Chemtrails and Climate Change
I was reading a recent New York Times article about how scientists are investigating whether releasing tons of particulates into the atmosphere might be helpful in fighting global warming.
For the past few years, the Harvard professor David Keith has been sketching this vision: Ten Gulfstream jets, outfitted with special engines that allow them to fly safely around the stratosphere at an altitude of 70,000 feet, take off from a runway near the Equator. Their cargo includes thousands of pounds of a chemical compound — liquid sulfur, let’s suppose — that can be sprayed as a gas from the aircraft. It is not a one-time event; the flights take place throughout the year, dispersing a load that amounts to 25,000 tons. If things go right, the gas converts to an aerosol of particles that remain aloft and scatter sunlight for two years. The payoff? A slowing of the earth’s warming — for as long as the Gulfstream flights continue.
A Harvard professor basically describing the chemtrails conspiracy theory. Cool!
Attitudes appear to have changed over the past few years, at least in part because of the continuing academic debates and computer-modeling studies. The National Academy of Sciences endorsed the pursuit of solar geoengineering research in 2015, a stance also taken in a later report by the Obama administration. A few influential environmental groups, like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund, now favor research.
I think that at this time in history, any sane person with a thinking brain, would be skeptic to anything that the Government says "ok, let's do it!".
In the meantime, Keith’s own work at Harvard has progressed. This month, he is helping to start Harvard’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program, a broad endeavor that begins with $7 million in funding and intends to reach $20 million over seven years. One backer is the Hewlett Foundation; another is Bill Gates, whom Keith regularly advises on climate change. Keith is planning to conduct a field experiment early next year by putting particles into the stratosphere over Tucson.
It is not a new idea. In 2000, Keith published a long academic paper on the history of weather and climate modification, noting that an Institute of Rainmaking was established in Leningrad in 1932 and that American engineers began a cloud-seeding campaign in Vietnam a few decades later. [...] To Keith’s knowledge, though, there have been only two actual field experiments so far. One, by a Russian scientist in 2009, released aerosols into the lower atmosphere via helicopter and appears to have generated no useful data. “It was a stunt,” Keith says. Another was a modest attempt at cloud brightening a few years ago by a team at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego.
Nothing new indeed.
There are risks, undeniably — some small, others potentially large and terrifying. David Santillo, a senior scientist at Greenpeace, told me that some modeling studies suggest that putting aerosols in the atmosphere, which might alter local climates and rain patterns and would certainly affect the amount of sunlight hitting the earth, could have a significant impact on biodiversity. [...] Alan Robock, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Rutgers, has compiled an exhaustive list of possible dangers. [...] A real prospect exists, too, that if solar geoengineering efforts were to stop abruptly for any reason, the world could face a rapid warming even more dangerous than what’s happening now — perhaps too fast for any ecological adaptation.
For the moment, and perhaps for 10 or 20 years more, these are mere hypotheticals. But the impacts of climate change were once hypotheticals, too. Now they’ve become possibilities and probabilities. And yet, as Tom Ackerman, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington, said at a recent discussion among policy makers that I attended in Washington: “We are doing an experiment now that we don’t understand.”
To make it clear to anyone reading, I am not denying that global warming is happening. I am also not a scientist.
That being said, what I question is how much the effect of human activity on this planet contributes to this global warming and how much it is a natural cycle that the planet goes through regardless of us. I personally suspect that our influence on this process has been largely blown out of proportion for ideological and political reasons.
It is yet another tool that Governments and politicians use for power and control over us all. Just like how they are using the dangers and "war on terrorism" to impose new regulations for surveillance and control. Or how they are still using the dangers and "war on drugs" for God knows what. It's the same thing now used with the dangers of global warming. Putting aside that all of this global warming caused by us hysteria is all based on computer simulations and predictions and "possibilities and probabilities", the fact that you are not allowed to question it in any way should be an attention sign to anyone.
What's really disappointing for me is how regular people fall for the same lies over and over again and how they are willing to accept and to give away a little bit of their freedoms just because an authority told them to do so by deceiving them with well-constructed future scenarios. I personally, how George Carlin put it, "don't believe anything the Government tells me".
I'll end here with another excerpt from the end of this NYT article which you can read in full here.
If anything could sway a fence-sitter to consider whether geoengineering research makes sense, perhaps it is this. The fact is, we are living through a test already.