Source – PeterAKirby.com
“…Many famous scientists who have connections to the New Manhattan Project have been Bohemian Club members including Ernest Lawrence (1901-1958). The Stanford Research Institute (SRI), which has firm implications for the New Manhattan Project, was originally organized by three members at the Bohemian Grove in 1945. Also, in the early 1940s, the plans for the original Manhattan Project were partially formulated at the Bohemian Grove”
Chemtrails Exposed: The Common Roots of the New Manhattan Project and the Theory of Man-Made Global Warming – By Peter A. Kirby
As Archimedes declared… “Eureka!”
As it turns out, both the New Manhattan Project and the theory of man-made global warming share many important, early historical roots. Both came from a group of Swedish scientists active during the late 1800s and early 1900s.
These scientists were members of something called the Stockholm Physics Society. The founder and main attraction of this group was a man by the name of Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927). Svante Arrhenius was the scientist who originally came up with the theory of man-made global warming and he did it during his time with the Stockholm Physics Society.
Arrhenius and the Stockholm Physics Society’s work pertaining to plasma physics, atomic physics, meteorology, atmospheric electricity, and weather modification also provide compelling links to today’s global weather modification project the author appropriately calls the New Manhattan Project.
This article is mostly based upon a biography of Svante Arrhenius by Elisabeth Crawford titled Arrhenius: From Ionic Theory to the Greenhouse Effect. Oddly enough, this book was published in 1996; the same year that large-scale domestic spraying operations began.
Svante Arrhenius was a Swedish scientist who was the first person to significantly assert and popularize the theory of man-made climate change.
Although Arrhenius is not very well known today, in his time he was considered Sweden’s most prominent scientist; receiving a slew of honorary doctorates from the most prestigious universities in Europe as well as a large heap of exclusive awards and medals including the 1903 Nobel prize for chemistry. He worked internationally and in multiple languages.
Arrhenius worked in his native Swedish as well as in the German, English, and French languages, with German being the most predominant. He often published in all four languages. Crawford notes that, “His closest working relationships were with members of the German, English, and, later, American scientific communities.” He was quite gregarious and had hundreds of scientist friends in Europe and North America.
Arrhenius was born on February 19, 1859 near the city of Uppsala, Sweden. His father was the agent for a noble family called the von Essens. Soon after his birth, his family moved into a house inside the city of Uppsala proper. This was where Arrhenius spent his childhood and youth.
Arrhenius was admitted to Uppsala University in 1876 where he concentrated on his studies of mathematics, physics, and chemistry. The University of Uppsala, founded in 1477, is Sweden’s oldest and Arrhenius’ father was an employee of the university.
In 1881, Arrhenius followed his professor Otto Petterson to the capital city of Stockholm to study at the new Stockholm Högskola for three years. The Stockholm Högskola had opened in 1878 as a private, non-degree-granting institution of higher learning oriented toward the sciences. These three years at the Högskola set Arrhenius’ work on the course he was to follow for the next decade.
In Stockholm, Arrhenius also studied at the Institute of Physics of the Swedish Academy of Sciences under Erik Edlund (1819-1888). Sweden’s Central Meteorological Office was located at the Institute of Physics and until the early 1870s, Arrhenius’ mentor, Edlund had been in charge of weather observations there. Undoubtedly at the behest of Edlund, it was during his time at the Academy that Arrhenius made his first serious excursion into the atmospheric sciences and, even more pertinently, his first serious excursion into the field of atmospheric electricity with a paper on the topic of ball lightning published in the Academy proceedings.
Arrhenius began to move within a broad network of European scientists that was centered on the Committee on Electrolysis of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS). The BAAS was headed by the noted physicist Sir Oliver Lodge (1851-1940). Sir Oliver Lodge was the main European pioneer in the field of electrostatic precipitation and, as readers of this work already know, the field of electrostatic precipitation is central to the New Manhattan Project.
For more about the history and current relevance of electrostatic precipitation, please see the author’s previous articles “Chemtrails Exposed: Dresser Industries and the New Manhattan Project” as well as “Chemtrails Exposed: The Research Corporation for Science Advancement and the Origins of the New Manhattan Project.”
Arrhenius eventually established a lively academic discourse with Lodge. The two conversed mostly about early plasma physics. Although they didn’t call it that yet, plasma physics is another field with direct relevance to today’s New Manhattan Project mainly due to the fact that ionospheric plasmas are today being manipulated by ground-based antennas known as ionospheric heaters.
Although they were not fast friends, the famous scientist Max Planck (1858-1947) was also one of Arrhenius’ contemporaries.
Arrhenius was also involved in the field of early atomic physics. This is relevant to our investigation for the fact that today’s New Manhattan Project is an outgrowth of the original Manhattan Project; which was all about atomic physics. For more about how this happened, please refer to the author’s previous article “Chemtrails Exposed: Truly a New Manhattan Project.”
Arrhenius later became a student of radioactivity in 1909 when he was taught by the famous, pioneering atomic physicist Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937) at the University of Manchester.
After studying abroad in Germany, Arrhenius returned to Sweden in 1891 to find that a new culture had swept the nation. This new, emergent culture appears to have been somewhat similar to that which emerged in America in the late 1960s. It was marked by individual introspection, communion with the natural world, and political progressivism. This new culture was largely centered around a small elite in Stockholm which expressed itself through art, literature, and science. Social Darwinism played a central role in the philosophy of this new cultural movement. This progressive movement of the late 1800s in Sweden even had its own dialect known as ‘New Swedish.’
Also upon his return, Arrhenius became a teacher of physics at the Stockholm Högskola. In 1893 Arrhenius was joined at the Högskola by Vilhelm Bjerknes (1862-1951). The two went on to become good friends and colleagues. The presence of Vilhelm Bjerknes is significant to our investigation because he went on to identify the basic equations of atmospheric dynamics which eventually paved the way for today’s computerized atmospheric modeling. Bjerknes had studied under Heinrich Hertz (1857-1894) at the University of Bonn. His doctoral dissertation was about experimental investigations of Hertzian waves. Hertz is the father of the study of electromagnetic energy, which plays a key role in the NMP. His generalized theorems of atmospheric circulation were based on analogies between hydrodynamic and electromagnetic forces.
The Swedish meteorological establishment had extensive ties to the Stockholm Högskola and Arrhenius. The first director of Sweden’s Central Meteorological Office, a man by the name of Robert Rubenson, was a professor of physics at the Högskola from 1878 to 1887. Another Central Meteorological Office meteorologist by the name of Nils Ekholm (1848-1923) became one of Arrhenius’ closest collaborators.
Cosmic physics and the Stockholm Physics Society
In the fall of 1891, Arrhenius initiated the Stockholm Physics Society as a forum for lectures and discussion pertaining to the latest advances in physics. In the context of this new Society, physics was defined broadly as comprising neighboring fields such as meteorology, geophysics, astrophysics, and physical chemistry.
The fortnightly meetings of this new Society were held at the Physics Institute of the Stockholm Högskola. A man by the name of Bernard Hasselberg was elected president, the aforementioned Otto Petterson became vice-president, and Arrhenius became secretary. This new Society was immediately well attended. The aforementioned Robert Rubenson and Nils Ekholm attended the meetings as well a third man associated with the Central Meteorological Office by the name of Hugo Hamburg. The Stockholm Physics Society was more like a social debating club rather than a serious scientific institution.
The largest number of lectures at this new Stockholm Physics Society meeting at the Stockholm Högskola concerned the physics of the Earth, the sea, and the atmosphere. This area of study was known as ‘cosmic physics.’ Early on, most of the lectures on cosmic physics were given by Arrhenius himself. Cosmic physics is of direct applicability to today’s New Manhattan Project because modification or control of the earth’s weather must take into consideration not only the physics of the atmosphere, but all environmental factors.
Although Arrhenius probably first heard of cosmic physics during his time studying abroad in Germany, where it had been institutionalized, the variety of cosmic physics practiced in Sweden in the late 1800s and early 1900s was substantially different than that which was practiced in Germany. The German cosmic physicists served as counterparts to the Swedish cosmic physicists.
This was not Arrhenius’ first work in the subject. Years earlier, in 1888, Arrhenius had studied atmospheric electricity; an aspect of cosmic physics. He analyzed measurements of atmospheric electricity as well as other meteorological data in order to understand the influence of ultraviolet light from the sun on the conductivity of the air. This was all in order to explain the movement of charged particles (ions) in the earth’s electric field and dispersion of electricity in the atmosphere. Arrhenius’ early in this subject has the New Manhattan Project written all over it.
At the Stockholm Physics Society, Arrhenius also reported on his continuing work in the area of atomic physics. Other members offered information on topics with relevance to the New Manhattan Project such as aeronautics.
The members of the Stockholm Physics Society shared not only a consuming interest in physics, but they also shared a political ideology. They were a product of their times in that they were politically progressive. Conversely, members of the progressive political parties of the time were also scientists. With the influence of these predominant political views surrounding him, Arrhenius became a progressive himself. Crawford writes:
While the passion for science was the primary bond between members of the society, they also shared progressive political opinions. Several of them – Nils Ekholm, Hugo Hamberg, Arvid Högbom – had been radicalized as students at Uppsala in the 1880s and one of them, Arvid Högbom, could claim to have been the first dues-paying member of the radical student association Verdandi, founded in 1882. The political circles in the capital with which they were most likely to sympathize were liberal reformist ones. The Liberals favored extending voting rights, limited at the time to about six percent of the adult population (women did not have the right to vote), and improving social welfare. In these and other issues, they often made common front with the Social Democrats. There were scientists among the supporters of both parties; in fact, the Social democratic leader, Hjalmar Branting, had worked as an astronomer before becoming engaged full-time in politics and political journalism. It was a new experience for Arrhenius to consort with colleagues whose political beliefs were translated into action. He had probably not given politics much thought before leaving Sweden. Although he never was much interested in politics, he nevertheless acquired the liberal reformist views that he would hold for the rest of his life.
The members of the Physics Society and the broader scientific circles in which Arrhenius moved shared a distinctive conception of the role of science in society. Having first-hand knowledge of the many ways in which science had improved living conditions – electric lights at home and in the streets and better sanitary standards, for instance – they firmly believed that science fostered progress. In this they came closest to the ‘optimistic evolutionism’ that was an important part of late nineteenth century philosophies of progress.
This over-arching theme of political progressivism is of note to our discussion because, as we will soon see, it was during this period of his work with the politically progressive scientists of the Stockholm Physics Society, that Arrhenius first developed the theory of man-made climate change. A theory which, to this day, is marked by political progressivism. And the theory of man-made climate change is relevant to the New Manhattan Project because today’s geoengineers use the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming as an excuse for dumping tens of thousands of megatons of toxic materials from aircraft ANNUALLY – a key aspect of today’s New Manhattan Project. Could the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming have more to do with politics than science? That’s not what the Old Media said. Please read on.
The Stockholm Physics Society also found a receptive audience in the press. Arrhenius in particular was regularly published for his reporting upon the Society’s meetings. He found the local press to be eager to publish his articles and pay him a fee for his troubles. This is consistent with today’s mass media which overwhelmingly produces content from politically progressive sources. Arrhenius provided the local media with a steady stream of his work, including a piece on the means to artificially produce rainfall. Yes, that’s right. Arrhenius did work in weather modification – a field with only the most direct relevance to today’s New Manhattan Project.
Arrhenius’ participation in the media continued for many years. He became an important popularizer of science. In the early 1900s, he had many popular books published on topics such as cosmic physics. To this day, one can order his books online. His most popular book was published in 1908 and was titled Worlds in the Making.
Cosmic physics at the Stockholm Physics Society flourished throughout the 1890s. This new discipline relied upon recent advances in data collection as well as advances in theoretical and experimental physics. Arrhenius was the main promoter of cosmic physics in Stockholm. He worked almost exclusively in cosmic physics from the mid 1890s to the first few years of the new century. It was from this work in cosmic physics that Arrhenius first began to postulate about atmospheric carbon dioxide and its effect on earth’s temperature.
Arrhenius’ theory of man-made global climate change
Almost exactly 100 years before large-scale, domestic spraying operations began, Arrhenius began his investigations of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the Stockholm Physics Society in 1895. The idea of linking variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide to climate change came to Arrhenius near the end of 1894. He started work on the notion on Christmas Eve, 1894. His first articles on the subject were published exactly one year later. Interestingly, 1895 was a year of emotional turmoil for Arrhenius. In that year, his first marriage dissolved, his chair in physics at the Högskola seemed in jeopardy, and his son was born.
Both Arrhenius and Bjerknes worked on the issue. Arrhenius’ colleague Högbom contributed significantly in this area as well. Högbom’s contributions consisted of ‘guesstimates’ of the amount of CO2 contributed to the atmosphere by different means.
Specifically, Arrhenius’ investigation pertained to atmospheric carbon dioxide’s influence upon the coming and passing of Ice Ages. Arrhenius warned that our present existence may be, “nothing but a short flourishing of civilization between two Ice Ages.”
Although Arrhenius is not referenced, it is interesting to note that in 1997 LLNL scientists Teller, Wood, and Hyde released a research paper titled “Global Warming and Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Change” wherein the authors suggest that saturating the upper atmosphere with small aluminum particles could avert the next ice age.
In all honesty, there was one other scientist who had previously postulated that levels of atmospheric CO2 could have an effect upon climate. In 1861 England’s John Tyndall (1820-1893) suggested as much. But Arrhenius is more notable here because he produced a model in attempts to prove it and he popularized the theory with multiple media publications and speeches.
Arrhenius’ assertions about atmospheric CO2 having a warming effect upon earth’s climate were based upon the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ of atmospheric vapors first postulated by Joseph Fourier (1768-1830) in 1824. The major difference here is that Fourier did not specify CO2. Although the term ‘greenhouse effect’ did not come into use until much later, it was probably Arrhenius who first used the hothouse metaphor.
In America, Arrhenius’ theories about atmospheric carbon dioxide were further investigated by geologist Thomas Chamberlin (1843-1928) at the Rockefeller founded and funded University of Chicago. It was not until the 1970s that the theory of man-made global climate change began gaining large-scale popular traction in America.
Immediately after entertaining Arrhenius’ theories of man-made global warming, the Stockholm Physics Society largely concerned itself with Bjerknes’ circulation theorem as it pertained to meteorological problems. Arrhenius did not take a significant role in these proceedings. Arrhenius, instead, went on to study cosmic physics more broadly, including the atmospheric electricity which is so central to today’s New Manhattan Project.
Arrhenius went on to write extensively about atmospheric electricity. The second volume of his 1903 book Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik was all about the physics of the atmosphere and atmospheric electricity.
Following Arrhenius’ early significant work on the subject, the next major development in the saga of the theory of man-made climate change didn’t come until 1955 when Fortune magazine published an article written by the famous Manhattan Project scientist John von Neumann titled “Can We Survive Technology?” Von Neumann’s article ushered in the modern era of the theory as he suggested that we could employ Solar Radiation Management geoengineering in order to save ourselves from the catastrophic effects of atmospheric temperature fluctuations.
For more about von Neumann’s groundbreaking 1955 article, please refer to the author’s 2017 article “Can We Survive Technology? The Origin of SRM Geoengineering and the Modern Theory of Man-made Global Warming.”
It is interesting to note that in the late 1800s, at the same time Arrhenius was developing the earliest, significant work on the theory of man-made global warming, Helena Blavatsky’s Theosophy was making its first inroads into Sweden as well. Arrhenius’ first wife was enamored with it.
In Rodney Howard-Browne and Paul L. Williams’ 2018 book The Killing of Uncle Sam, the authors note how a key founding member of something called the Society of the Elect named William Stead was a disciple of Theosophy. This Society of the Elect went on to branch off into the Roundtable Movement, the Committee of 300 and many other powerful organizations. It branched off into the groups that have been secretly using global corporations to forge the course of Humanity.
Coupled with the fact that the theory of man-made climate change has been popularly used as a determinant factor for the course of Humanity, a further examination of Theosophy is warranted here.
Stead wrote that his Society of the Elect was to, “chart the course of events that would culminate in a New World Order.” According to Stead, the Pilgrim Societies, the Round Table, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bank of International Settlements, the World Bank, and the Trilateral Commission are all offshoots of the Society of the Elect.
Theosophists such as Stead were devil worshippers. In her book The Secret Doctrine, lead Theosophist Helena Blavatsky wrote, “Demon est Deus inversus: that is to say, through every point of Infinite Space thrill the magnetic and electrical currents of animate Nature, the life-giving and death-giving waves, for death on earth becomes life on another plane. Lucifer is devine and terrestrial light, the ‘Holy Ghost’ and ’Satan,’ at one and the same time…”
Thomas Edison, Adolph Hitler, and FDR’s vice-president Henry Wallace, among many other notables, were all disciples of Blavatsky. Edison has very serious implications for the New Manhattan Project as his General Electric went on to roll-out the scientific era of weather modification in 1946 and produce lots of applicable technology.
Arrhenius in California
Strangely enough, in the early 1900s Arrhenius made it all the way to California. Once here, among other, more touristy destinations, he visited Wallace Campbell’s (1862-1938) Lick Observatory at Mount Hamilton, Jacques Loeb’s (1859-1924) marine biology station in Pacific Grove, as well as the campus of UC Berkeley. For the fee of $1K (about $28K in today’s money), Arrhenius gave lectures during Berkeley’s 1904 summer session. Loeb was a professor at Berkeley and during this time, Arrhenius lodged with the Loeb family at their house. At Berkeley, Arrhenius formed lasting professional relationships with other Berkeley scientists.
In particular, Arrhenius formed a lasting correspondence with Wallace Campbell. Being that Campbell was the director of the Lick Observatory, Arrhenius shared his interest in cosmic physics. In fact, in 1905, Arrhenius and his colleague from the Högskola, mathematician and amateur astronomer Gustav Kobb joined the Lick Observatory eclipse expedition to Alhambra, Spain.
Berkeley botanist Winthrop Osterhout (1871-1964) also became a lifelong friend and correspondent. Osterhout brought Arrhenius to the Bohemian Club clubhouse in downtown San Francisco as well as to their annual summer retreat at their Bohemian Grove encampment on the banks of the Russian River, north of San Francisco. The Bohemian Club and their Bohemian Grove are of interest to our investigation of the New Manhattan Project for quite a few reasons.
Many famous scientists who have connections to the New Manhattan Project have been Bohemian Club members including Ernest Lawrence (1901-1958). The Stanford Research Institute (SRI), which has firm implications for the New Manhattan Project, was originally organized by three members at the Bohemian Grove in 1945. Also, in the early 1940s, the plans for the original Manhattan Project were partially formulated at the Bohemian Grove.
Lastly, it is interesting and relevant to our investigation to note that, during his time at and around UC Berkeley, Arrhenius most probably met Frederick Gardner Cottrell (1877-1948); a key figure in the historical development of the New Manhattan Project.
Cottrell was the American pioneer in the field of electrostatic precipitation and founded something called the Research Corporation for Science Advancement (RCSA). At the time of Arrhenius’ visit, Cottrell was teaching physical chemistry at Berkeley, a subject in which Arrhenius was well versed.
Following his California trip, Arrhenius went back to his native country. In the fall of 1924, Arrhenius suffered a stroke from which he never recovered. Three years later, he died and was buried in the town cemetery of Uppsala, Sweden.
Although Arrhenius is the putative originator of the theory of man-made global warming, pertaining to this, he really originated nothing.
Arrhenius’ work here was unscientific from the beginning. He first had the idea that changes in amounts of atmospheric CO2 had an effect upon climate, then he created a model to prove it. The proper way to conduct science is to simply conduct experiments and see what happens. Arrhenius’ work here was contrary to the scientific method and mathematical models are inherently of seriously questionable scientific validity. For more about the philosophies behind proper scientific methods and practices, please refer to Marvin Herndon’s excellent books Maverick’s Earth and Universe as well as Herndon’s Earth and the Dark Side of Science.
Arrhenius’ models were based on what amounts to wild speculation. He did not have access to the vast amounts of data needed to confirm his grand assertions. Networks for the collection of the necessary data did not exist at the time. His work in this area relied simply upon guesstimates and contributions from his peers; not any real empirical data. He was in way over his head and thus, his work in this area holds no validity whatsoever.
The entire notion that increases in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in average global temperature, which is what Arrhenius was asserting, is completely backwards. In his 2014 book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball writes that an increase in the earth’s average global temperature is ALWAYS FOLLOWED by an increase in atmospheric CO2 – not the other way around. Dr. Ball specifies that the only place where an increase in atmospheric CO2 is followed by an increase in the earth’s average temperature is in the leading alarmist climate models emanating from the United Nations.
Gaping hole after gaping hole can be punched (and has been punched) through the theory of man-made climate change. I will probably be writing another book.
The science was unsound then and it is unsound now. Nevertheless, the political left of the time picked it up and ran with it then and the political left continues to run with it today. Today they do so because the agendas associated with it are the agendas of today’s mainstream, mass media-influenced, lowest common denominator, political left. The establishment wants to sell you on: big government, crony capitalism, deindustrialization, and centralized control.
That’s not to say that all leftists are stupid and/or ignorant. Many on the political left see right through the theory of man-made global warming and are really great people. Disclaimers aside, let us continue.
It is undeniable that gigantic socio-economic agendas are attached to the theory of man-made global climate change. This agenda is exemplified by the Green New Deal. From the proposed legislation presented on congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s website, we see that, because of catastrophic man-made global warming, we are supposed to: transition to alternative forms of energy, upgrade all existing buildings, eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, overhaul transportation systems, reconstruct labor laws, and oh so much more.
And, by the way, please don’t forget how geoengineers say they want to spray us with tens of thousands of megatons of toxic materials in order to save us from the dreaded climate change.
We should not be burdened with an unbelievably vast, expensive, and cruel socio-economic agenda by those of a particular political bias which has served to corrupt the underlying reason for the necessity of all of this in the first place.
It is not a coincidence that the political left was pushing it then and the political left is pushing it now. The demonstrated, inherent, historical and current political bias inextricably intertwined with the theory of man-made global warming pushes any honest, objective search for truth out of the realm of possibilities.
Our justice system provides a good example. Would you want a detective, who you know hates your guts, investigating you? No. It would only be a fair and impartial search for truth if the detective was impartial. Any significant bias on the part of the investigator would almost assuredly result in some imbalance(s) later on in the proceedings.
The lack of objectivity pertaining to the theory of man-made global warming relegates the theory solely to the realm of political ideology and nothing else.
The former chairman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Meteorology Department, Richard Lindzen said it best when he said words to the effect that the theory of man-made global warming is about money, politics, and power, not science.
This is just the beginning of more gigantic investigations. What has been excavated here is just a small portion of something much larger.
So, what happened to this group of Swedish scientists? Did their descendants, descendant organizations, and/or disciples go on to have anything to do with the New Manhattan Project? We know what has become of their theory of man-made global warming. Did their descendants, biological or otherwise, continue with the global warming nonsense? This apparently is the case.
When one considers some of the elements discussed here in this paper such as: the theory of man-made climate change, the extreme political left, and Theosophy, one begins to make out a history of how we got to where we are now. One begins to see how the establishment uses the political left to accomplish their objectives.
Yes, we all know that the political right has their problems, too; with all the imperialistic war mongering and such. That is all very well documented. But the dysfunction of the political left tends to manifest itself in domestic tyranny rather than international tyranny and is more difficult to see because it is not as well documented. As exemplified again here by Arrhenius’ successful media forays, the political left has historically dominated media; the inadequacies of the political left are therefore not as well documented due to lack of self-introspection common in our society and not limited to the political left.
My Minds page
My Steemit page
My GoodReads page
My YouTube channel
About the Author
Peter A. Kirby is a San Rafael, CA author and activist