What if the planet has gone permanently haywire? As the effects of climate change become obvious and global leaders remain unable to halt emissions, a growing number of scientists say we need to begin researching what’s called “geo-engineering” – ways to artificially reduce global temperatures and/or manipulate plants or the oceans to absorb huge amounts of CO₂. Having unintentionally warmed the planet, we may have little choice but to intentionally cool it back down.
Even those most interested in geo-engineering say that the idea of deliberately deforming the planet in order to save it from ourselves is, as Stanford University’s Ken Caldeira told NPR this summer, “scary.” Yet if we shy away from manipulating the whole globe and continue on our present course, we could be left with a burnt Earth unlike anything ever seen. The scientists who are encouraging government-funded research into geo-engineering are driven by a powerful motive: fear. All too aware of the implications of unchecked CO₂ emissions – and worried that political systems aren’t moving quickly enough to respond to changes in the planet’s physical systems – these scientists say we may have no other option than to tinker with the sky.
That some of the world’s foremost climatologists are contemplating this measure of last resort reveals how desperate our predicament is. We face the prospect of leaping into a new epoch of planetary history, one in which a single species will be responsible for all other life here. Or else finding some way of accommodating ourselves to the world as we have undone it.
This places us at a moral moment involving a dangerous gamble. Do we chance toying with the entire atmosphere? Can we afford not to?
Geo-engineering schemes fall into two categories: attempts to absorb the CO₂ in the atmosphere and efforts to manipulate the way Earth reflects sunlight, called the planet’s “albedo.” The first group is less controversial, because such techniques mimic natural processes. They are, however, slower, which reduces their effectiveness as a response to the kind of climate emergencies some scientists fear. Devices to re-jigger the planet’s albedo can seem more worrisome, as they would create what critics have dubbed a “Frankenplanet.” They are also more likely to work.
One idea for absorbing CO₂ involves seeding the oceans with iron to spur plankton blooms, which inhale large amounts of carbon and then die, pulling the gas to the bottom of the sea. Another brainstorm suggests that by creating “biochar” we can arrest the amount of carbon dioxide that naturally goes into the atmosphere during plant decay. Giant kilns would take agricultural waste and dead trees and, using a process called pyrolysis, burn them without using oxygen. The resulting CO₂-laden charcoal then would be buried. If that proves unfeasible, some scientists say we could genetically modify plants to absorb more of the heat-trapping gas. Or, in case that doesn’t work, Professor Klaus Lackner at Columbia University proposes building “synthetic trees” that will capture CO₂ and turn it into a liquid form to store underground.
The second line of thought entails reducing the sunlight that strikes the planet. In a global version of pulling down the shades, this would cool temperatures and at least ameliorate the greenhouse effect. Roger Angel, a professor at the University of Arizona, imagines launching a trillion mirrors into a stable orbit between Earth and the sun, creating a kind of space-based umbrella. Or we could build a fleet of 1,500 computer-directed boats that will splash seawater into the clouds to make them whiter. John Latham of the National Center for Atmospheric Research predicts that increasing the reflective power of the clouds by three percent could offset humanity’s contribution to global warming. Another method of cooling the planet involves spraying sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere as a way to deflect sunlight.
Until recently, such outlandish ideas weren’t discussed in polite company, for fear that loose talk about geo-engineering would distract from the goal of doing everything possible to halt greenhouse gas emissions. Now, a significant number of influential people are taking the idea seriously.
The US National Academy of Science held a one-day conference in June to discuss the idea. Last fall, the British Royal Academy of Sciences launched a study to examine geo-engineering options and their risks. NASA is looking at ways of managing how solar radiation hits the planet. Some environmentalists are also interested. In an essay published last year in Orion, Mike Tidwell, a veteran climate activist, wrote: “Human beings must quickly figure out some sort of mechanical or chemical means of reflecting a portion of the sun’s light away from our planet … Like it or not, we are where we are.”
An indicator of the force of the idea – and the touchy politics surrounding the subject – came in April, when John Holdren, head of President Obama’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, said in an interview with the Associated Press that he had mentioned geo-engineering in White House discussions. After the account came out, Holdren rushed to clarify his statements, saying that geo-engineering, though it warrants study, isn’t an alternative to curbing emissions. Holdren’s defensiveness is revealing. His carefully parsed statements show that few scientists are enthusiastic about the notion of engineering Earth. Even those who are curious about the possibilities are anxious over the prospect of actual deployment.
“It’s not anything that anybody should look on with any sort of glee,” Ken Caldeira, a fellow at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford, told me recently. “It’s the kind of thing that you hope you don’t need. But I don’t see anything in our current policies that makes me think we will reduce emissions in time.”
“When you are talking about global modification of the environment, that’s scary, because it would be the most ambitious – and some would say arrogant and dangerous – experiment in human history,” Samuel Thernstrom, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a vocal proponent of increased geo-engineering research, says. “Geo-engineering is neither a perfect solution nor a permanent one. You’d have to be crazy to consider this a first, best option.”
The mixed emotions surrounding geo-engineering hint at a dark mood. Among those who understand the climate science best, there is a creeping resignation that we won’t make the hard choices necessary to halt catastrophic global warming. This is, it seems to me, a staggering admission just at a time when, to avert disaster, we need a buoyant sense of potential. If mitigation (reducing emissions) is the hope of the idealist, and adaptation (preparing for rising waters) is the consolation of the realist, then geo-engineering (call it circumvention) has become the refuge of the cynic. Geo-engineering assumes that although we may be able to alter how the planet works, we are incapable of changing the way we run the world.

Of course, idealism is often a privilege, and cynicism an unflinching wisdom. Which proves that geo-engineering – dystopian though it may be – is at least honest, the last chance of survival for a planet on the brink of collapse.
Many geo-engineering proposals are flawed. The mirrors-in-space scheme is wildly implausible. The physics of launching 20 million tons of material into space is untested, and the plan would cost about $400 trillion. The iron fertilization of the ocean had generated optimism until an experiment earlier this year dampened hopes. When the theory was tested in a 115-square-mile area of the Southern Ocean, tiny crustacean zooplankton ate up all the phytoplankton.
The idea of whipping up ocean spray to whiten the clouds seems possible. Climate models, however, suggest that the benefits would only be regional. A prototype of an artificial “tree” that uses plastic, resin-coated “leaves” to capture carbon has shown promise. But, as with any kind of carbon sequestration, it’s unclear where all the carbon would be stored.
The geo-engineering proposal attracting the most attention is the one that involves injecting a sulfur dioxide (SO₂) aerosol into the atmosphere as a way of reflecting more sunlight back into space. Unlike the other geo-engineering proposals, the sulfur scheme has already undergone a successful experiment – by the planet itself.
In 1991, Mount Pinatubo, a long-smoldering volcano on the Philippine island of Luzon, blew its top off in an explosion 10 times stronger than the Mount St. Helens eruption. The volcano hurled a stream of ash 22 miles into air. An estimated 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide were let loose into the stratosphere, where they turned into droplets of sulfuric acid that scattered the sun’s light. During the next year, global temperatures dropped by half a degree Celsius; the summer melt at the top of the Greenland ice sheet slowed.
Computer models have demonstrated that humans could replicate the Pinatubo experience. Artificial stratospheric sulfur injection could cool the planet just enough to offset the greenhouse effect, giving us a buffer from the worst effects of global warming as we reduce emissions.

“A continuous injection of a few tens of kilograms per second would be enough to offset a doubling of CO₂,” Caldeira says. “You could imagine deploying a system one percent this year and two percent next year and three percent next year. And if something bad happened, you could taper it off. From an environmental perspective, that is probably the lowest risk approach.”
Caldeira and other scientists have imagined several ways to get sulfur to the top of the planet. One option is to use powerful artillery to launch the aerosol. Another method would employ giant, high-altitude blimps equipped with hoses to carry sulfur from the planet’s surface to the sky. The sulfur strategy has key advantages. SO₂ is plentiful, a byproduct of the very coal combustion that is warming the planet. And the price is cheap. As little as $1 billion a year could decrease sunlight by one percent. That is far less than the cost of ratcheting down global CO₂ emissions.
The plausibility of the sulfur concept has provided realism to the geo-engineering discussion. Still, no one is arguing that we employ geo-engineering next year, or even in five years. For now, the consensus in the scientific community is that there should be an internationally coordinated research program. Even critics say more study is needed.
“There should be government funding for geo-engineering,” says Alan Robock, a Rutgers University meteorologist who has a National Science Foundation grant to investigate geo-engineering. Last year, Robock published a paper in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists titled “20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea.” “Let’s say there was a global warming emergency,” he told me. “Policy makers would want to know, Would it work? Could we do it? Should we do it? And right now we don’t know how to advise them. But if there is no Plan B, we should know that too.”
“There are no reasons not to have a research program,” Thernstrom said to me. “There is no advantage to ignorance on geo-engineering.”
Research alone seems harmless enough. If caution warns against the consequences of jury-rigging the atmosphere, prudence argues that it’s wise to have a backup plan in case of climate disaster. As Ken Caldeira put it, a coastal city would want to have dykes to protect itself against storm surges and sea level rise. But that doesn’t mean city leaders wouldn’t also have an evacuation plan in case the dykes failed. Geo-engineering is that evacuation plan.
Only in this case, the evacuation would be a retreat from the entire world, the planet as we have always known it. If we spray tons of sulfur into the air and, as scientists expect, it turns the sky a milky shade (while making sunsets a deep, blood red), we will alter not just Earth, but also ourselves, our understanding of how we fit within the natural environment. This is itself a dicey experiment. If we were to make the clouds glossy and the sky white, dot the horizon with dirigibles in a kind of Blade Runner set piece, what would be the impact on the collective human psyche?
We may be technologically capable of hacking the sky, but politically and ethically unprepared to do so. After all, it’s been more than 20 years since the public learned that there were “human fingerprints” on the global climate. And as the impasse over emissions reductions proves, we still haven’t come to terms with the moral implications of that fact. Are we ready, then, to go a step further and put our hand on a lever controlling the weather?
The risk of unequal benefits connects to a second difficult question: Who would control such powerful technology? Few people would want the US (or Chinese) military to run the weather. Corporate control would have its own drawbacks. As Robock put it to me: “Would you trust the ExxonMobil geo-engineering unit?” Leaving management of a makeshift sky to the lowest bidder seems imprudent, to say the least.
Thernstrom says one of the virtues of geo-engineering is precisely this centralized control. While unilateral emissions reductions are pointless, unilateral geo-engineering could work. Any industrial power could likely do it on its own – which means you don’t need collective action to cool the planet; you just need countries not to object.
But even if the major powers agreed to cool the globe, reaching consensus on how exactly wouldn’t be simple. “How do we even decide what the temperature of the planet will be?” Robock wonders. “Whose hand will be on the thermostat? What if Russia and Canada decide they want it warmer and India wants it cooler? How do you decide those things?”
Imagine that the United Nations took control of the planetary thermostat. That would prevent any country from having a monopoly over geo-engineering or, worse, having several countries deploy geo-engineering at cross-purposes. But UN oversight would still involve geo-politics. It’s been close to impossible to get the major polluters to agree to emissions reductions. Finding cooperation on something as powerful as geo-engineering would be at least as complicated.

That’s a concern of James Lovelock, founder of the Gaia theory. Lovelock’s new book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia, warns that climate change will wreck civilization. Still, he doesn’t think that geo-engineering provides a way out. “If we can’t predict what’s happening now, how can we predict what’s happening in 50 years with some kind of artificial mechanism?” he said to me in a conversation this summer. “It’s just moonshine. I think that if we ever take on the task of trying to manage the planet completely – if we succeed with geo-engineering and we have to run the planet ourselves, doing what the system now does for free – that we will be on a course for extinction. Because we can never manage it. We haven’t learned to live with ourselves yet.”
“I think geo-engineering is less an ethical question than a methodological question,” Martin Bunzl, a philosopher who works closely with Robock, said to me. “Could you answer the risk analysis with enough assurance to deploy at a large scale? The burden of proof is on the proponents to tell us we know enough about how the atmosphere works.”
Take the sulfur aerosol proposal. Would stratospheric injection of SO₂ rip a hole in the ozone layer? Would it decrease the amount of energy that solar panels capture or, far more troublesome, affect how plants grow? What if it caused a massive drought in Africa? These are the known unknowns. More worrisome are the unknown unknowns – the consequences we can’t even imagine.
“The difference with large-scale geo-engineering is that you can’t actually proceed in the normal way that science proceeds: lab to field tests to increased levels of deployment,” Bunzl says. “Because you don’t have a model that models the whole world system well enough. You can only deploy the whole thing. Or you are trying to make an inference from a small-scale deployment? What will the consequences be at full strength?”

Without a laboratory, any test to see how the atmosphere would react is already a manipulation of the atmosphere. “The problem with sulfur insertion is that you can’t get results until you get to a certain strength, and you can’t do it without involving the whole atmosphere,” Bunzl says. Or, put another way: The only way to investigate the results of tinkering with the sky is to tinker with the sky. The experiment is itself a fait accompli.
The epistemological checkmate means that the very term “geo-engineering” is flawed. Fixing the climate isn’t like repairing a bridge or building a skyscraper. The planet is neither an engine nor, in the metaphor used at the beginning of this essay, a supercomputer. It’s an enormous living system, intricate beyond the scale of human understanding, our impressive discoveries notwithstanding. A machine has certain parts that work in expected ways: Even when moving, an engine is static. That’s why it’s reliable. Earth is different: It is, by nature, ceaselessly dynamic. So we can’t be certain about the outcome of a given input. Despite all our fancy computer modeling, we will never know for sure how the atmosphere will respond to manipulation.
More than an endeavor of science, geo-engineering would be an act of faith.
The geo-engineering debate proves once again that while our technological society is adept at exploring the how, we are less practiced in pursuing why and whether. As geo-engineering proponents acknowledge, schemes like sulfur aerosol address only the symptoms, not the source, of global climate change. That fact betrays our society’s bias for the techno-fix, the seemingly easy way out. Seemingly – because geo-engineering is the most complicated strategy we could pursue. It takes a problem, simplifies its cause, and then exaggerates its solution. It’s like a Rube Goldberg machine, employing eight or nine steps when one or two would do. Instead of pursuing the elegant solutions – trading in our cars for buses, turning off the coal and turning on the wind – we are going to build a contraption to make the clouds shinier. Bill Becker, head of the Presidential Climate Action Project, summed up this thinking in an essay earlier this year: “Geo-engineering is rooted in the idea that although we’re too stupid to do the simple things that would slow climate change, we’re smart enough to do the improbable things.”
Indeed, geo-engineering involves a surfeit of technological imagination and a poverty of political imagination, an imbalance that’s ingrained in the notion that if we can do something we should do it. We prefer the overly complicated solutions because they flatter us, confirming our power and intelligence. This makes geo-engineering – the ambivalence of its promoters notwithstanding – human hubris compounded. It’s like doubling down on self-regard.
Geo-engineering is a bet that we can save civilization by divorcing our species from the rest of the globe. The payoff is the idea that in “fixing” the planet, we can absolve ourselves of having ruined Earth. The risk is that if we turn the atmosphere into what Dale Jamieson, director of environmental studies at NYU, calls a “human artifact,” we will lose our connection to much of what is best in life. In taking possession of the sky, we will become ungrounded.
The psychological ramifications of geo-engineering shouldn’t be underestimated. It’s exactly what Bill McKibben worried about 20 years ago in his seminal book on global warming, The End of Nature, when he warned of “the imposition of our artificial world in place of the broken natural one. … How can there be a mystique of the rain now that every drop … bears the permanent stamp of man? Having lost its separateness, it loses its special power. Instead of being a category like God – something beyond our control – it is now a category like the defense budget or the minimum wage, a problem we must work out. This in itself changes its meaning completely, and changes our reaction to it.” Tinker with the heavens, and our relationship to the rest of the world suffers. We will sever our bonds to the other natural systems – rivers, forests, oceans – on which we depend. We will have made a decision that we can live without those things.
Once we take responsibility for managing the planet’s curtains, our position in this place changes. We will be in charge in a way we never have been before, knowing that if for any reason we were to cease overseeing the sunlight, global temperatures would shoot upward again, spelling disaster. The new role will force upon us an existential anxiety. Because as soon as we are in control of the weather, we will always be fearful of letting our grip slip from the string that keeps the planet in a semblance of balance.
Such ownership of Earth would be a new step in human evolution. It would turn us into a bubble species, living inside a protective dome of our own making. If that comes to pass, we will cease to view the world as a comfort. It will have become, instead, a threat.
Bunzl pointed out that we have already made changes to the whole biosphere that are considered morally acceptable. A perfect example is the eradication of smallpox. Through concerted effort, the world’s governments exterminated a virus that for millennia had played an important role in global ecology, serving as a check on human numbers. Hardly anyone would argue that this wasn’t a good thing.

Other moral arguments could justify geo-engineering. The Doctrine of Double Effect, first formulated by Thomas Aquinas, says that it is permissible to engage in an act even with knowledge that the consequences may be deadly as long as the intention is pure. For example, a doctor may try a risky procedure to save a patient even if there is a chance the patient may die.
We should at least be honest: There is scant difference between doing something unintentionally and knowing it’s harmful, and intentionally, but riskily, trying to fix it. For 20 years, we have understood the consequences of pumping the atmosphere full of CO₂ and still we persist. We crossed a moral line long ago.
Our double bind is this: Either we keep our hands off the sky, and hope we act in time to prevent the destruction of Arctic ecosystems, the desertification of the Amazon, the abandonment of ancient cities. Or we try our luck at playing Zeus, knowing that it could make matters worse. No matter what, we risk losing Creation.
In contemplating geo-engineering, I keep returning to the words of the eco-theologian Thomas Berry. In the introduction to his book The Dream of the Earth, he wrote: “Our own well-being can be achieved only through the well-being of the entire world around us. The greater curvature of the universe and of planet Earth must govern the curvature of our being.”
Yes, geo-engineering might be able to save the planet’s body. But only at the cost of sacrificing its soul.

Publié par
Jean-Paul Jody

Sous le titre:

 LE MONDE.fr
AUTOPSIE D'UN JOURNALISME DE L'INDIGENCE








Version courte :


Contrairement à ce qu'affirme la journaliste dans son article :



1) Le rapport du Grip est parfaitement cité, avec d'autres sources, en dernière page du roman.


2)  Sur HAARP, la source principale n'est pas ce rapport du Grip, certes essentiel, mais un livre : "Les anges ne jouent pas de cette HAARP" de Meaning et Begich. Louise Courteau Éditrice, 2006. Cité aussi.


3) Le roman ne se résume pas à cet unique rapport, soi-disant piraté à la va-vite sur le web comme  le laisse entendre cette journaliste mais comporte une foule d'informations d'origines différentes que je développe ici même lorsque j'en ai le temps.




 précisant que l'intrigue est fondée sur des faits et une abondante documentation, qu'il a trouvée en "fouinant" sur Internet.

Voilà exactement ce que je dis : « J'aime bien fouiner. Le sujet HAARP est abondamment repris sur le Net sous des thèses conspirationnistes plus fumeuses les unes que les autres. Mais certaines des informations qui sous-tendent ces théories sont réelles et vérifiables, pour peu qu'on se donne le temps et la peine de chercher. »

La première phrase pointe les dérives du Net. La deuxième suggère le temps passé à la quête d'infos sérieuses. L'article du Monde me prête exactement le contraire.

On notera que la journaliste qui stigmatise la recherche sur le Net y puise aussi ses infos, les transforme à son gré, et ne prend pas la peine de me contacter pour les vérifier...

Fouiner est un grand mot. Il suffit d'une heure à un internaute moyennement doué pour trouver la principale source de ce thriller (non citée, hélas !, dans les 9 pages d'annexes). 

Contrairement à ce qu'affirme Véronique Maurus, le rapport du Grip est cité, en dernière page. 

Affirmation erronée, venant d'une journaliste qui donne pourtant, plus bas, de bons conseils  (la véracité...).

N'ayant pas consulté la dernière page du roman, elle rate évidemment toutes les sources, dont la principale :  Les anges ne jouent pas de cette HAARP  de J. Meaning et N. Begich,  Louise Courteau Editrice, 2006. LE livre de référence sur HAARP, un ouvrage qui n'a rien à voir avec le Web.

La journaliste aura sans doute oublié la leçon première de son métier : vérifier ses infos.

C'est un rapport de 98 pages du Groupe de recherche et d'information sur la paix et la sécurité (GRIP). Intitulé "Le programme Haarp, science ou désastre ?", il détaille les activités du "High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program" (Haarp) américain, et de la station de Gakona. Haarp, conclut-il, n'est qu'un programme de recherche, mais, couplé à d'autres programmes militaires, il pourrait être dangereux.

Hors cette conclusion prudente,

La journaliste a-t-elle lu le rapport ou seulement sa conclusion ? a-t-elle lu le roman ? Ce rapport, écrit en 1998 alors que le projet HAARP balbutiait à peine, a déclenché une enquête du Parlement européen (1999) qui en souligne la dangerosité en ces termes :

"Ces travaux de recherche doivent être considérés comme extrêmement néfastes pour l'environnement et la vie humaine. Personne ne sait avec certitude ce que peuvent être les effets de HAARP. "

on trouve dans ce rapport toute la matière du livre : les soupçons mais aussi les faits (les sociétés impliquées par exemple), les plans, les cartes, les données scientifiques, les chiffres, les brevets - abondamment détaillés. Au point que, après avoir lu le rapport, on ne peut s'empêcher de voir dans le roman un clone, hâtivement maquillé en thriller.

Quiconque a seulement ouvert La route de Gakona, ou survolé ce blog, peut mesurer la diversité des informations et le temps qu'il a fallu pour les collecter. Chacun peut s'en rendre compte instantanément. La journaliste aussi. Alors quel intérêt pour elle de réduire ce travail à un vulgaire piratage rapide sur le Net ? 

On objectera que la fiction puise souvent son inspiration dans les médias. Combien de polars basés sur des faits divers ? De romans d'espionnage sur de vraies affaires ? Cependant, en général, la documentation nourrit l'imagination, elle ne la supplée pas. Pour les meilleurs, la trame n'est qu'un prétexte à recréer un univers, à faire vivre un personnage, une époque ou un milieu.

Tel n'est pas le cas de La Route de Gakona, thriller certes, mais d'une facture très banale. Sa seule originalité tient précisément à son sujet, nourri d'un nombre impressionnant d'informations, 



le tout puisé dans le rapport précité. Ce n'est pas interdit. Juste troublant.

Curieusement focalisée sur ce rapport du Grip, la journaliste passe sous silence les autres thèmes et les autres sources utilisées dans le roman, quid du climat ? de la Chine ? des chemtrails ? du livre de Naomi Klein ? sujets beaucoup plus controversés qui serviraient merveilleusement son propos. Rien là-dessus. A-t-elle lu le roman ?

A ce compte-là, pourquoi lire le livre ?

Bonne question. Le rapport du Parlement européen cité plus haut et datant de 1999 disait :  

"L'opinion publique ignore pratiquement tout du projet HAARP et il est important qu'elle soit mise au courant. "

La recommandation du Parlement européen aura probablement échappé à la journaliste, à l'époque pourtant grand reporter et chef adjoint du service Enquêtes et reportages au Monde.

Depuis dix ans que ce programme  fonctionne, alors que HAARP s'épèle dans toutes les langues sur Internet, mêlant les pires élucubrations aux interrogations les plus troublantes, quelles informations a apporté  Le Monde ? Aucune. Rien. Une brève signalant que des scientifiques avaient réussi à produire une aurore boréale... Piètre livraison en dix ans que celle de notre grand quotidien national de référence. L'opinion publique doit se contenter d'explorer le Web, seul pourvoyeur sur le sujet; ou de lire des thrillers qui, au moins, suppléeront les silences de la presse et gagneront peut-être le modeste mérite d'attirer l'attention sur la station HAARP.

Pour s'épargner une lecture plus fastidieuse ? On y gagne certes en facilité, mais pas en temps ni, surtout, en véracité. Comme si l'emballage remplaçait le produit... Ce "Web thriller" n'est sans doute pas le premier ni malheureusement le dernier. 

Pour les éditeurs et les auteurs pressés, Internet est un vivier tentant de "prêt-à-écrire". C'est aussi une illusion : il faut très bien connaître un sujet pour y puiser une solide base documentaire. A fortiori s'agissant d'un"buzz". Mais qui décèlera l'artifice ?

Véronique Maurus. 

Traduction :  pour produire de l'information il faut être journaliste, sorti d'une école et dûment accrédité d'une carte de presse... Et les sources doivent provenir de journaux autorisés ?  Hélas pour les vieilles berniques qui s'accrochent encore à leur (confortable) rocher, le monde de l'info a changé.

A propos du "buzz" : n'importe quel journaliste sérieux du Monde pourrait balayer les théories fumeuses qui rôdent autour de HAARP, extirper le faux et explorer le vrai. Il semble plus facile de stigmatiser les petites mains anonymes qui s'activent maladroitement derrière leurs écrans.  

Derrière cette pseudo-critique, matière à un papier rapide, écrit à peu de frais, et mensonger, (Mais qui décèlera l'artifice ? comme dit elle-même la journaliste) pointe surtout le malaise d'une certaine presse écrite, vieille dame autrefois célébrée, aujourd'hui délaissée -on peut le regretter-  et qui se voit préférer une jeunette, certes brouillonne et mal fagotée, mais tout aussi informative et diablement plus dynamique : la Toile. 

 A l'heure où les critiques littéraires déplorent le manque d'espace pour parler des livres qu'ils souhaitent défendre, on s'interrogera sur la nécessité d'une telle parution, gourmande d'une place pourtant sévèrement rationnée. Et on laissera aux lecteurs du journal le soin d'apprécier les raisons et l'intégrité d'un papier écrit par une journaliste, par ailleurs médiatrice de leur quotidien favori, qui, dans ce billet au moins, ne vérifie pas ce qu'elle écrit.

 Enfin, par-delà ces pseudo-considérations littéraire où, pour certain(e)s, brasser du vent signifie gagner son pain, on se tournera avec bénéfice vers d'autres journalistes de la rédaction, dans l'attente de réponses à ces deux simples questions : 

 - Pratique-t-on des épandages aériens à grande échelle dans le ciel de France ? Si oui, avec quels produits et dans quel but ?

- HAARP "chauffe"-t-il oui  ou non des régions de la haute atmosphère ? Au-dessus de quels endroits de la planète ? Avec quels effets ? En a-t-on la preuve ? La réponse, sourcée et documentée, est déjà sur le Net, pas encore dans Le Monde. Ça ne saurait tarder. Il suffit de "fouiner", ça ne devrait pas prendre plus d'une heure à un journaliste moyennement doué.

Mais ces questions n'intéressent peut-être ni les journalistes ni  les lecteurs du Monde.

PS : Merci pour vos mails et post. Merci aussi de ne plus poster de commentaires injurieux ou discourtois à l'égard de la journaliste, je ne les publierai pas.

Et pour Thomas, l'expression "...même pas digne d'une pigiste de Rue89" est insultante... pour les pigistes.

Publié par
Jean-Paul Jody

Retrouvez deux articles inédits SHD sur les deux premiers numéros
de LA GAZETTE DES INSOUMIS.

Toujours plus intéressant (voir aussi plus décoratif) qu'un "coffee table book" de Yann ARTHUS BERTRAND. ^^










COMME SI NOUS N'ETIONS JAMAIS REVENUS DE CE SOMMET A COPENHAGUE...
Décembre 2009
LaGazetteDesInsoumis-N°01(A4)
OU en version améliorée et cliquable: ici.



DE LA DISPARITION PROGRESSIVE DU DEBAT PUBLIC SUR LE RECOURS AUX MODIFICATIONS CLIMATIQUES.
Janvier 2010
LaGazetteDesInsoumis-N°02(A4)
OU en version annotée et cliquable: ici.