Geoscientist J. Marvin Herndon, PhD, of the Transdyne Corporation, published a provocative paper April 21, 2017 in the Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, titled “Evidence of Variable Earth-heat Production, Global Non-anthropogenic Climate Change, and Geoengineered Global Warming and Polar Melting.” 
Readers may remember I’ve featured Dr Herndon’s innovative scientific research regarding weather geoengineering a couple of times: “Weather Geoengineering, Chemtrails, Aluminum and Alzheimer’s: The Four Horsemen Of The Weather Apocalypse,” and “Intentional Efforts To Cause Global Warming And Glacier Melting Indication Scientifically Found.”
One of the more revealing concepts Dr Herndon mentions in his recent article is something not many are willing to acknowledge as the cause of much grief affecting humans and the environment: “During the past 38 years, the standards of scientific inquiry have changed, particularly among those who depend upon government support. Logic-based challenges to current thinking have largely been replaced by consensus conformity.”
Sciences specifically affected by “consensus conformity” include, among others, the health sciences, especially vaccinology, or the ‘science’ of vaccines—more like pseudoscience, I offer, and microwave science, which lags behind from the World War II era in recognizing only thermal waves but not health-damaging non-thermal radiation waves .
But science is a logical process, not a democratic process. The idea that large, complex problems are resolved by something called “scientific consensus” has the consequence of misleading not only the public, but members of the scientific community as well.
As Dr Herndon states, “The oceans are our planet’s major reservoir for CO2.” OMG, how will they ever collect carbon taxes from the oceans? Or from humans, who exhale it with every outbreath? Isn’t that quite an insurmountable problem? Or, will they impose human CO2 taxes for our polluting the planet just by living and breathing on what cabal controllers ‘think’ is their scientific playground? Please excuse my tongue-in-cheekiness.
However, in Dr Herndon’s latest paper, we find questions , which need answering—and very soon.
- As NOAA and NASA are both prime sources of data utilized in climate models and assessments, and are apparently participants in the global covert tropospheric geoengineering activity, how objective are their data?
- Indeed, what are the purposes of spraying a toxic substance into the air we breathe on a near-daily, near-global basis? Surely, those closely connected with the operation know that it causes global warming and polar ice melting.
- Do government leaders realize that the intent of these covert geoengineering efforts is to cause global warming? Or are leaders being deceived, told that the tropospheric aerosol spraying is to prevent global warming?
- Is it being done to get at the petroleum and other natural resources beneath polar ice?
- Is tropospheric geoengineering being done to cause global warming so as to provide a basis for the United Nations to take control of major elements of sovereign nations’ economies? Or are more sinister motives involved?
- The military has researched weaponizing weather since 1947, but at what cost to human and environmental health? What have leaders been told that makes them acquiesce to a program that is no less than an assault on planet Earth?
- Who profits from this?
- Why are scientists promoting the idea of future geoengineering when they know, or certainly ought to know, that tropospheric geoengineering has been ongoing nearly worldwide for decades.”
Nevertheless, the scientific “nitty-gritty” aspects of Dr Herndon’s paper, I think, can be found in his discussion of “COVERT GEOENGINEERING CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING.” Here’s what he says in part:
Geoengineering is defined here as deliberate, large-scale activities aimed at modifying weather/climate systems [i.e., from the troposphere to the stratosphere to the ionosphere — all natural systems]. Weather modification programs have been employed by many nations at least since the 1960s, that is for over half a century, typically for agricultural purposes.”
There has not only been great secrecy involved, but governments have deceived citizens, either denying the aerial activity or falsely asserting that the observed aerial trails are simply contrails, ice crystals formed from water vapor in jet exhaust. In 2005 the United States Air Force distributed to government agencies and published online a document entitled “Contrails Facts”  which blatantly denied the existence of the observed particulate trails and falsely asserted that they are contrails.
65. http://www.nuclearplanet.com/USAF.pdf., Accessed April 17, 2017.
There is good evidence that the main particulate matter being sprayed into the troposphere worldwide is coal fly ash, the light ash from coal combustion by electric power companies that is considered to be too toxic to be allowed to exit smokestacks in Western nations [63,66-68].
>63. Herndon JM. Adverse agricultural consequences of weather modification. AGRIVITA Journal of Agricultural Science. 2016;38:213-221.
66. 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: 1-8.
67. Herndon JM. Aluminum poisoning of humanity and earth’s biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: Implications for India. Curr. Sci. 2015;108:2173-2177.
68. Herndon JM. Obtaining evidence of coal fly ash content in weather modification (geoengineering) through analyses of postaerosol spraying rainwater and solid substances. Ind. J. Sci. Res. and Tech. 2016;4:30-36.
In the midst of official denial and misrepresentation, one can deduce from physical effects the purposes, if not the motives, for the near-daily, near-global coal fly ash tropospheric geoengineering. Aerosolized coal fly ash retards the fall of rain, at least until clouds become so overburdened that they let go with torrential downpours and storms. Coal fly ash makes atmospheric moisture more electrically conducting, which may be useful in military electromagnetic activities . Coal fly ash sprayed into the troposphere heats the atmosphere, and retards heat loss from Earth’s surface thus enhancing global warming. As coal fly ash settles to the ground, its typically dark gray color absorbs sunlight and alters albedo, again enhancing global warming .
69. Bertell R. Planet earth, the latest weapon of war: A critical study into the military and the environment. The Women’s Press: London; 2000.
Dr Herndon’s remarks in the above last paragraph certainly are incriminating about global warming being a man-made (anthropogenic) tragedy, along with an experiment all humans are forced to participate in unknowingly, unwillingly and in defiance of the Nuremberg Code .
In the Conclusions of his article, Dr Herndon offers these bone-chilling remarks:
Tropospheric aerosolized particulates, evidenced as coal fly ash, inhibit rainfall, heat the atmosphere, and enhance global warming. Evidence obtained from an accidental aerial release of an engineered material indicates there is an effort to melt glacial ice and thus enhance global warming. By ignoring ongoing tropospheric geoengineering, the IPCC climate assessments as well as the moral authority of the United Nations are compromised.
Fig. 7. Three aircraft flying simultaneously in the same physical environment in which contrail formation is possible in the air above Tucson, Arizona (USA) in 2011. Note that two display short contrails characteristic of rapid ice evaporation. The lengthy trail across the sky is not a contrail – otherwise it would have evaporated as quickly, and been as short, as the other two. Rather, the long trail is formed by emplaced particulate matter. Courtesy of Bornfree and Russ Tanner [from Dr Herndon’s paper]
Dr Herndon’s latest paper is written in scientific language. However, I encourage readers to ‘plough’ through it, as it explains much of what needs to be understood about how not only weather is being manipulated, but science, the environment and humans, as a result of clandestine mechanisms. I wish more humans were interested enough to oppose what’s happening to us and our beloved planet.
Thank you, Dr Herndon, for your unfailing scientific efforts.
 Article: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/variable_heat.pdf
In Spanish: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/variable_heat.s.pdf
 Press Release: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/variable_heat.pr.pdf
 NUREMBERG CODE
- The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
- The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
- The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
- The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
- No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
- The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
- Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
- The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
- During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible.
- During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.