The Global Warming and Climate Change Fraud



There is so MUCH MORE to this than they are TELLING – Don’t be FOOLED…

If they were so afraid about The Greenland crack and Global Warming/ Climate Change; Would Obama, Harper and Putin be allowed to BREAK OPEN  the ARCTIC for Gas, oil etc. or even Harper’s version of the  new Arctic passage way?

Is the opening of the seaway simply a great coincidence as they are proclaiming?  Or is it being created on PURPOSE so that they can claim innocence and say… “Oh Wow LOOK…now we can go through, save tons of money, make more money,  have more control and get all these resources” while allowing Fossil Fuels and Humanity to be solely blamed for Global Warming and Climate Change?

And is Global Warming / Climate Change mainly focused to sell everyone on the idea that we need to support their use of GEO-Engineering? But more importantly, is Global Warming and Climate Change MANUFACTURED by the PTB to further their Global Governance agenda?

This is why it’s important to be aware of weather modification and how they can manipulate the weather or bomb the arctic…

When they Chemtrail, it creates more heat and humidity and it’s why some areas can be affected as well as their purposely breaking off the Arctic ice in areas where it would make sense that because of it, the rest of the ice would recede in those areas, then use cloud seeding to recede the ice even more . If you look at the weather in your areas a day or two after cloud seeding, you will see/notice the obvious heat and humidity level increases in our weather.




1-1: Worst conditions in 20 years


The CCGS Pierre Radisson escorts the oil tanker Havelstern to Iqaluit July 17.

Posted: Jul 22, 2015 – Tough ice conditions in area have delayed this summer’s annual resupply, and have now derailed the CCGS Amundsen from its carefully planned summer research program. (@DFO_Central/Twitter)

A carefully planned, 115-day scientific expedition on board the floating research vessel, the CCGS Amundsen, has been derailed as the icebreaker was called to help resupply ships navigate heavy ice in Hudson Bay.

“Obviously it has a large impact on us,” says Martin Fortier, executive director of ArcticNet, which coordinates research on the vessel. “It’s a frustrating situation.”

During the summer, the  Amundsen operates as a floating research centre with experiments running 24 hours a day. This year it was scheduled to reach North Baffin Bay.

CCGS Amundsen

The CCGS Amundsen left port July 10 to head to the Arctic. (@ArcticNet/Twitter)

But the icebreaker has been rerouted to escort commercial ships en route to resupply communities in Northern Quebec on the eastern side of Hudson Bay.

Worst conditions in 20 years

Johnny Leclair, assistant commissioner for the Coast Guard, said Tuesday conditions in the area are the worst he’s seen in 20 years.

With only two icebreakers available in the Arctic — the CCGS Pierre Radisson has been escorting resupply ships through ice-choked Frobisher Bay — he said the only option was to re-deploy the Amundsen

Leclair did say there should be two more icebreakers headed to the Arctic in the next week, which should free up the Amundsen to return to its scientific mission.

Fortier is hopeful the season will still be productive.

“The people planning the large expeditions have a plan B,” Fortier said. “We have already curtailed or either moved to a later date some of the stations and some of the areas we were suppose to sample.”


Question Everything


Arctic Nightmares

The bottom line on all this is simple, if brutal. The Navy is increasingly focused on possible future climate-change conflicts in the melting waters of the north and, in that context, has little or no intention of caretaking the environment when it comes to military exercises. In addition, the federal agencies tasked with overseeing any war-gaming plans have neither the legal ability nor the will to enforce environmental regulations when what’s at stake, at least according to the Pentagon, is “national security.”

Needless to say, when it comes to the safety of locals in the Navy’s expanding area of operation, there is no obvious recourse. Alaskans can’t turn to NMFS or the Environmental Protection Agency or NOAA.  If you want to stop the US military from dropping live munitions, or blasting electromagnetic radiation into national forests and marine sanctuaries, or poisoning your environment, you’d better figure out how to file a major lawsuit or, if you belong to a Native tribe, demand a government-to-government consultation and hope it works. And both of those are long shots, at best.

Meanwhile, as the race heats up for reserves of oil and gas in the melting Arctic that shouldn’t be extracted and burned in the first place, so do the Navy’s war games.  From southern California to Alaska, if you live in a coastal town or city, odds are that the Navy is coming your way, if it’s not already there.

Watch the video by Democracy Now and read the amazing article below “Destroying What Remains: How the US Navy Plans to War Game the Arctic” posted  Thursday, 21 May 2015 00:00 By Dahr Jamail, Truthout / TomDispatch | News Analysi

1-2: The Misconception/ Con


Posted: 07/21/2015 – The paper, which will be published online in the European Geosciences Union journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussion later this week, projects sea levels rising as much as 10 feet in the next 50 years.

The paper notes there is evidence indicating that average temperatures just 1 degree Celsius warmer than today caused sea levels to rise 16 to 30 feet and fed extreme storms thousands of years ago.

Hansen and 16 co-authors drafted the paper as a message to policymakers that current greenhouse-gas reduction goals are not strong enough. World leaders have committed to limiting average warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a goal articulated in the Copenhagen Accord in 2009 and reiterated by G7 leaders in June.

“The message for policymakers is that we have a global crisis that calls for international cooperation to reduce emissions as rapidly as practical,” wrote the authors.

Their projections are based on an anticipated accelerated melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica due to rising atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The melting ice sheets will put more cold, fresh water into the oceans, changing circulation patterns and ultimately causing even more melting of the ice sheets — thus causing sea levels to rise much, much faster than other projections have forecast.

“We conclude that continued high emissions will make multi-meter sea level rise practically unavoidable and likely to occur this century,” the scientists wrote. “Social disruption and economic consequences of such large sea level rise could be devastating.”

Hansen, who was the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies until April 2013 and is now an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, has been warning about climate threats for years. He’s moved from dispassionately investigating the science to actively advocating for specific solutions to the problem. As Eric Holthaus at Slate put it, Hansen “is known for being alarmist and also right.”

The paper has already ruffled some, including Associated Press science writer Seth Borenstein, who said on Twitter that he would not cover it — primarily because it had not yet been peer-reviewed, a process that allows other scientists to critique the work.

The Washington Post’s Chris Mooney asked other climate experts to weigh in on the paper. While many said it raised key discussion points, Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research called it “provocative and intriguing but rife with speculation and ‘what if’ scenarios.”


How Arctic ice has made fools of all those poor warmists

The belief that the ice was vanishing has been for the warmists the ultimate poster-child for their cause

8:02PM BST 25 Jul 2015


Two events last week brought yet further twists to one of the longest-running farces of our modern world. One was the revelation by the European Space Agency that in 2013 and 2014, after years when the volume of Arctic ice had been diminishing, it increased again by as much as 33 per cent. The other was that Canadian scientists studying the effect of climate change on Arctic ice from an icebreaker had to suspend their research, when their vessel was called to the aid of other ships trapped in the thickest summer ice seen in Hudson Bay for 20 years.

For more than a decade now, the belief that, thanks to global warming, Arctic ice was vanishing has been for the warmists the ultimate poster-child for their cause (along with those “vanishing” polar bears). In 2007, with the aid of scientists such as Wieslaw Maslowski and Peter Wadhams, the BBC and others were telling us that the Arctic would be totally “ice free by 2013” (the Independent even cleared its front page to announce that the ice could all have disappeared within weeks).

By 2011, the BBC’s science editor Richard Black was telling us that the ice would “probably be gone within this decade”. In 2012, his colleague Roger Harrabin was reporting that the sea ice was now melting so fast that more had vanished that summer than “at any time since satellite records began”.

So taken in had others been by all these dire predictions, that in 2008 the activist Gordon Lewis Pugh, after speaking at a conference alongside

Al Gore, set out to paddle a kayak to the North Pole – only to have to abort his trip after a few days because “the ice was too thick”. In 2009, the three-man Caitlin expedition, sponsored by a “climate risk” insurance company, and backed by the BBC and the Prince of Wales, set out to walk to the North Pole. Their intention was to measure the thickness of the vanishing ice with an electronic instrument, but it froze so hard that they had to resort to a tape measure. Again, after a few weeks, they had to be airlifted back to a rescue ship because the constantly shifting ice was “too thick”.

In December 2013, the world followed agog the plight of yet another “scientific expedition”, when 52 climate activists, accompanied by reporters from the BBC and the Guardian, sailed into the Antarctic to measure the effects of global warming on its sea-ice. By Christmas their ship was so dangerously trapped by thick, multi-year ice that they had to be helicoptered to a Chinese ship 10 miles away, which itself then got so trapped in ice that they had to be airlifted again to two other ships even further away.

What made all this particularly absurd was that, despite being led by an Australian scientist, they were so taken in by the make-believe that they seemed quite oblivious to the satellite records showing that Antarctic sea-ice had long been expanding to such record levels that these more than matched any decline in the Arctic ice at the other end of the world. But wasn’t the whole point of this warming that it was meant to be “global”?

Of course, the reason why they have all wanted the ice at the poles to melt, not least on the land in Antarctica and Greenland, is that this would bring about their ultimate scare scenario: those sea levels rising by as much as 20 feet, which, as Al Gore showed in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth, would flood New York, Shanghai and many of the world’s most populous cities.

But, alas, it just isn’t happening. In recent years there has been more polar ice in the world than at any time since satellite records began in 1979. In the very year they had forecast that the Arctic would be “ice free”, its thickness increased by a third. Polar bear numbers are rising, not falling. Temperatures in Greenland have shown no increase for decades.

The greatest scare story of all simply isn’t turning out as their computer models predicted. And no one has been more dangerously taken in by this silly scare story than the warmists themselves.


The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

© ASSOCIATED PRESS New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming


When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.

Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.

Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.

By Christopher Booker 


1-3: Global Warming

What the Scientists Claim…


Based on “What they THINK they Know”. But would they be told about other Military and  Secret Government Explorations?

Scientists know that certain gases trap heat and act like a blanket to warm the planet. One of the most important is carbon dioxide (CO2), which we release into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels — oil, coal, and natural gas — to generate electricity, power our vehicles, and heat our homes.

As we overload our atmosphere with carbon dioxide, more and more heat is trapped — and Earth steadily warms up in response. How do we know? The scientific evidence is overwhelming.

The planet’s temperature is rising

Trends in temperature readings from around the world show that global warming is taking place.

Over the past 130 years, the global average temperature has increased 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit, with more than half of that increase occurring over only the past 35 years. The pattern is unmistakable: The 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998 and every one of the past 37 years has been warmer than the 20th century average.

Learn more:

Carbon dioxide levels are increasing in the atmosphere

Detailed measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have been taken continuously for more than 50 years. The data show that CO2 levels have steadily increased every year. Today they are 25 percent higher than in 1957.

What’s more, scientists have detailed records of past CO2 levels from ice core studies, which show that CO2 levels are higher today than at any point since our distant ancestors began migrating out of Africa 800,000 years ago.

Increased CO2 is the primary driver of global warming

CO2 absorbs heat reflected from the Earth’s surface — heat that would otherwise pass freely into space. The CO2 then releases that heat, warming the Earth’s atmosphere.

As CO2 levels increase, the pace of warming accelerates. Satellite measurements confirm that less heat is escaping the atmosphere today than 40 years ago. Though other heat-trapping gases also play a role, CO2 is the primary contributor to global warming.

The climate has changed many times in the geologic past due to natural causes — including volcanic activity, changes in the sun’s intensity, fluctuations in Earth’s orbit, and other factors — but none of these can account for the current rise in global temperatures.

Learn more:

We are responsible for the increase in CO2

Scientists can conclusively identify that human activity is responsible for the observed increase in CO2. How? The carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, natural gas, and oil has a unique chemical “fingerprint” — and the additional CO2 in the atmosphere bears that signature.

Learn more:

An overwhelming majority of scientists agree

Scientific societies and scientists have released numerous statements and studies showing the overwhelming consensus that global warming is happening and that human activity is the primary cause.

Learn more:

The consequences of rising temperatures

Global warming has serious implications for our health, environment, and economy. Dangerous heat waves are increasing in severity and frequency. Sea level rise is accelerating. Extreme storms are on the rise in some areas. More severe droughts are occurring in others. Collectively, these effects pose a threat to the entire planet — including you, your community, and your family.

Learn more:

The National Climate Assessment

Produced on a regular basis by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the National Climate Assessment provides a comprehensive assessment of the current understanding of climate change science, including an overview of likely impacts in the United States on a region-by-region basis.


The  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme.Through the IPCC, climate experts from around the world synthesize the most recent climate science findings every five to seven years and present their report to the world’s political leaders. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment was released in 2007. The most recent Fifth Assessment was released as a series of working group reports beginning in fall 2013.

Understanding climate science

Scientists use certain terms to describe how well something is known, which can lead to confusion about important scientific findings on global warming. Knowing this terminology is key to understanding what is known about climate change.

Learn more:

Climate scientists in action

Discover how the work of 15 climate scientists is helping to educate the public about the overwhelming scientific evidence for human-caused global warming.


1-4: Climate Change

Other hidden causes of “Climate Change”


Why are they not using Weather Modification to stop the forest fires, unless they want the forest to burn?

Climate Change can also be caused by WEATHER MODIFICATION aka CLOUD SEEDING also known as “CHEMTRAILS” and other Geo-Engineering Technologies and Methodologies.

Climate Change can also be created by the melting of ICE, by utilizing Ice-breakers, Bombs/ Missiles/ Nukes to open the Poles for Natural Resource Explorations or even to have “War Games or Military Drills”. See info below. 


Introduction of Seeding Agents

Water resources are increasingly taxed by exploding demand and continued population growth. The world’s population is projected to grow over 40% in the next 45 years.


Weather modification, commonly known as cloud seeding, is the application of scientific technology that can enhance a cloud’s ability to produce precipitation. Weather Modification, Inc., is on the forefront of scientific technology to maximize water availability worldwide. Application of scientific concepts and extensive scientific experimentation has proven that cloud seeding increases the amount of precipitation.

Cloud seeding useful in the following applications:

      Increasing Precipitation

      Mitigating Hail Damage

      Dispersing Fog

Enlist our team of cloud seeding experts.

Whether you are looking for a small operation or a full program, Weather Modification, Inc. can ensure your cloud seeding project runs smoothly. From Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved aircraft installations, configured for aerial cloud seeding and cloud physics, to ground-based seeding equipment and training, Weather Modification, Inc., has the equipment, experience and knowledge you need.


CANADA’S  “Weather Modification Information Act” R.S.C., 1985, c. W-5

An Act to provide for the obtaining of information respecting weather modification activities


Marginal note:Short title

 This Act may be cited as the Weather Modification Information Act.

  • 1970-71-72, c. 59, s. 1.


Marginal note:Definitions

 In this Act, “Administrator” « directeur »

“Administrator” means such member of the public service as may be designated by the Governor in Council;

“weather modification activity”

« essais de modification du temps »

“weather modification activity” includes any action designed or intended to produce, by physical or chemical means, changes in the composition or dynamics of the atmosphere for the purpose of increasing, decreasing or redistributing precipitation, decreasing or suppressing hail or lightning or dissipating fog or cloud.

  • R.S., 1985, c. W-5, s. 2;
  • 2003, c. 22, s. 225(E).


Marginal note:Administrator to be informed
  •  (1) Where any person proposes to engage in weather modification activities in Canada, that person shall, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, submit to the Administrator such information as may be prescribed respecting that person and the weather modification activities in which it is proposed to engage.

  • Marginal note:Idem

    (2) Before commencing any weather modification activity, the person proposing to carry out the activity shall inform the Administrator in writing of

    • (a) the date and time when and the place where the activity is to be carried out;

    • (b) the names and addresses of the persons by and for whom the activity is to be carried out;

    • (c) the purpose of the activity;

    • (d) the equipment, materials and method to be used; and

    • (e) the geographic area that may be affected.

  • 1970-71-72, c. 59, s. 3.


Read more: Weather Modification Information Act

 See the Treaty further below: 

Agreement Between Canada and the United States of America Relating to the Exchange of Information on Weather Modification Activities


1-5: What They aren't saying

The ongoing fight over Natural Resources


The hidden agenda and involvement of the USA, Canada, Russia, Norway and Denmark Countries…

Five countries lay claim to territory around the North Pole. Some of those claims conflict, while other countries, like China, want the Arctic to be deemed an international zone. So far, the Arctic has remained peaceful, but as countries scramble for resources, how long will that peace last?

As polar ice melts away, rising temperatures are unlocking oil, trade routes and the potential for conflict in the Far North.

“It’s the opening chapter of what’s going to amount to be a very long story, and people are playing nice and working together — for now,” says Robert Huebert, a University of Calgary professor and expert in circumpolar relations and defence policy.

Five countries claim territory around the North Pole: Canada, Russia, the United States (through Alaska), Norway and Denmark (through Greenland). Some claims conflict, while other countries like China want the Arctic to be deemed an international zone.

Polar ice has been steadily decreasing as high temperatures lead to longer summer melts. The U.S. Navy published a study last December suggesting summers in the Arctic could be ice-free as early as 2016, with regular shipping routes expected by 2030.

Meanwhile, 13 per cent of the world’s undiscovered oil and a third of its untapped natural gas lies in the Arctic, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

That leaves countries scrambling for resources and trade routes. Canada recently asserted a claim over the North Pole, following Russia and Denmark. The Arctic has remained peaceful, with each state respecting United

Nations rules on international waters.

But co-operation broke down this month. Canada, the U.S. and Norway cancelled joint military operations with Russia following the country’s invasion of Ukraine.

“This is going to cause a pushback on the side of the Russians, in the Arctic region specifically,” Huebert says. “It contains two of the most powerful states in the international system that are increasingly having different interests.”

Huebert noted that Russia’s involvement in Crimea was partially a response to the Western military alliance NATO seeking closer ties with Ukraine. All other Arctic countries are NATO members. Huebert says further NATO expansion could lead to a Russian pushback, and Canada is not well equipped.

“As the Arctic is more and more integrated, you’re going to see other events spilling into it.”

Canada has a small Arctic military presence, with a training centre opened last year that only holds 150 soldiers. A Nunavut military base was announced in 2007, but construction has yet to start. “Canada’s very good at plans, but not so much at execution,” says Huebert.

The UN has led a decade-long process for countries to extend their borders over parts of the frozen Arctic if they can prove that seabed ridges extend from their mainland.

Last December, Canada was about to submit its claim when Prime Minister Stephen Harper asked researchers to include the North Pole. Experts aren’t sure why the original claim didn’t include the pole, which lies near a large oil patch.

The next day, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his country would expand its already large military presence.

Michael Byers, an Arctic expert and professor at the University of British Columbia, says Canadians have little to worry about.

“There is no immediate reason for concern, and no reason to change Canadian Arctic policy — which focuses heavily on co-operation.” http://metronews.ca/news/world/980914/the-far-north-turf-war-who-really-rules-the-arctic/


Arctic seaway a ‘new Panama Canal’

Global warming means the Northwest Passage could become the “new Panama Canal.”

And that means vessels could start using the Canadian Arctic as a trade route as early as next year, Joseph Spears of Horseshoe Bay Marine Group told the Canada Maritime Conference yesterday.

“It creates an awesome opportunity for Vancouver,” Spears later told The Province.

“With melting ice, you’re going to get a change in perception and, all of a sudden, vessels that were restricted by the Panama Canal will be able to transit the Northwest Passage.”

That means larger ships could take a much shorter route from Vancouver to Northern Europe, Africa and parts of South America, without going around Cape Horn, he said.

And for ships that normally go through the Panama Canal, a Northwest Passage route could cut about 9,000 kilometres off the journey, he said.

“It may be a lot cheaper to ship something from Halifax to Vancouver by water and it’s much cheaper than by rail,” he added. “The Northwest Passage could very well become the new Panama Canal and Canada could fund some of its costs through charges. We need to start thinking about that.”

Spears said that, apart from some expedition cruise ships, there is no regular service through the Northwest Passage.

“That’s not say that couldn’t occur next year,” he said. “With international shipping, it’s a function of economic forces.”

Spears told the conference that in 2000 there were periods where there was no ice on the Arctic route.

“It’s now 2007 and the Arctic ice is rapidly melting,” he said. “What you are seeing is that there’s open water. You can go from Halifax to Vancouver ice-free.”

He said the Arctic thaw has huge implications as 25 per cent of the world’s future oil reserves may exist in the far north.

Bill Drew, executive director of the Churchill Gateway Development Corp. told delegates that the shipping season for non-ice-class vessels grows each year and now runs from July 20 to Nov. 5.

He said that the captain of this year’s first ship, which arrived on July 22, told him: “There’s more ice in this glass than I saw coming in here last week.”



Harper aims to widen Canada’s arctic sovereignty

Published on Wed Aug 27 2008 – Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today that Canada is proposing to extend its territorial waters in the Arctic to 200 nautical miles to both assert its sovereignty over shipping and to enforce anti-pollution rules.

“We intend to double our jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles, the full extent of Canada’s Exclusive Economic Zone as recognized under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” he said.

Read more: http://www.thestar.com/news/2008/08/27/harper_aims_to_widen_canadas_arctic_sovereignty.html

Here is another GREAT QUESTION Canadians and US Citizens should be asking…


CANADA and USA Weather Modification TREATY


Agreement Between Canada and the United States of America Relating to the Exchange of Information on Weather Modification Activities

E103819 – CTS 1975 No. 11

The Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America,

Aware, because of their geographic proximity, that the effects of weather modification activities carried out by either Party or its nationals may affect the territory of the other;

Noting the diversity of weather modification activities in both Canada and the United States by private parties, by State and Provincial authorities, and by the Federal Governments;

Believing that the existing state of knowledge warrants the expectation of further development over a period of time in the science and technology of weather modification;

Taking into particular consideration the special traditions of prior notification and consultation and the close cooperation that have historically characterized their relations;

Believing that a prompt exchange of pertinent information regarding the nature and extent of weather modification activities of mutual interest may facilitate the development of the technology of weather modification for their mutual benefit;

Recognizing the desirability of the development of international law relating to weather modification activities having transboundary effects;

Have agreed as follows:

Article I

As used in this Agreement:

  1. “Weather modification activities”, means activities performed with the intention of producing artificial changes in the composition, behaviour, or dynamics of the atmosphere;
  2. “Weather modification activities of mutual interest” means weather modification activities carried out in or over the territory of a Party within 200 miles of the international boundary; or such activities wherever conducted, which, in the judgment of a Party, may significantly affect the composition, behaviour, or dynamics of the atmosphere over the territory of the other Party;
  3. “Responsible agencies” means the Atmospheric Environment Service of Canada and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States, or such other agencies as the Parties may designate;
  4. “Reporting requirements” means the requirements established by the domestic laws or regulations of the Parties for reporting to the responsible agencies information relating to weather modification activities by persons or entities engaged in weather modification.

Article II

  1. Information relating to weather modification activities of mutual interest acquired by a responsible agency through its reporting requirements or otherwise, shall be transmitted as soon as practicable to the responsible agency of the other Party. Whenever possible, this information shall be transmitted prior to the commencement of such activities. It is anticipated that such information will be transmitted within five working days of its receipt by a responsible agency.
  2. Information to be provided by the responsible agencies shall include copies of relevant reports received through the reporting procedures after the effective date of this Agreement, and such other information and interpretation as the responsible agency might consider appropriate.
  3. Nothing herein shall be construed to require transmission to the other responsible agency of information, the disclosure of which is prohibited by law, or of information which, in the judgment of the responsible agency, is proprietary information.

Article III

The responsible agencies shall consult with a view to developing compatible reporting formats, and to improving procedures for the exchange of information.

Article IV

In addition to the exchange of information pursuant to Article II of this Agreement, each Party agrees to notify and to fully inform the other concerning any weather modification activities of mutual interest conducted by it prior to the commencement of such activities. Every effort shall be made to provide such notice as far in advance of such activities as may be possible, bearing in mind the provisions of Article V of this Agreement.

Article V

The Parties agree to consult, at the request of either Party, regarding particular weather modification activities of mutual interest. Such consultations shall be initiated promptly on the request of a Party, and in cases of urgency may be undertaken through telephonic or other rapid means of communication. Consultations shall be carried out in light of the Parties’ laws, regulations, and administrative practices regarding weather modification.

Article VI

The Parties recognize that extreme emergencies, such as forest fires, may require immediate commencement by one of them of weather modification activities of mutual interest notwithstanding the lack of sufficient time for prior notification pursuant to Article IV, or for consultation pursuant to Article V. In such cases, the Party commencing such activities shall notify and fully inform the other Party as soon as practicable, and shall promptly enter into consultations at the request of the other Party.

Article VII

Nothing herein relates to or shall be construed to affect the question of responsibility or liability for weather modification activities, or to imply the existence of any generally applicable rule of international law.

Article VIII

Each Party shall conduct an annual review of this Agreement while it remains in force, and shall inform the other of its views regarding the Agreement’s operation and effectiveness and the desirability of its amendment to reflect the evolution of the science and technology of weather modification and of international law. The Parties shall meet periodically, by mutual agreement, or at the request of either, to review the implementation of this Agreement or to consider other issues related to weather modification.

Article IX

This Agreement shall enter into force upon signature. It may be amended by mutual agreement of the Parties and may be terminated by either Party upon six months written notice to the other Party.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Representatives of the two Governments have signed this Agreement.

DONE in duplicate at Washington this twenty sixth day of March 1975 in English and French, each version being equally authentic.

Jeanne Sauvé
For the Government of Canada

Christian A. Herter
For the Government of the United States of America


2006 NORAD Renewal


Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America on the North American Aerospace Defense Command



RECALLING their longstanding partnership of bi-national cooperation in the defense of North America through participation in the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD);

CONVINCED that such cooperation is a proven and flexible means to pursue shared goals and interests, remains vital to their mutual security, and is compatible with their national interests as the architecture of North American defense and national defense in their respective countries continues to evolve, including the establishment of Canada Command and United States Northern Command;

NOTING that this cooperation is conducted within the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty and is an important element of their contribution to the overall security of the NATO area;

MINDFUL that in the years since the first NORAD Agreement was concluded on May 12, 19 58, NORAD, as a distinct command, has evolved to address the continuing changes in the nature of the threats to North America and that it will need to continue to adapt to future shared security interests;

RECOGNIZING that, despite arms reduction agreements, large nuclear arsenals still exist, deliverable by strategic ballistic missile, cruise missile or long-range aircraft capable of striking North America;

RECOGNIZING further that, despite non-proliferation and counter proliferation endeavors, efforts by others to acquire nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, and their means of delivery pose a major security challenge;

AWARE of dramatic changes in the geostrategic environment and in the threats to North America, as illustrated by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in terms of the nations, non-state actors or terrorist groups that might choose to challenge North American security, the symmetry and asymmetry of the weapons and methods they could employ, and the transnational and global nature of these threats;

ACKNOWLEDGING that space has become an important dimension of national interest and has become an increasingly significant component of most traditional military activities, and that a growing number of nations have acquired or have ready access to space services that could be used for strategic and tactical purposes against the interests of Canada and the United States;

REALIZING that a shared understanding and awareness of the activities conducted in their respective maritime approaches, maritime areas and inland waterways, including the capacity to identify vessels of potential interest, are critical to their ability to monitor, control, and respond to threats so that their shared security is ensured;

RECOGNIZING that the non-military air and maritime activities associated with drug trafficking and other illegal transnational activities are a threat to their national security; and

DESIRING to ensure that their respective and mutual defense requirements are met in the current and projected geostrategic circumstances;

HAVE AGREED as follows:

Article I – NORAD Missions

  1. The primary missions of NORAD in the future shall be to provide:
    1. Aerospace warning for North America;
    2. Aerospace control for North America; and
    3. Maritime warning for North America.
  2. For the purposes of this Agreement:
    1. “Aerospace warning” consists of processing, assessing, and disseminating intelligence and information related to man-made objects in the aerospace domain and the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles or space vehicles, utilizing mutual support arrangements with other commands and agencies. An integral part of aerospace warning shall continue to entail monitoring of global aerospace activities and related developments. NORAD’s aerospace warning mission for North America shall include aerospace warning, as defined in this paragraph, in support of United States national commands responsible for missile defense.
    2. “Aerospace control” consists of providing surveillance and exercising operational control of the airspace of Canada and the United States. Operational control is the authority to direct, coordinate, and control the operational activities of forces assigned, attached, or otherwise made available to NORAD.
    3. “Maritime warning” consists of processing, assessing, and disseminating intelligence and information related to the respective maritime areas and internal waterways of, and the maritime approaches to, Canada and the United States, and warning of maritime threats to, or attacks against North America utilizing mutual support arrangements with other commands and agencies, to enable identification, validation, and response by national commands and agencies responsible for maritime defense and security. Through these tasks NORAD shall develop a comprehensive shared understanding of maritime activities to better identify potential maritime threats to North American security. Maritime surveillance and control shall continue to be exercised by national commands and, as appropriate, coordinated bilaterally.

Article II – Governing Principles

Based on a common appreciation of the circumstances described and of the experience gained since the inception of NORAD, the following principles shall govern the organization and operation of NORAD:

  1. Commander NORAD, or Deputy Commander NORAD in the absence of Commander NORAD, shall be responsible to the Government of Canada communicating through the Chief of the Defense Staff of Canada and to the Government of the United States through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States. Commander NORAD and Deputy Commander NORAD shall each remain subject to their respective country’s applicable national laws, policies, and directives. Commander NORAD shall function in support of the aerospace warning, aerospace control, and maritime warning missions that have been approved by the authorities of the Parties for the defense of North America, and conduct information operations supportive of NORAD missions.
  2. Commander NORAD and Deputy Commander NORAD shall not be from the same country, and each of their appointments must be approved by both Parties. During the absence of Commander NORAD, command shall pass to Deputy Commander NORAD.
  3. The NORAD Headquarters and NORAD Command and Operations Centers shall be composed of integrated staffs with representatives assigned by the Parties. Non-NORAD activities within Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center and other commands providing support to NORAD missions may include NORAD-assigned personnel, as appropriate, to perform NORAD duties. NORAD-assigned personnel performing NORAD duties in other commands may be called upon to support the mission of that command, as appropriate.
  4. The financing of expenditures connected with the integrated headquarters of NORAD and in support of NORAD-assigned personnel at other Canadian and U.S. commands to perform NORAD missions shall be arranged by mutual agreement between appropriate agencies of the Parties.
  5. NORAD shall include such forces as are specifically made available to it by the Parties to fulfill its missions. The authority of Commander NORAD over those forces and resources is limited to operational control as defined in Article I, paragraph 2b. Temporary reinforcement from one area to another, including the crossing of the international boundary, to meet operational requirements is within the authority of commanders having operational control. Additional Canadian and United States resources may be designated by the respective Parties to provide support to NORAD, including through cooperative arrangements with other commands and agencies.
  6. No permanent changes of station of forces assigned, attached or otherwise made available to NORAD operational control will be made without the approval of the national authority of the Party concerned. The basic command organization for the Parties’ respective defense forces, including administration, discipline, internal organization, and unit training, shall be exercised by national commanders responsible to their national authorities.
  7. Plans and procedures to be followed by NORAD shall be formulated and approved by the Parties and shall be capable of rapid implementation in an emergency. Any plans or procedures recommended by NORAD that bear on the responsibilities of civilian departments or agencies of the two Parties shall be referred by the appropriate military authorities to those departments or agencies for action as appropriate.
  8. Arrangements shall be maintained to ensure effective sharing, between the Parties, of information and intelligence relevant to the NORAD missions.
  9. The “Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of Their Forces,” signed in London on June 19, 1951, shall apply to activities under this Agreement.
  10. The Parties acknowledge the importance of sound environmental practices. Without prejudice to the Parties’ rights and obligations, environmental issues related to activities undertaken in connection with this Agreement shall be reviewed in the Permanent Joint Board on Defense.
  11. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall continue to be kept informed through national NATO policy staffs, or other designated representatives, of arrangements for NORAD’s role in the defense of North America.
  12. Terms of Reference for NORAD shall be updated expeditiously following the entry into force of this Agreement and consistent with the foregoing missions and principles set out for NORAD. Changes in the Terms of Reference, including the addition of other aspects of the missions heretofore identified, shall be made by agreement between the Chief of the Defense Staff of Canada and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, with approval of higher national authorities as appropriate, provided that the changes are in consonance with the principles set out in this Agreement.

Article III – Review and Amendment

  1. The Parties shall meet to review this Agreement and consider possible amendments, under a mutually agreed mechanism, at least every four years or at the request of either Party.
  2. This Agreement may be amended in writing at any time upon agreement of the Parties.

Article IV – Final Provisions

  1. This Agreement shall enter into force upon an exchange of diplomatic notes in which the Parties notify each other of the completion of any necessary internal procedures. Upon entry into force, this Agreement shall supersede the agreement on the North American Aerospace Defense Command done by Exchange of Notes on 28 March 1996, renewed on 16 June 2000, and amended on 5 August 2004.
  2. Implementation of this Agreement shall include the updating, as required, of the NORAD Terms of Reference and other relevant instruments needed to facilitate NORAD missions. The Parties may conclude such further arrangements as necessary to advance the objectives and purposes of this Agreement, including mutual support arrangements with other commands and agencies.
  3. Either Party may terminate this Agreement upon twelve months’ written notice to the other Party.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, duly authorized to that effect by their respective Governments, have signed this Agreement.

DONE at Ottawa, on 28th day of April, 2006, in duplicate, each in the English and French languages, each version being equally authentic.

Gordon O’Connor
For the Government of Canada

David H. Wilkins
For the Government of the United States of America


“Global Warming” can be created and thus affect “Climate Change” by generating the melting of ICE by utilizing Icebreakers,

Bombs/ Missiles/ Nukes to open the Poles for Natural Resource Explorations or even to have “War Games or Military Drills”.

See for yourself the CLAIMS they make regarding their effects on the Environment.

Exercise Northern Edge 2015 to begin June 15Posted 5/20/2015   Updated 6/1/2015 http://www.jber.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123448719

Release Number: 030515


Approximately 6,000 U.S. military personnel will participate in exercise Northern Edge 2015, a joint training exercise hosted by Alaskan Command scheduled for June 15-26, 2015, on and above central Alaska ranges and the Gulf of Alaska.

NE15 is one in a series of U.S. Pacific Command exercises in 2015 that prepares joint forces to respond to crises in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.  The exercise is designed to sharpen tactical combat skills, improve command, control and communication relationships, and to develop interoperable plans and programs across the joint force.

Personnel from U.S. military units stationed in the continental United States and from U.S. installations in the Pacific will participate with approximately 200 aircraft from all services, as well as three U.S. Navy destroyers and one U.S. Navy submarine operating in the Gulf of Alaska. Most personnel and units will deploy to and operate from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson and Eielson Air Force Base. Participants will serve as part of a joint task force practicing tasks associated with joint operations.

Major participating units include U.S. Pacific Command, Alaskan Command, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Pacific Air Forces, Marine Corps Forces Pacific, U.S. Army Pacific, Air Combat Command, Air Mobility Command, Air Force Materiel Command, Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve Command and U.S. Naval Reserve.

NE15 is the largest military training exercise scheduled in Alaska this year with virtual and constructive participants from all over the U.S. exercising alongside live players.

Environmental protection is an integral part of the exercise. The military in Alaska has conducted thorough environmental analysis of the activities being conducted as part of NE15.  Alaskan Command is proud of its environmental stewardship and goes to great lengths to minimize harm to the environment. Aerial and land-based military training activities in or near Alaska, including Northern Edge exercises, are analyzed in the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex Environmental Impact Statement, which was completed by the Air Force and Army in 2013 (see http://www.jber.af.mil/jparc.asp). For Naval activities, Northern Edge exercises are analyzed in the Navy’s 2011 Gulf of Alaska Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (www.goaeis.com). The at-sea portions of Northern Edge occur within the Temporary Maritime Activities Area. . The TMAA’s northern boundary is located approximately 24 nautical miles south of the shoreline of the Kenai Peninsula, which is the largest proximate landmass. The only other shoreline close to the TMAA is Montague Island, which is located 12 nm north of the TMAA. The approximate middle of the TMAA is located 140 nm offshore. The closest point of the TMAA to Cordova is approximately 80 nm southwest of the town. The TMAA was designed to avoid critical habitats and although it does not avoid all fish and marine mammal habitats, the activities are infrequent and widely dispersed throughout the TMAA.

The Navy’s training activities are conducted with an extensive set of range clearance and mitigation measures designed to minimize the potential risk to marine life.  U.S. Navy vessels also conduct range clearance and mitigation measures designed to avoid damage to participating and non-participating vessels and aircraft. The Navy has conducted Northern Edge and other training and testing activities in the Gulf of Alaska for many decades without major harm to the environment. For future exercises beyond 2016 the Navy is currently in the process of preparing a Supplement to the original 2011 EIS and is seeking renewal of permit authorization under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act.

The Navy is a major supporter of research that includes developing methods to detect and monitor marine species before and during training and understanding the effects of sound on marine mammals, sea turtles, fish and birds. When the Navy uses active sonar it operates the sonar at the lowest practicable level except as required to meet tactical training objectives.

A joint training event such as NE15 provides effective, flexible and capabilities- centered joint forces ready for deployment worldwide and enables real-world proficiency in detection, identification and tracking of units at sea, in the air and on land, and response to multiple crises.

For any questions, please contact Alaskan Command Public Affairs at (907) 552-2341, alcom.j08@elmendorf.af.mil.


Bombing the Arctic: US Navy War Games in Gulf of Alaska Threaten One of World’s Most Pristine Areas

The U.S. Navy is set to begin a major war exercise in the Gulf of Alaska amid protests from local communities concerned about environmental damage. The Navy is reportedly unleashing thousands of sailors, soldiers, airmen, marines and Coast Guard members along with several Navy destroyers, hundreds of aircrafts, untold weaponry and a submarine for the naval exercises.

The Gulf of Alaska is one of the most pristine places left on Earth; the region includes critical habitat for all five wild Alaskan salmon species and 377 other species of marine life. The Navy’s planned live bombing runs will entail the detonation of tens of thousands of pounds of toxic munitions, as well as the use of active sonar in fisheries.

The Navy has conducted war games in the Gulf of Alaska, on and off, for the last 30 years, but these new exercises are the largest by far. They come at a time when scientists are increasingly worried about climate change causing Arctic melting. Meanwhile, the unprecedented melting has created an opportunity for the military to expand its operations into previously inaccessible terrain. We are joined by Dahr Jamail, staff reporter at Truthout, whose latest piece is “Destroying What Remains: How the US Navy Plans to War Game the Arctic.”

Image Credit: U.S. Navy


Destroying What Remains: How the US Navy Plans to War Game the Arctic


Thursday, 21 May 2015 00:00 By Dahr Jamail, Truthout / TomDispatch | News Analysis









The USS Cowpens launches a Harpoon Missile from the aft missile deck as part of a live-fire exercise, September 12, 2012. (Photo: Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Paul Kelly/US Navy; Edited: JR/TO)

Want to challenge injustice and make real change happen? That’s Truthout’s goal – support our work with a donation today!

This essay is a joint Truthout/TomDispatch report.

I lived in Anchorage for 10 years and spent much of that time climbing in and on the spine of the state, the Alaska Range. Three times I stood atop the mountain the Athabaskans call Denali, “the great one.” During that decade, I mountaineered for more than half a year on that magnificent state’s highest peaks.  It was there that I took in my own insignificance while living amid rock and ice, sleeping atop glaciers that creaked and moaned as they slowly ground their way toward lower elevations.

Alaska contains the largest coastal mountain range in the world and the highest peak in North America. It has more coastline than the entire contiguous 48 states combined and is big enough to hold the state of Texas two and a half times over. It has the largest population of bald eagles in the country. It has 430 kinds of birds along with the brown bear, the largest carnivorous land mammal in the world, and other species ranging from the pygmy shrew that weighs less than a penny to gray whales that come in at 45 tons. Species that are classified as “endangered” in other places are often found in abundance in Alaska.

Now, a dozen years after I left my home state and landed in Baghdad to begin life as a journalist and nine years after definitively abandoning Alaska, I find myself back. I wish it was to climb another mountain, but this time, unfortunately, it’s because I seem increasingly incapable of escaping the long and destructive reach of the US military.

That summer in 2003 when my life in Alaska ended was an unnerving one for me.  It followed a winter and spring in which I found myself protesting the coming invasion of Iraq in the streets of Anchorage, then impotently watching the televised spectacle of the Bush administration’s “shock and awe” assault on that country as Baghdad burned and Iraqis were slaughtered. While on Denali that summer I listened to news of the beginnings of what would be an occupation from hell and, in my tent on a glacier at 17 thousand feet, wondered what in the world I could do.

In this way, in a cloud of angst, I traveled to Iraq as an independent news team of one and found myself reporting on atrocities that were evident to anyone not embedded with the US military, which was then laying waste to the country. My early reporting, some of it for TomDispatch, warned of body counts on a trajectory toward one million, rampant torture in the military’s detention facilities, and the toxic legacy it had left in the city of Fallujah thanks to the use of depleted uranium munitions and white phosphorous.

As I learned, the US military is an industrial-scale killing machine and also the single largest consumer of fossil fuels on the planet, which makes it a major source of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. As it happens, distant lands like Iraq sitting atop vast reservoirs of oil and natural gas are by no means its only playing fields.

Take the place where I now live, the Olympic Peninsula in Washington state.  The US Navy already has plans to conduct electromagnetic warfare training in an area close to where I moved to once again seek solace in the mountains: Olympic National Forest and nearby Olympic National Park. And this June, it’s scheduling massive war games in the Gulf of Alaska, including live bombing runs that will mean the detonation of tens of thousands of pounds of toxic munitions, as well as the use of active sonar in the most pristine, economically valuable, and sustainable salmon fishery in the country (arguably in the world).  And all of this is to happen right in the middle of fishing season.

This time, in other words, the bombs will be falling far closer to home. Whether it’s war-torn Iraq or “peaceful” Alaska, Sunnis and Shi’ites or salmon and whales, to me the omnipresent “footprint” of the US military feels inescapable.

All of Southeast Alaska’s pristine coastline would be impacted by the Navy’s upcoming planned war games in the Gulf of Alaska. (Photo: Dahr Jamail/Truthout)

The War Comes Home

In 2013, US Navy researchers predicted ice-free summer Arctic waters by 2016 and it looks as if that prediction might come true. Recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported that there was less ice in the Arctic this winter than in any other winter of the satellite era. Given that the Navy has been making plans for “ice-free” operations in the Arctic since at least 2001, their June “Northern Edge” exercises may well prove to be just the opening salvo in the future northern climate wars, with whales, seals, and salmon being the first in the line of fire.

In April 2001, a Navy symposium entitled “Naval Operations in an Ice-Free Arctic” was mounted to begin to prepare the service for a climate-change-induced future. Fast forward to June 2015. In what the military refers to as Alaska’s “premier” joint training exercise, Alaskan Command aims to conduct “Northern Edge” over 8,429 nautical miles, which include critical habitat for all five wild Alaskan salmon species and 377 other species of marine life. The upcoming war games in the Gulf of Alaska will not be the first such exercises in the region — they have been conducted, on and off, for the last 30 years — but they will be the largest by far. In fact, a 360 percent rise in munitions use is expected, according to Emily Stolarcyk, the program manager for the Eyak Preservation Council (EPC).

Eyak Preservation Council’s Emily Stolarcyk in Cordova, Alaska, with the Navy’s environmental impact statement for their planned war games in the Gulf of Alaska. (Photo: Dahr Jamail/Truthout)

The waters in the Gulf of Alaska are some of the most pristine in the world, rivaled only by those in the Antarctic, and among the purest and most nutrient-rich waters anywhere. Northern Edge will take place in an Alaskan “marine protected area,” as well as in a NOAA-designated “fisheries protected area.” These war games will also coincide with the key breeding and migratory periods of the marine life in the region as they make their way toward Prince William Sound, as well as further north into the Arctic.

Species affected will include blue, fin, gray, humpback, minke, sei, sperm, and killer whales, the highly endangered North Pacific right whale (of which there are only approximately 30 left), as well as dolphins and sea lions. No fewer than a dozen native tribes including the Eskimo, Eyak, Athabascan, Tlingit, Sun’aq, and Aleut rely on the area for subsistence living, not to speak of their cultural and spiritual identities.

The Navy is already permitted to use live ordnance including bombs, missiles, and torpedoes, along with active and passive sonar in “realistic” war gaming that is expected to involve the release of as much as 352,000 pounds of “expended materials” every year. (The Navy’s EIS lists numerous things as “expended materials,” including missiles, bombs, torpedoes.) At present, the Navy is well into the process of securing the necessary permits for the next five years and has even mentioned making plans for the next 20. Large numbers of warships and submarines are slated to move into the area and the potential pollution from this has worried Alaskans who live nearby.

“We are concerned about expended materials in addition to the bombs, jet noise, and sonar,” the Eyak Preservation Council’s Emily Stolarcyk tells me as we sit in her office in Cordova, Alaska.  EPC is an environmental and social-justice-oriented nonprofit whose primary mission is to protect wild salmon habitat. “Chromium, lead, tungsten, nickel, cadmium, cyanide, ammonium perchlorate, the Navy’s own environmental impact statement says there is a high risk of chemical exposure to fish.”

Tiny Cordova, population 2,300, is home to the largest commercial fishing fleet in the state and consistently ranks among the top 10 busiest US fishing ports. Since September, when Stolarcyk first became aware of the Navy’s plans, she has been working tirelessly, calling local, state and federal officials and alerting virtually every fisherman she runs into about what she calls “the storm” looming on the horizon. “The propellants from the Navy’s missiles and some of their other weapons will release benzene, toluene, xylene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and naphthalene into the waters of twenty percent of the training area, according to their own EIS [environmental impact statement],” she explains as we look down on Cordova’s harbor with salmon fishing season rapidly approaching. As it happens, most of the chemicals she mentioned were part of BP’s disastrous 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which I covered for years, so as I listened to her I had an eerie sense of futuristic déjà vu.

Cordova, Alaska consistently ranks in the top-10 busiest US commercial fishing ports. (Photo: Dahr Jamail/Truthout)

Here’s just one example of the kinds of damage that will occur: the cyanide discharge from a Navy torpedo is in the range of 140-150 parts per billion. The Environmental Protection Agency’s “allowable” limit on cyanide: one part per billion.

The Navy’s EIS estimates that, in the five-year period in which these war games are to be conducted, there will be more than 182,000 “takes” — direct deaths of a marine mammal, or the disruption of essential behaviors like breeding, nursing, or surfacing.  On the deaths of fish, it offers no estimates at all.  Nevertheless, the Navy will be permitted to use at least 352,000 pounds of expended materials in these games annually. The potential negative effects could be far-reaching, given species migration and the global current system in northern waters.

In the meantime, the Navy is giving Stolarcyk’s efforts the cold shoulder, showing what she calls “total disregard toward the people making their living from these waters.” She adds, “They say this is for national security. They are theoretically defending us, but if they destroy our food source and how we make our living, while polluting our air and water, what’s left to defend?”

Stolarcyk has been labeled an “activist” and “environmentalist,” perhaps because the main organizations she’s managed to sign on to her efforts are indeed environmental groups like the Alaska Marine Conservation Council, and the Alaskans First Coalition.

“Why does wanting to protect wild salmon habitat make me an activist?” she asks. “How has that caused me to be branded as an environmentalist?” Given that the Alaska commercial fishing industry could be decimated if its iconic “wild-caught” salmon turn up with traces of cyanide or any of the myriad chemicals the Navy will be using, Stolarcyk could as easily be seen as fighting for the well-being, if not the survival, of the fishing industry in her state.

All of the Native Tribes and Villages of Kodiak, Alaska are opposed to the Navy’s planned war games in the Gulf of Alaska. (Photo: Dahr Jamail/Truthout)

War Gaming the Community

The clock is ticking in Cordova and others in Stolarcyk’s community are beginning to share her concerns. A few like Alexis Cooper, the executive director of Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU), a non-profit organization that represents the commercial fishermen in the area, have begun to speak out. “We’re already seeing reduced numbers of halibut without the Navy having expanded their operations in the GOA [Gulf of Alaska],” she says, “and we’re already seeing other decreases in harvestable species.”

CDFU represents more than 800 commercial salmon fishermen, an industry that accounts for an estimated 90 percent of Cordova’s economy. Without salmon, like many other towns along coastal southeastern Alaska, it would effectively cease to exist.

Teal Webber, a lifelong commercial fisherwoman and member of the Native Village of Eyak, gets visibly upset when the Navy’s plans come up. “You wouldn’t bomb a bunch of farmland,” she says, “and the salmon run comes right through this area, so why are they doing this now?” She adds, “When all of the fishing community in Cordova gets the news about how much impact the Navy’s war games could have, you’ll see them oppose it en masse.”

Over 100 fishing vessels participated in a flotilla in Cordova, Alaska on May 16, in opposition to the Navy’s war games. (Photo: Chelsea Tracy Photography)

(Photo: Bob Martinson)

While I’m in town, Stolarcyk offers a public presentation of the case against Northern Edge in the elementary school auditorium.  As she shows a slide from the Navy’s environmental impact statement indicating that the areas affected will take decades to recover, several fishermen quietly shake their heads.

One of them, James Weiss, who also works for Alaska’s Fish and Game Department, pulls me aside and quietly says, “My son is growing up here, eating everything that comes out of the sea. I know fish travel through that area they plan to bomb and pollute, so of course I’m concerned. This is too important of a fishing area to put at risk.”

In the question-and-answer session that follows, Jim Kasch, the town’s mayor, assures Stolarcyk that he’ll ask the city council to become involved. “What’s disturbing is that there is no thought about the fish and marine life,” he tells me later. “It’s a sensitive area and we live off the ocean. This is just scary.” A Marine veteran, Kasch acknowledges the Navy’s need to train, then pauses and adds, “But dropping live ordnance in a sensitive fishery just isn’t a good idea. The entire coast of Alaska lives and breathes from our resources from the ocean.”

That evening, with the sun still high in the spring sky, I walk along the boat docks in the harbor and can’t help but wonder whether this small, scruffy town has a hope in hell of stopping or altering Northern Edge.  There have been examples of such unlikely victories in the past. A dozen years ago, the Navy was, for example, finally forced to stop using the Puerto Rican island of Vieques as its own private bombing and test range, but only after having done so since the 1940s. In the wake of those six decades of target practice, the island’s population has the highest cancer and asthma rates in the Caribbean, a phenomenon locals attribute to the Navy’s activities.

Similarly, earlier this year a federal court ruled that Navy war games off the coast of California violated the law. It deemed an estimated 9.6 million “harms” to whales and dolphins via high-intensity sonar and underwater detonations improperly assessed as “negligible” in that service’s EIS.

As a result of Stolarcyk’s work, on May 6th Cordova’s city council passed a resolution formally opposing the upcoming war games. Unfortunately, the largest seafood processor in Cordova (and Alaska), Trident Seafoods, has yet to offer a comment on Northern Edge.  Its representatives wouldn’t even return my phone call on the subject.  Nor, for instance, has Cordova’s Prince William Sound Science Center, whose president, Katrina Hoffman, wrote me that “as an organization, we have no position statement on the matter at this time.”  This, despite their stated aim of supporting “the ability of communities in this region to maintain socioeconomic resilience among healthy, functioning ecosystems.” (Of course, it should be noted that at least some of their funds come from the Navy.)

Government-to-Government Consultation

At Kodiak Island, my next stop, I find a stronger sense of the threat on the horizon in both the fishing and tribal communities and palpable anger about the Navy’s plans. Take J.J. Marsh, the CEO of the Sun’aq Tribe, the largest on the island.  “I think it’s horrible,” she says the minute I sit down in her office. “I grew up here. I was raised on subsistence living. I grew up caring about the environment and the animals and fishing in a native household living off the land and seeing my grandpa being a fisherman. So obviously, the need to protect this is clear.”

What, I ask, is her tribe going to do?

She responds instantly. “We are going to file for a government-to-government consultation and so are other Kodiak tribes so that hopefully we can get this stopped.”

The US government has a unique relationship with Alaska’s Native tribes, like all other American Indian tribes.  It treats each as if it were an autonomous government.  If a tribe requests a “consultation,” Washington must respond and Marsh hopes that such an intervention might help block Northern Edge. “It’s about the generations to come. We have an opportunity as a sovereign tribe to go to battle on this with the feds. If we aren’t going to do it, who is?”

Melissa Borton, the tribal administrator for the Native Village of Afognak, feels similarly. Like Marsh’s tribe, hers was, until recently, remarkably unaware of the Navy’s plans.  That’s hardly surprising since that service has essentially made no effort to publicize what it is going to do. “We are absolutely going to be part of this [attempt to stop the Navy],” she tells me. “I’m appalled.”

One reason she’s appalled: she lived through Alaska’s monster Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989.  “We are still feeling its effects,” she says. “Every time they make these environmental decisions they affect us… We are already plagued with cancer and it comes from the military waste already in our ground or that our fish and deer eat and we eat those… I’ve lost family to cancer, as most around here have and at some point in time this has to stop.”

When I meet with Natasha Hayden, an Afognak tribal council member whose husband is a commercial fisherman, she puts the matter simply and bluntly. “This is a frontal attack by the Navy on our cultural identity.”

Gary Knagin, lifelong fisherman and member of the Sun’aq tribe, is busily preparing his boat and crew for the salmon season when we talk. “We aren’t going to be able to eat if they do this. It’s bullshit. It’ll be detrimental to us and it’s obvious why. In June, when we are out there, salmon are jumping [in the waters] where they want to bomb as far as you can see in any direction. That’s the salmon run. So why do they have to do it in June? If our fish are contaminated, the whole state’s economy is hit. The fishing industry here supports everyone and every other business here is reliant upon the fishing industry. So if you take out the fishing, you take out the town.”

The Navy’s Free Ride

I requested comment from the US military’s Alaskan Command office, and Captain Anastasia Wasem responded after I returned home from my trip north. In our email exchange, I asked her why the Navy had chosen the Gulf of Alaska, given that it was a critical habitat for all five of the state’s wild salmon.  She replied that the waters where the war games will occur, which the Navy refers to as the Temporary Maritime Activities Area, are “strategically significant” and claimed that a recent “Pacific command study” found that naval training opportunities are declining everywhere in the Pacific “except Alaska,” which she referred to as “a true national asset.”

“The Navy’s training activities,” she added, “are conducted with an extensive set of mitigation measures designed to minimize the potential risk to marine life.”

In its assessment of the Navy’s plans, however, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), one of the premier federal agencies tasked with protecting national fisheries, disagreed. “Potential stressors to managed species and EFH [essential fish habitat],” its report said, “include vessel movements (disturbance and collisions), aircraft overflights (disturbance), fuel spills, ship discharge, explosive ordnance, sonar training (disturbance), weapons firing/nonexplosive ordnance use (disturbance and strikes), and expended materials (ordnance-related materials, targets, sonobuoys, and marine markers). Navy activities could have direct and indirect impacts on individual species, modify their habitat, or alter water quality.” According to the NMFS, effects on habitats and communities from Northern Edge “may result in damage that could take years to decades from which to recover.”

Captain Wasem assured me that the Navy made its plans in consultation with the NMFS, but she failed to add that those consultations were found to be inadequate by the agency or to acknowledge that it expressed serious concerns about the coming war games.  In fact, in 2011 it made four conservation recommendations to avoid, mitigate, or otherwise offset possible adverse effects to essential fish habitat. Although such recommendations were non-binding, the Navy was supposed to consider the public interest in its planning.

One of the recommendations, for instance, was that it develop a plan to report on fish mortality during the exercises. The Navy rejected this, claiming that such reporting would “not provide much, if any, valuable data.”  As Stolarcyk told me, “The Navy declined to do three of their four recommendations, and NMFS just rolled over.”

I asked Captain Wasem why the Navy choose to hold the exercise in the middle of salmon fishing season.

“The Northern Edge exercise is scheduled when weather is most conducive for training,” she explained vaguely, pointing out that “the Northern Edge exercise is a big investment for DoD [the Department of Defense] in terms of funding, use of equipment/fuels, strategic transportation, and personnel.”

Arctic Nightmares

The bottom line on all this is simple, if brutal. The Navy is increasingly focused on possible future climate-change conflicts in the melting waters of the north and, in that context, has little or no intention of caretaking the environment when it comes to military exercises. In addition, the federal agencies tasked with overseeing any war-gaming plans have neither the legal ability nor the will to enforce environmental regulations when what’s at stake, at least according to the Pentagon, is “national security.”

Needless to say, when it comes to the safety of locals in the Navy’s expanding area of operation, there is no obvious recourse. Alaskans can’t turn to NMFS or the Environmental Protection Agency or NOAA.  If you want to stop the US military from dropping live munitions, or blasting electromagnetic radiation into national forests and marine sanctuaries, or poisoning your environment, you’d better figure out how to file a major lawsuit or, if you belong to a Native tribe, demand a government-to-government consultation and hope it works. And both of those are long shots, at best.

Meanwhile, as the race heats up for reserves of oil and gas in the melting Arctic that shouldn’t be extracted and burned in the first place, so do the Navy’s war games.  From southern California to Alaska, if you live in a coastal town or city, odds are that the Navy is coming your way, if it’s not already there.

Nevertheless, Emily Stolarcyk shows no signs of throwing in the towel, despite the way the deck is stacked against her efforts. “It’s supposedly our constitutional right that control of the military is in the hands of the citizens,” she told me in our last session together.  At one point, she paused and asked, “Haven’t we learned from our past mistakes around not protecting salmon? Look at California, Oregon, and Washington’s salmon. They’ve been decimated. We have the best and most pristine salmon left on the planet, and the Navy wants to do these exercises. You can’t have both.”

Stolarcyk and I share a bond common among people who have lived in our northernmost state, a place whose wilderness is so vast and beautiful as to make your head spin. Those of us who have experienced its rivers and mountains, have been awed by the northern lights, and are regularly reminded of our own insignificance (even as we gained a new appreciation for how precious life really is) tend to want to protect the place as well as share it with others.

“Everyone has been telling me from the start that I’m fighting a lost cause and I will not win,” Stolarcyk said as our time together wound down. “No other non-profit in Alaska will touch this. But I actually believe we can fight this and we can stop them. I believe in the power of one. If I can convince someone to join me, it spreads from there. It takes a spark to start a fire, and I refuse to believe that nothing can be done.”

Three decades ago, in his book Arctic Dreams, Barry Lopez suggested that, when it came to exploiting the Arctic versus living sustainably in it, the ecosystems of the region were too vulnerable to absorb attempts to “accommodate both sides.” In the years since, whether it’s been the Navy, Big Energy, or the increasingly catastrophic impacts of human-caused climate disruption, only one side has been accommodated and the results have been dismal.

In Iraq in wartime, I saw what the US military was capable of in a distant ravaged land. In June, I’ll see what that military is capable of in what still passes for peacetime and close to home indeed. As I sit at my desk writing this story on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula, the roar of Navy jets periodically rumbles in from across Puget Sound, where a massive naval air station is located. I can’t help but wonder whether, years from now, I’ll still be writing pieces with titles like “Destroying What Remains,” as the Navy continues its war-gaming in an ice-free summer Arctic amid a sea of offshore oil drilling platforms.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.



Dahr Jamail, a Truthout staff reporter, is the author of The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, (Haymarket Books, 2009), and Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq, (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported from Iraq for more than a year, as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over the last ten years, and has won the Martha Gellhorn Award for Investigative Journalism, among other awards.

His third book, The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who Is Responsible, co-written with William Rivers Pitt, is available now on Amazon. He lives and works in Washington State.


Dahr Jamail | Documents Show Navy’s Electromagnetic Warfare Training Would Harm Humans and Wildlife

By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Report

Dahr Jamail | Domestic Military Expansion Spreads Through the US, Ignites Dissent

By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Report



4: The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science

5: Global Warming Debunked at Senate Hearing

6: Warmists Stunned by Roger Pielke in Senate Testimony

7: The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie

8: Making World Government a Reality

9: Dr. Tim Ball and Elizabeth May Climate Debate C-FAX Radio

10: Al Gore on Climate Change Legislation

11:Dr.Easterbrook Global Warming HOAX & Facts

%d bloggers like this: