The ENMOD Treaty and the Sanctioned Assault on Agriculture and Human and Environmental Health

By Marvin Herndon J, Mark Whiteside, and Ian Baldwin

Global Research, February 02, 2025

Walsh Medical Media 3 April 2020

Abstract

The 1978 “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques” [ENMOD] obliges signatory nations to fundamentally compromise their sovereignty and cause widespread and permanent agricultural devastation. Instead of prohibiting “hostile use of environmental modification techniques,” as its title suggests, ENMOD obliges signatory nations to engage in unspecified “peaceful” environmental modification activities carried out by unspecified entities, under unspecified circumstances, without limitation on harm, whether to a nation’s or region’s agriculture, its environment, or the health of its population, i.e., its citizens. Large-scale environmental modification cannot be construed as “peaceful”; it is fundamentally hostile. Ongoing and undisclosed tropospheric aerosol geoengineering has already begun to have devastating consequences for agriculture, as well as widespread, long-lasting, and severe effects on human and environmental health. These effects include lung cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative diseases, respiratory diseases, and other diseases; disruption of once-stable weather patterns; decimation of insect, bat, and bird populations; exacerbation of wildfires and the death of forests; spread of harmful algae in our waters; and destruction of the ozone layer that protects life from the sun’s deadly ultraviolet radiation.

The ongoing covert sanctioned environmental modification activities constitute a de facto war on sovereign nations. Furthermore, such activities are blatantly in contradiction to the missions of other United Nations entities, including but not limited to the World Health Organization, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Food and Agriculture Organization. Agricultural collapse and mass starvation are one of the potential consequences of environmental modification “for peaceful purposes.” Covert global environmental modification activities must be stopped immediately and permanently if we and our progeny are to survive. The operation should be exposed to public scrutiny. When the tropospheric position of the airborne particulate ceases, the last of the geoengineered particulates will fall to Earth within days or weeks and global warming will be reduced. Agricultural production and public health will improve worldwide.

The ongoing covert sanctioned environmental modification activities are effectively a war against sovereign nations. Furthermore, these activities are blatantly in contradiction to the missions of other United Nations entities, including but not limited to the World Health Organization, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Food and Agriculture Organization. Agricultural collapse and mass starvation are one of the potential consequences of environmental modification “for peaceful purposes.” Covert global environmental modification activities must be stopped immediately and permanently if we and our progeny are to survive. The operation must be exposed to public scrutiny. When the injection of airborne particulate matter into the troposphere ceases, the last of the geoengineered particulate matter will fall to Earth within days or weeks and global warming will be reduced. Agricultural production and public health will improve worldwide.

Introduction

In 1968, Gordon J.F. MacDonald (1929-2002), a respected geophysicist and US government consultant [1], wrote a book chapter entitled “How to Destroy the Environment” in which he described ways in which a nation could alter the environment to covertly inflict damage on an enemy nation [2]. In particular he noted that: “The key to geophysical warfare is the identification of environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy.” MacDonald [2] described potential methods of environmental warfare that deliberately trigger instabilities in large-scale natural systems, such as weather and climate, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, and the human brain.

Many of MacDonald’s predictions and speculations have come true, not with the technologies of his time, but with more effective and potentially more devastating technologies that have been developed subsequently and have been discussed publicly by senior military officials since the 1990s [3,4]. From the title of the chapter [2] it can be deduced that MacDonald considered environmental warfare not only extremely destructive, but within the reach of rapidly evolving military warfare technology. By the end of the Vietnam War, in which the first environmental weapons were employed to terrible effect, it is not surprising that people and governments around the world wanted to ban environmental warfare.

Consequently, the United Nations gathered adequate support and produced a treaty document, originally classified as disarmament, entitled “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques” [hereinafter ENMOD], opened for signature in Geneva on 18 May 1977 and entered into force on 5 October 1978 [5]. Figure 1 shows the ENMOD status of sovereign nations.

.

.

In fact, however, ENMOD does not prohibit “military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.” “ENMOD, in our view, was and remains a Trojan horse. Not only does it not expressly prohibit the use of hostile environmental modification techniques, as its title might seem to indicate, but instead it sanctions the use of environmental modification techniques for “peaceful purposes” and, furthermore, obliges each signatory “State Party” to cooperate in unspecified environmental “improvement” operations by an unspecified international organization for unspecified purposes.

For the reasons set forth below, the ENMOD document, together with evidence of covert international environmental modification activities [6-10], constitutes an agricultural and environmental violation on a global scale. ENMOD provides the means to co-opt the military and national security institutions of sovereign nations to engage in undisclosed “peaceful environmental modification techniques,” which have the consequences of being highly destructive to agriculture and, more generally, human and environmental health.

Although the environmental modification activities currently being undertaken without public discussion are supposedly for “peaceful purposes,” they are nevertheless highly destructive: they cripple agriculture and food production, wreak havoc on weather and climate, and radically compromise human and environmental health. Whether intentional or not, these activities amount to de facto warfare waged against sovereign nations and their citizens.

Indeed, the United Nations has convinced many of the world’s governments to sign a treaty that has forced each signatory to be an unwitting pawn in the abrogation of their sovereignty and has led to the environmental degradation of each nation, the source of which ENMOD is officially unrecognized. A careful legal reading of that treaty [5], the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques [ENMOD], should leave no doubt as to the correctness of our characterization of it as a Trojan Horse.

ENMOD Trojan Horse Review

Article I of ENMOD [5] states that:

“1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to make military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as a means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.”

“2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organization to undertake activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article.”

While a cursory or superficial reading of the ENMOD treaty might appear to prohibit hostile uses of environmental modification, a careful examination yields an entirely different understanding. The phrase “shall not” appears prohibitive, but it is a “toothless tiger” in the legal sense. If the intent had been to prohibit, the phrase “shall not” rather than “shall not” would have had the force of law.

The ENMOD treaty, we argue and explain below, has a different purpose. It is a Trojan horse that forces the unwitting cooperation of independent signatory countries, i.e., “State Parties,” to engage in future hostile environmental modification—a de facto war—for “peaceful purposes,” with no limitations against harm to humans and other biogenic populations under the broadest possible circumstances. And it does so without defining “peaceful purposes.”

The true intent of the ENMOD Treaty, in our view, is concisely described in legally binding terms in Article III. In each of the two sections of Article III the legally binding term “shall” is used.

Article III of ENMOD states:

“1. The provisions of this Convention shall not impede the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes and shall be without prejudice to generally recognized principles and applicable rules of international law relating to such use.”

“2. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the widest possible exchange of scientific and technological information concerning the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes. States Parties in a position to do so shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international organizations, to international economic and scientific cooperation for the conservation, improvement and peaceful use of the environment, taking due account of the needs of the developing areas of the world.”

Article III, Section 1, makes it clear that ENMOD contains nothing that would “prevent the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes.” A cursory or superficial reading of Article III might lead one to believe that its sole purpose is to allow States Parties to carry out environmental modification, but this is not correct.

The final sentence of Article III, Section 2, as written, seems to obscure its true purpose, which becomes clear and incontrovertible when some of the confusion is cleared away: “The Contracting States… shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international organizations, to… cooperation for the conservation, improvement and peaceful use of the environment.”

In American jurisprudence, the use of the term “shall” (shall) requires compliance with the rules. The Constitution of the United States of America makes frequent use of “shall” in significant and clearly mandatory cases, such as, for example, the establishment of the judicial branch of government: Article III Sec. 1. – Judicial Powers / “The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in a Supreme Court ….”.

The imperative “shall” is used extensively throughout Articles VX of ENMOD and its Annex. Article VII of ENMOD, which reads in full: “This Convention shall be of unlimited duration”: “This Convention shall be of unlimited duration”.

ENMOD, in our view, is a Trojan horse. The subject matter of its title, “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,” is not prohibited, as it would have been if the imperative “shall” had been used. The true intent of ENMOD is instead to enforce international cooperation for the “improvement…of the environment.” Examples of such environmental “improvement” might include weather engineering to control global warming, or to bring or delay rainfall, or to melt Arctic ice for commercial operations, among other examples. Are these global engineering projects “peaceful”?

We don’t think so, for the reasons we describe below.

As an instrument of international law, ENMOD is deliberately misleading. It means a blanket prohibition, and lacks any legally enforceable mandates on prohibition (Article I). However, in Article III, ENMOD clearly requires action that is not at all related to the title of the Convention, “Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques.” Furthermore, the action required (Article III, Section 2) lacks the specificity appropriate to the actions required. For example, “States Parties in a position to do so shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international organizations” lacks specificity as to the meaning of “international organizations” or the nature, scope, scope and cost, both human and environmental, of the “contributions” required.

This lack of specificity is unjustified and deliberate. In contrast, Article II of ENMOD is quite specific and broad in defining the term “environmental modification techniques”. Article II states that: “As used in Article 1, the term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.”

In its entirety, ENMOD does not impose any prohibition, limitation, requirement, specification or definition of Article III, which provides for “enhancement and peaceful use of the environment.” This wording specifically provides for the non-exclusion of “the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes.” “Nor does ENMOD define peaceful purposes. However, Article I of ENMOD defines “hostile use” in the following words: “Hostile use of environmental modification techniques with widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as a means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.”

Any large-scale alteration of the natural environment will inevitably have “widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects” on humans and other biota and, we argue, can only be extremely hostile, not “peaceful” as we document and justify in this review.

ENMOD, in our view, constitutes a legally binding global agreement to conduct geoengineered warfare “for peaceful purposes” against the citizens of sovereign nations by “international organizations” – primarily, we assume, the United Nations and its various agencies, whose purposes, in our view, include the subordination of the sovereignty of all nations to that of the United Nations itself.

For thirty years, the UN, through its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] [11], has been busy indoctrinating political leaders and propagandizing citizens around the world to accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming caused by carbon dioxide, a common and planetary “enemy” against which war must eventually – and rightly – be waged. The aim of this global campaign involves the renunciation of the sovereignty of each signatory nation and their aggregation as entities subjected to a single world government system that controls the world’s energy systems, energy being fundamental to contemporary civilization.

Evidence of environmental modification activity ENMOD

Trails of particulate matter sprayed by jets into the troposphere have been observed by citizens for decades [12-15]. Since at least 2010, perhaps earlier, aerial spraying has become an almost daily and almost global activity that has generated considerable concern among citizens [15]. Figure 2 shows some examples of tropospheric particulate matter trails. Immediately after spraying, the trails spread, briefly resembling cirrus clouds, before becoming a white haze in the sky [9]. The particulate matter thus injected into the troposphere is heated by short- and long-wave solar radiation and long-wave radiation from the Earth’s surface, transferring heat through molecular collisions to the surrounding atmosphere, which in turn reduces the unfavorable temperature gradient with respect to the near-surface air, thereby reducing heat loss due to convection and simultaneously causing local and/or global warming [16].

.

Figure 2: Environmentally modified tropospheric particulate trails. Clockwise from top left: San Diego, California, USA; Karnak, Egypt; London, England; Jaipur, India.

.

In the application of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes, as envisaged by ENMOD [5], not only are the existence and operational details not made known to the public, but the latter is also systematically deceived [17-19].

There are concerted efforts to deceive the scientific community [18,19] (as well as the public) into believing that particulate matter trails, such as those shown in Figure 2, are “trails” of ice crystals, which are sometimes produced by water vapor in jet exhaust under conditions of high humidity and lower temperatures [20].

Concerned citizens have taken numerous photographs showing that the observed particulate matter trails are not physically consistent with ice crystal trails [9,15,21]. Figure 3 shows both typical white trails, such as those in Figure 2, which are consistent with coal fly ash [7-9,21] and show strong light scattering, and black trails, probably produced by carbon black, which absorbs light much more efficiently with much less scattering than other aerosols. Ice crystal trails are never black. The almost total reflectivity of snow highlights the extremely low spectral absorption of ice [22]. One of us (JMH) has witnessed white trails under cloud cover over Frankfurt, Germany, and black trails above clouds, presumably positioned to be difficult to observe.

.

Figure 3: From [74]. Both black and white particulate trails over Danby, Vermont, an impossible combination for supposed ice crystal “trails,” countering persistent misinformation that particulate trails are harmless ice crystals from jet exhaust [18,75].

Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) and Climate Change

.

What “environmental improvement and peaceful use” [5] could be achieved by warming the troposphere on a near-daily and near-global scale? Evidence suggests that one of ENMOD’s “environmental improvements” is the melting of polar ice caps to open a Northeast or Northwest Passage for global shipping lanes and to provide access to the oil and mineral resources beneath. But make no mistake: This “improvement” is neither “peaceful” nor harmless to human and general biotic health. It is downright hostile. It represents a direct attack on global agricultural production and human and environmental health, as described below. Furthermore, it is not otherwise disclosed to the public, for example in public safety advisories. Furthermore, it fits into the “science-based” political ideology of the United Nations, according to which greenhouse gases are the sole or “primary” cause of global warming, thus making climate “intervention” activities necessary.

On or about February 14, 2016, an oily substance fell on seven homes and vehicles in Harrison Township, Michigan, USA. Suspecting that this was an accidental release from an undisclosed geoengineering activity, one of us (JMH) “obtained samples of the material from one of the residents whose property was splashed from above and had the material analyzed” … and reported [6] “the results of those analyses provide evidence of a deliberate operation to melt ice and snow. …patterns of nearly circular holes, sometimes called “cryoconite holes,” are observed on the surfaces of ablated glaciers around the world; these holes resemble the distribution pattern of air-blasted material…. The air-blasted material is synthetic cryoconite, or proto-cryoconite, which is intended to melt glacial ice. This explanation is consistent with the almost daily and almost global spraying of a particulate substance, evidently coal fly ash, into the troposphere which has the effect of causing global warming….”. The similarity between the airborne material and cryoconite is shown in Figure 4, adapted from [6].

.

Figure 4: Top left: Distribution of air droplets; top right: Distribution of cryoconites in the glacier; bottom left: Synthetic cryoconite or proto-cryocyte released from the air; bottom right: Natural cryoconite.

.

Non-peaceful destruction of agriculture and health

Humans need food to eat, water to drink, and air to breathe. Global geoengineering that degrades any of these three basic resources also has the effect of degrading the sovereignty of nation states.

The release of particulate matter into the troposphere, the region where clouds form, or into the stratosphere, where over time geoengineered aerosols fall into the troposphere, has negative consequences for agriculture, which are already seriously damaging agriculture:

These pollution particles cause local, regional or global warming [23-26] which leads to reduced crop yields [27,28].

The presence of pollution particles inhibits precipitation, causing drought in one place and floods and deluges in another [3,9]. The global warming thus produced causes an increase in evaporation and precipitation [7].

When deposited on the ground or in water, polluting particles absorb solar radiation and heat the surface; on snow and ice they cause melting and reduce the albedo, which leads to further global warming [16].

Aerosolized particles cause climate chaos, altering the more or less stable weather patterns that made agriculture possible [9,28-31].

Geoengineered alteration of weather patterns can exacerbate the decimation of agricultural crops, for example by locusts [32].

Airborne particulate matter decimates populations of beneficial wildlife, such as bees [33], bats [34] and birds [35].

Particulates used in aerial spraying, such as coal fly ash, poison soil and water with several toxic elements, including mercury [8], arsenic and thallium [36] and a plant toxin, chemically mobile aluminum [10,37,38].

Coal fly ash particulate matter, when transported into the stratosphere [39-41], destroys protective atmospheric ozone and allows solar ultraviolet radiation to damage plants, making them more susceptible to pathogens [10,42].

Atmospheric particulate matter reduces available sunlight to the detriment of crops [43], as well as reducing the energy production of solar cells [44].

Particulate matter that settles on leaves reduces transpiration and hinders growth [45].

Elements extracted from rainwater by aerosol particulates, including toxins such as chemically mobile aluminum, wet the leaves, concentrate due to evaporation and drip down to poison the roots [10].

Aerosolized particulate matter, particularly coal fly ash, raining down on fish farms and other bodies of water, shifts the phytoplankton balance towards harmful algae and cyanobacteria [46].

The release of particulate matter from air pollution – including, but not limited to, coal fly ash – into the troposphere also has known negative consequences for human health:

Particulate matter from air pollution is the leading environmental cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide [47,48].

Spherical magnetite particles from air pollution are found in the brains of people with dementia [49,50].

Recently, reactive magnetic iron particles have been found in abundance in the hearts of people from highly polluted areas [51].

Air pollution is a major contributor to stroke and neurodegenerative diseases [49,52,53].

Particulate matter from air pollution penetrates deep into the lungs and systemic circulation and contributes to stroke [54], heart disease [51,54], lung cancer [55], COPD [56], respiratory infections [57] and asthma [58].

Particulate matter from air pollution is a risk factor for spontaneous pregnancy loss [59,60], for cognitive decline at all ages [61], for Alzheimer’s dementia in later life [61], for children with cognitive defects [62,63] and for cognitive decline in older women [64].

United Nations Institutional Conflicts Over Mandatory Environmental Modifications

The ongoing global and mandatory harmful environmental modification activities carried out under the auspices of the United Nations ENMOD [5] are contrary to the objectives and missions of other United Nations laws and organizations.

Climate scientists, including those associated with the United Nations IPCC, have avoided even mentioning, much less discussing, the potential environmental consequences of the current spraying of particulate matter pollutants into the atmosphere. They fail to acknowledge its obvious consequences for weather, climate, agricultural production, or human and environmental health [11].

The United Nations cannot in good faith claim that global warming is occurring because heat is being trapped by greenhouse gases [11] and simultaneously ignore the global climatological, environmental and health effects of current tropospheric aerial spraying. Under the auspices of ENMOD it cannot engage in environmental modification through jet spraying of particulate matter in the region where clouds form, thereby contributing to global warming [16,23-26], and then brazenly claim that inadvertent anthropogenic global warming through the burning of fossil fuels is the sole cause of climate change.

The Director-General of the United Nations World Health Organization recently noted [65] that the simple act of breathing kills seven million people a year and injures billions more. “No one, rich or poor, can escape air pollution,” he acknowledges, “Despite this epidemic of unnecessary and preventable death and disability, a smog of complacency pervades the planet. “In accordance with the precautionary principle in public health [66,67], as qualified professionals, two of us (JMH and MW) submitted to the Bulletin of the World Health Organization a warning perspective on the global health risks of environmental modification caused by particulate pollution released by jet aircraft. This perspective was rejected without review [68]

The United Nations Rio Declaration on Environment and Development [69], a cornerstone of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, states: “States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of Earth’s ecosystems”. The decimation of insect [33], bat [34] and bird populations [35] and the disruption of ecological balance in nature [8,10,46] caused by ground-level particulate spraying are all in stark conflict with the above mandate of the United Nations Rio Declaration [69].

Beneficiaries of the environmental change imposed by ENMOD

As US Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson stated in a speech on May 27, 1962 at Southwest Texas State University [70], “Whoever controls the weather will control the world.” World control, that is, the power to exercise world authority, is the intent of the UN in implementing ENMOD [5], its so-called environmental improvement mandate, to which all other UN organizations, including its Food and Agriculture Organization, are subordinate.

There are other beneficiaries of ENMOD. Military organizations, their contractors and their multiple subcontractors, as well as associated, supporting and administrative government organizations, all derive significant income from ENMOD-approved environmental modification activities globally. And that’s not all.

The “peaceful” environmental modification activities authorized by ENMOD may conceal or serve as cover for de facto hostile environmental warfare operations, nearly impossible to decipher as such, as explained long ago by geoscientist and presidential strategic advisor Gordon JF MacDonald [2].

In 1968, MacDonald [2] wrote of “…removing moisture from the atmosphere so that a water-dependent nation…could be subjected to years of drought. The operation could be hidden by the statistical irregularity of the atmosphere. A nation possessing superior technology in environmental manipulation could damage an adversary without revealing its intent.” In 2016, one of us (JMH) wrote [21]: “The development of a methodology for inhibiting precipitation by spraying particulate pollutants into the troposphere has now progressed to the operational level. The potential use of this may pose an agricultural threat to any nation so targeted.”

Figure 5 is a NASA Worldview satellite image from February 4, 2016 showing particulate matter trails blanketing the Republic of Cyprus, but almost absent from surrounding regions. Cypriot citizens have so far demanded explanations from their government for the deliberate darkening of their skies and the “extreme weather conditions” [71]. Following presentations to the Parliamentary Environment Committee in February 2016, the Department of Environmental Services promised an investigation into the aerial spraying, but to date no response has been received.

.

Figure 5: NASA Worldview satellite image from February 4, 2016 showing jet trails blanketing the air above the Republic of Cyprus, but largely absent in the surrounding region.

.

One of the military purposes of injecting airborne particulate matter into cloud-forming regions is to hinder precipitation and cause a damaging agricultural drought in a hostile country [21]. Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has accused Western countries of being surreptitiously engaged in drought-causing activities [72].

The winter of 2006/2007 ushered in a severe three-year drought that devastated agriculture in Syria and led to civil war, which some believe was caused by anthropogenic factors [73]. Were anthropogenic factors at play and geoengineering activities a factor, was there malevolent intent? We may never know, but the consequences experienced by the millions of human lives affected can be considered a warning of what could happen when state or non-state entities use environmental modification techniques to cause agricultural collapse or other malevolent outcomes.

Conclusions

The United Nations has tricked many governments into signing a treaty that forces them to be unwitting pawns in compromising their national sovereignty and slowly destroying themselves. Instead of prohibiting “hostile use of environmental modification techniques,” as the title suggests, ENMOD forces signatory nations to consent to, and even participate in or consent to, unspecified “peaceful” environmental modification activities carried out by unspecified entities, under unspecified circumstances, with no limitations on damage to agriculture, the environment, or human health.

Large-scale environmental modification is not peaceful, but extremely hostile. Tropospheric aerosol geoengineering and other ongoing and undisclosed geoengineering activities have already begun to have devastating consequences for agriculture, as well as widespread, long-lasting, and severe impacts on human and environmental health.

No one has the right to poison the air we breathe, or disrupt agriculture and poison the soil, or cause climate and weather chaos, or slowly and insidiously cause lung cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative disease, respiratory disease, or other diseases that will inevitably result from aerial spraying, or to harm God’s creatures in the same way, especially by disrupting once-stable weather patterns, decimating insect, bat, and bird populations, exacerbating fires and destroying forests, promoting harmful algae in our waters, and destroying the ozone layer that protects life from the sun’s deadly ultraviolet radiation. Yet these are all consequences of the ongoing environmental modification authorized by ENMOD.

The ongoing environmental modification activities, in our view, constitute a de facto war on sovereign nations, a war that cripples agriculture, damages the biosphere, and leads to enormous human suffering and death. Furthermore, these activities are flagrantly in contradiction to the missions of other United Nations entities, including but not limited to the World Health Organization, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Food and Agriculture Organization.

The lack of public disclosure and concerted misinformation about the environmental modification activities authorized by ENMOD is further evidence of the deceptive intent. Furthermore, the techniques developed can be surreptitiously applied by lawless states to inflict agriculturally devastating droughts on enemy nations.

Life on Earth is possible thanks to a delicate balance between myriad biota and their environment. The negative consequences of environmental modification activities authorized by ENMOD represent the greatest anthropogenic threat to life on Earth. Agricultural collapse and mass starvation are one of the potential consequences. Environmental modification activities must be stopped immediately and permanently if we and our progeny are to live healthy lives.

The covert global operation should be exposed to public scrutiny.

When the input of tropospheric particulate matter ceases, polluting particles will fall to Earth within days or weeks, global warming will decline, and this will lead to improvements in agricultural production, public and environmental health, and the long-awaited return of natural blue skies, a boon to the spirits of people everywhere on Earth.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Marvin Herndon J, Transdyne Corporation, 11044 Red Rock Drive San Diego, CA 92131, USA

Mark Whiteside, Florida Department of Health in Monroe County, 1100 Simonton Street, Key West, FL 33040, USA

Ian Baldwin, Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 85 North Main Street, White River Junction, VT 05001, USA

Notes

1. https://aas.org/obituaries/gordon-james-fraser-macdonald-1929-2002
2. MacDonald GJ. How to wreck the environment.  Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons. New York: The Viking Press; 1968. p. 181-205.
3. Herndon JM, Whiteside M, Baldwin I. Fifty Years after “How to Wreck the Environment”: Anthropogenic Extinction of Life on Earth. J Geog Environ Earth Sci Intn. 2018;16(3):1-15.
4. Cohen W. Address by Defense Secretary Cohen: Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U. S. Strategy. 1997.
5. http://wwwun-documents.net/enmod.htm
6. Herndon JM. An indication of intentional efforts to cause global warming and glacier melting. J Geography Environ Earth Sci Int. 2017;9(1):1-11.
7. Herndon JM, Whiteside M. Further evidence of coal fly ash utilization in tropospheric geoengineering: Implications on human and environmental health. J Geog Environ Earth Sci Intn. 2017;9(1):1-8.
8. Herndon JM, Whiteside M. Contamination of the biosphere with mercury: Another potential consequence of on-going climate manipulation using aerosolized coal fly ash J Geog Environ Earth Sci Intn. 2017;13(1):1-11.
9. Herndon JM, Whiteside M. California wildfires: Role of undisclosed atmospheric manipulation and geoengineering. J Geog Environ Earth Sci Intn. 2018;17(3):1-18.
10. Herndon JM, Williams DD, Whiteside M. Previously unrecognized primary factors in the demise of endangered torrey pines: A microcosm of global forest die-offs. J Geog Environ Earth Sci Intn 2018;16(4):1-14.
11. Stocker T, Qin D, Plattner G, Tignor M, Allen S, Boschung J, et al. IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1535 pp. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York; 2013.
12. http://www.nuclearplanet.com/1958evidence.pdf
13. Kirby PA. Chemtrails Exposed 2012.
14. Thomas W. Chemtrails Confirmed. Carson City, Nevada (USA): Bridger House Publishers; 2004.
15. http://www.nuclearplanet.com/websites.pdf
16. Herndon JM, Whiteside M. Further evidence that particulate pollution is the principal cause of global warming: Humanitarian considerations. Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International. 2019;21(1):1-11.
17. Herndon JM. An open letter to members of AGU, EGU, and IPCC alleging promotion of fake science at the expense of human and environmental health and comments on AGU draft geoengineering position statement. New Concepts in Global Tectonics Journal. 2017;5(3):413-416.
18. Shearer C, West M, Caldeira K, Davis SJ. Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret large-scale atmospheric spraying program. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11(8):p. 084011.
19. Tingley D, Wagner G. Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media. Palgrave Communications. 2017;3(1):12.
20. Schumann U. On conditions for contrail formation from aircraft exhausts. Meteorologisch Zeitschrift. 1996;N.F.5:4-23.
21. Herndon JM. Adverse agricultural consequences of weather modification. AGRIVITA Journal of agricultural science. 2016;38(3):213-221.                  
22. Grenfell TC, Warren SG, Mullen PC. Reflection of solar radiation by the Antarctic snow surface at ultraviolet, visible, and near‐infrared wavelengths. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 1994;99(D9):18669-18684.
23. Herndon JM. Air pollution, not greenhouse gases: The principal cause of global warming. J Geog Environ Earth Sci Intn. 2018;17(2):1-8.
24. Herndon JM. Science misrepresentation and the climate-science cartel. J Geog Environ Earth Sci Intn. 2018;18(2):1-13.
25. Herndon JM. Fundamental climate science error: Concomitant harm to humanity and the environment J Geog Environ Earth Sci Intn. 2018;18(3):1-12.
26. Herndon JM. Role of atmospheric convection in global warming. J Geog Environ Earth Sci Intn. 2019;19(4):1-8.
27. Zhao C, Liu B, Piao S, Wang X, Lobell DB, Huang Y, et al. Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2017;114(35):9326-9331.
28. Tigchelaar M, Battisti DS, Naylor RL, Ray DK. Future warming increases probability of globally synchronized maize production shocks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018;115(26):6644-6649.
29. Vogel E, Donat MG, Alexander LV, Meinshausen M, Ray DK, Karoly D, et al. The effects of climate extremes on global agricultural yields. Environmental Research Letters. 2019;14(5):054010.
30. Scheelbeek PF, Bird FA, Tuomisto HL, Green R, Harris FB, Joy EJ, et al. Effect of environmental changes on vegetable and legume yields and nutritional quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018;115(26):6804-6809.
31. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/dining/farming-climate-change.html
32. El Husseini MM. Weather Engineering and its Undesirable Side Effects on the Environment, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Human. Acta Scientific Agriculture. 2019;3.7.
33. Whiteside M, Herndon JM. Previously unacknowledged potential factors in catastrophic bee and insect die-off arising from coal fly ash geoengineering Asian J Biol. 2018;6(4):1-13.
34. Herndon JM, Whiteside M. Unacknowledged potential factors in catastrophic bat die-off arising from coal fly ash geoengineering. Asian Journal of Biology. 2019;8(4):1-13.
35. Whiteside M, Herndon JM. Aerosolized coal fly ash: A previously unrecognized primary factor in the catastrophic global demise of bird populations and species. Asian J Biol. 2018;6(4):1-13.
36. Moreno N, Querol X, Andrés JM, Stanton K, Towler M, Nugteren H, et al. Physico-chemical characteristics of European pulverized coal combustion fly ashes. Fuel. 2005;84:1351-1363.
37. Sparling DW, Lowe TP. Environmental hazards of aluminum to plants, invertibrates, fish, and wildlife. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol. 1996;145:1-127.
38. Kopittke PM, Moore KL, Lombi E, Gianoncelli A, Ferguson BJ, al. e. Identification of the primary lesion of toxic aluminum in plant roots. Plant Physiology. 2015;167(4):1402-1411.
39. Delany A, Shedlovsky J, Pollock W. Stratospheric aerosol: The contribution from the troposphere. Journal of Geophysical Research. 1974;79(36):5646-5650.
40. Fromm MD, Servranckx R. Transport of forest fire smoke above the tropopause by supercell convection. Geophysical Research Letters. 2003;30(10).
41. Yu P, Rosenlof KH, Liu S, Telg H, Thornberry TD, Rollins AW, et al. Efficient transport of tropospheric aerosol into the stratosphere via the Asian summer monsoon anticyclone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2017;114(27):6972-6977.
42. Herndon JM, Hoisington RD, Whiteside M. Deadly ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B penetration to Earth’s surface: Human and environmental health implications. J Geog Environ Earth Sci Intn. 2018;14(2):1-11.
43. Tie X, Huang R-J, Dai W, Cao J, Long X, Su X, et al. Effect of heavy haze and aerosol pollution on rice and wheat productions in China. Scientific reports. 2016;6:29612.
44. El-Shobokshy MS, Hussein FM. Degradation of photovoltaic cell performance due to dust deposition on to its surface. Renewable Energy. 1993;3(6-7):585-590.
45. Rai A, Kulshreshtha K, Srivastava P, Mohanty C. Leaf surface structure alterations due to particulate pollution in some common plants. The Environmentalist. 2010;30(1):18-23.
46. Whiteside M, Herndon JM. Role of Aerosolized Coal Fly Ash in the Global Plankton Imbalance: Case of Florida’s Toxic Algae Crisis. Asian Journal of Biology. 2019;8(2):1-24.
47. Landrigan PJ, Fuller R, Acosta NJ, Adeyi O, Arnold R, Baldé AB, et al. The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. The lancet. 2018;391(10119):462-512.
48. Friedrich M. Air Pollution Is Greatest Environmental Threat to Health. JAMA. 2018;319(11):1085.
49. Maher BA, Ahmed IA, Karloukovski V, MacLaren DA, Foulds PG, Allsop D, et al. Magnetite pollution nanoparticles in the human brain. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2016;113(39):10797-10801.
50. Plascencia-Villa G, Ponce A, Collingwood JF, Arellano-Jiménez MJ, Zhu X, Rogers JT, et al. High-resolution analytical imaging and electron holography of magnetite particles in amyloid cores of Alzheimer’s disease. Scientific Reports. 2016;6:24873.
51. Calderón-Garcidueñas L, González-Maciel A, Mukherjee PS, Reynoso-Robles R, Pérez-Guillé B, Gayosso-Chávez C, et al. Combustion-and friction-derived magnetic air pollution nanoparticles in human hearts. Environmental Research. 2019:108567.
52. Jeremy W. Air pollution and brain health: an emerging issue. Lancet. 2017;390:1345-1422.
53. Whiteside M, Herndon JM. Aerosolized coal fly ash: Risk factor for neurodegenerative disease. Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research. 2018;25(10):1-11.
54. Miller KA, Siscovick DS, Sheppard L, Kristen Shepherd K, Sullivan JH, al. e. Long-term exposure to air pollution and incidence of cardiovascular events in women. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(5):447-458.
55. Whiteside M, Herndon JM. Coal fly ash aerosol: Risk factor for lung cancer. Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research. 2018;25(4):1-10.
56. Whiteside M, Herndon JM. Aerosolized coal fly ash: Risk factor for COPD and respiratory disease. Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research. 2018;26(7):1-13.
57. MacIntyre EA, Gehring U, Mölter A, Fuertes E, Klümper C, Krämer U, et al. Air pollution and respiratory infections during early childhood: an analysis of 10 European birth cohorts within the ESCAPE Project. Environmental health perspectives. 2013;122(1):107-113.
58. Organization WH. Ambient air pollution: A global assessment of exposure and burden of disease. 2016.
59. Leiser CL, Hanson HA, Sawyer K, Steenblik J, Al-Dulaimi R, Madsen T, et al. Acute effects of air pollutants on spontaneous pregnancy loss: a case-crossover study. Fertility and sterility. 2019;111(2):341-347.
60. Perin PM, Maluf M, Czeresnia CE, Januário DANF, Saldiva PHN. Effects of exposure to high levels of particulate air pollution during the follicular phase of the conception cycle on pregnancy outcome in couples undergoing in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertility and sterility. 2010;93(1):301-313.
61. Kilian J, Kitazawa M. The emerging risk of exposure to air pollution on cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease–evidence from epidemiological and animal studies. Biomedical journal. 2018.
62. Calderón-Garcidueñas L, Azzarelli B, Acuna H, Garcia R, Gambling TM, Osnaya N, et al. Air pollution and brain damage. Toxicologic Pathology. 2002;30(3):373-389.
63. Calderon-Garciduenas L, Franko-Lira M, Mora-Tiscareno A, Medina-Cortina H, Torres-Jardon R, al. e. Early Alzheimer’d and Parkinson’s diese pathology in urban children: Friend verses foe response – it’s time to face the evidence. BioMed Research International. 2013;32:650-658.
64. Weuve J, Puett RC, Schwartz J, Yanosky JD, Laden F, Grodstein F. Exposure to particulate air pollution and cognitive decline in older women. Archives of internal medicine. 2012;172(3):219-227.
65. Carrington D, Taylor M. Air pollution is the ‘new tobacco’, warns WHO head. The Gaurdian. 27 October 2018.
66. Harrell JA, Baker EL. The essential services of public health. Leadership Public Health. 1994;3(3):27-30.
67. Kriebel D, Tickner J, Epstein P, Lemons J, Levins R, Loechler EL, et al. The precautionary principle in environmental science Environ Healt Perspec. 2001;109(9):871-876.
68. Herndon JM, Whiteside M. Geoengineering: The deadly new global “Miasma”. Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research. 2019;29(12):1-8.
69. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf
70. https://wwwyoutubecom/watch?v=K3j0Wj_MwKk
71. http://cyprus-mail.com/2016/02/17/minister-pledges-probe-into-chemtrails/
72. Staff R. Ahmadinejad says enemies destroy Iran’s rain clouds -reports. Commodity News [Internet]. 2011.
73. Kelley CP, Mohtadi S, Cane MA, Seager R, Kushnir Y. Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences. 2015;112(11):3241-3246.
74. Herndon JMW, M. Geophysical consequences of tropospheric particulate heating: Further evidence that anthropogenic global warming is principally caused by particulate pollution. Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International. 2019;in press.
75. http://www.nuclearplanet.com/Massive_Public_Deception.pdf

Featured image source

---

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.

The original source of this article is Walsh Medical Media

Copyright © Marvin Herndon J, Mark Whiteside, and Ian Baldwin, Walsh Medical Media, 2025

https://www.globalresearch.ca/enmod-treaty-sanctioned-assault-agriculture-human-environmental-health/5878545

Counter Information publish all articles following the Creative Commons rule creative commons. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Follow @counter_infor