The verdict, for all intents and purposes, is in. Chemtrails exist. Substances are deliberately put into the atmosphere and the oceans in order to modify the weather on a global scale. Our soure is none other than a BBC News article of November 26, 2014, by David Shukman, titled, Geo-engineering: Climate fixes “could harm billions’.
It is an article worth reading, for its sinister implications. Even if the reader is among the “other” billions who would not be harmed, might it just be that there could arise the mental anguish of having been a survivor of such a brave new world?
Chilling it is, that one would want to cool down the temperatures prevailing on the globe at this time, in the way, or ways, proposed. Note, that is where the article goes, in spite of the wording of the title.
All “for the good of the planet”, though it involves what we will here call “quack science”, in order not to repeat the BBC’s more moderate language. There still remain important aspects of the article over which words will not be minced.
Although chemtrails are never mentioned, it stands to reason, that the idea mentioned, of planes spraying chemical particles, of whatever element, if emitted in a manner similar to that of pesticides from a crop-duster, implies a visible chemtrail. The terminology is fitting, and cannot be of false coinage by conspiracy theorists, as, in the first place, it is discharged as a trail, and secondly, it contains a chemical element.
One British scientist called it “terrifying”, but was in favour of the necessity of such measures. It reminds me of reading about the first nuclear explosion – allegedly the scientists did not know if it was safe. Now, 30 years after reading that, I see that that the preceding statement is supposedly debunked, in a thread referring not only to thermonuclear explosions, but also to geo-engineering. But the “debunking” aricle does say that Edward Teller speculated about the possiblility, and that Enrico Fermi started, as a joke, taking bets on the extent of the damage; though it must be admitted, that in the worst case scenario, there would never have been a pay-out. Oppenheimer had a computer calculation done on the matter. Considering some of the mistakes that NASA has made, we may consider ourselves lucky.
Two regions which would be severely affected by a successful implementation of a method to cool the earth, are India, and the Sahel.
What this means, considering the insistence by some, of the necessity of going ahead, is that the poor of those areas are going to be even worse off. Well, I supposed the first-world countries are not worried about this rather post-colonial neo-exploitation. That is, first the exploitation was to extract the riches; now, we propose giving them a bad climate, so that others can have a good one. They have already been used to take our garbage. [3 different links]
Canada could stand to benefit, as it has a huge stockpile of sulphur [search for word “McMurray” in this link, and consider the image, and that paragraph].
The article also mentioned dumping a half-dozen tones of a ferrous solution into meridional waters somewhere between Africa and South America. The effects on fish life is not mentioned. The pre-experiment phase is described here. A prior BBC article mentions that the German environmental ministry tried to stop this project, objected to by, ironically, “green” campaign groups.
From a moral point of views, the specific ideas mentioned above constitute a form of preventive warfare – not against any nation, but against the weather. President Obama has even designated it as a military objective, according to one point of view.
If any country with a desert, or semi-desert, or just plain unproductive lands found a way to turn those lands green, whether by trees, or plants (I would suggest those easily-growing super-weeds which survive the pesticides applied on genetically-modified plants), neighbouring countries experiencing a climate change could not really complain. No country is obliged to keep its lands sterile, just as none should be forced not to develop to its fullest potential. That takes care of the Sahel.
The solutions for India might have to be different. The monsoon, according to the scientists, would be disrupted. Its worst effects would not be missed. It it ever came to too many dry areas of the world becoming green, and thus harming India (a doubtful scenario), by then the time should have come, when the weather on the subcontinent could be changed locally.
In the context of the U.S. war on weather, may the U.S. Air Force will have to reopen HAARP, in Alaska – assuming that the conspiracy theorists have it right!
Copyright ⓒ 2014 Paul Karl Moeller – November 1, 2014.