Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-09-2009, 07:09 AM,
02-09-2009, 01:44 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-09-2009, 03:01 PM by JazzRoc.)
Samples of water were collected in August 2007, in Stamps Arkansas, by leaving some bowls outside for a month. The resultant dirty water was tested by KSLA and was found to have the same amount of barium in it as most municipal tap water. The reporter misunderstood the results, and said there was a lot of barium.

Some conspiracy theorists think that persistent spreading contrails indicate some kind of deliberate aerial spraying, probably by the government. They speculate as to what could be in these trails, and one of the most common things they claim is barium.

Some people are so obsessed by this idea that they have rainwater tested to see if it has barium in it. They usually find some, and then trumpet this as evidence that their theory is correct. Unfortunately they are wrong. I’ll explain why, but first, some basic science.

What is Barium?
Barium is a metal, like calcium. You never find it in its metal form (outside of a lab), as it oxidizes rapidly in the air. Instead you’ll find compounds, usually barium sulfate or barium carbonate. Barium compounds are used in the plastics, rubber, electronics and textile industries, in ceramic glazes and enamels, in glass-making, brick-making and paper-making, as a lubricant additive, in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, in case-hardening of steel and in the oil and gas industry as a wetting agent for drilling mud. Barium in water comes primarily from natural sources as it is present as a trace element in both igneous and sedimentary rocks. Barium is generally present in air in particulate form as a result of industrial emissions, particularly from combustion of coal and diesel oil and waste incineration.

µ and Parts Per …
When you measure the concentration of a substance in water, you can express it in various ways. You have to pay attention to units when converting from one way to another.

A liter of water weighs 1 kilogram, which is 1000 grams.

A milligram is 1/1000th (a thousandth) of a gram. 1mg = 1 milligram = 0.001g

A microgram is 1/1000000 (a millionth) of a gram. 1ug = 1µg = 1 microgram

Note that last line, because it’s important. The symbol µ is the greek letter “mu”. In measuring, it’s used to mean “micro”, or “millionth”. (To type µ, hold down the Alt key, type 230 on the numeric keypad, and then release the Alt key). Since it’s difficult to type, it’s often written using the letter “u”. Make sure you understand the difference between a milligram (mg, 1/1000th or a gram) and a microgram (µg, ug, 1/1000000th of a gram). A milligram is thousandth, not a millionth. It’s a little confusing sometimes.

A microgram is a millionth of a gram, so it’s a billionth of a kilogram. Since there are 1000 grams in a kilogram, and 1,000,000 micrograms in a gram, there are 1,000,000,000 µg in a kilogram. All this is basic high school science.

Concentration in water is measured as ppm, ppb, g/L, mg/L, µg/L. These are parts per million, parts per billion, grams per liter, milligrams per liter and micrograms per liter. We can convert between these easily:

1 ppm = 1 mg/L = 1000 ppb = 1000 µg/L

1 ppb = 1 µg/L = 0.001 ppm = 0.001 mg/L

(remember that 1 Liter is 1000 grams, so 1 mg in one liter is a thousandth of a gram in one thousand grams, or 1 part in a million).

Chemtrail claims
This video is very popular right now. Claiming that water was analyzed and found to have barium in it.

The video was taken in Stamps, Arkansas, which is not entirely surprising as that’s in a region of the US the might be renamed “Contrail Alley”. It’s at the intersection of the cross country routes between the West Coast, and the major airport in Atlanta, Orlando and Jacksonville. Stamps is midway between the two major regional VORs (Texarkana and El Dorado), right next to the major East-West airway Victor V278, and on the edge of a MOA that traffic has to skirt occasionally. It’s also directly below the Atlanta to Dallas, San Antonio to New York and Houston to Chicago flight routes. On just ONE of these routes (Atlanta to Dallas) there is a scheduled commuter flight, directly overhead, at contrail altitude every 15 minutes! The same frequency of flights is found on the Houston-Chicago route, which crosses at right angles almost exactly overhead. Hence, when the weather is right, it is inevitable that you will see contrails in a grid pattern, “a giant checkerboard”. See this Google Earth file: airlines-over-stamps.kmz

But back to the video. It shows a jar of dirty water (collected 9/1/2007), which was collected by Bill Nichols. He’s posted some comments on the YouTube video describing how he collected the water: "It was rainwater. i collected it in two separate bowls on the hood of a pickup truck in my backyard. we are 25 miles from the nearest interstate. this is a very poor county, the only industry is chickens, logging , farming, a little oil - no coal burners or anything like that. I wasn’t looking for attention. I was looking for answers, KSLA said they would pay to get it tested. I dropped it off, and they asked my opinion. I put 2 clean bowls there specifically because I wanted to catch what was falling. I don’t recall exactly when I put the bowls there, but they were there for about a month before I contacted KSLA. The goo that I caught was full of barium. Have a cool day!"

Pause for a second, and consider if you left a bowl out for the month of August in rural Arkansas, what would you expect to find in it after a month? Some dirty water? Perhaps a little dust? What’s dust made of outdoor? Dirt, dried topsoil. What would you expect to find in the dirt in Arkansas - one of the richest sources of barium in the US? You’d expect a bit of Barium - but did they actually find any more than you’d get in tap water?

This dirty water was tested, the test results are available in full here. You can also see the results in the video, at around 00:55 to 00:59. Here they are pieced together. That’s quite straightforward right? Barium found at 68.8 µg/L. That’s 68.8 parts per billion. Now listen to the audio at that precise point (also transcribed on the KSLA web site):

The results: a high level of barium, 6.8 parts per million (ppm), more than three times the toxic level set by the EPA”.

Immediately you can see something is wrong here. it’s 68.8, not 6.8, and it’s not parts per million, it’s parts per billion. So it’s actually 0.0688 parts per million.

And what of “three times the toxic level set by the EPA”? They are referring to the EPA Limits, as quoted by the CDC:

“The EPA has set a limit of 2.0 milligrams of barium per liter of drinking water (2.0 mg/L), which is the same as 2 ppm [parts per million].”

So the EPA limit is 2 ppm (2000 µg/L), and the tests actually found 0.0688 ppm (68.8 µg/L), just 3.4% of the allowable limit.

That limit’s not really a “toxic level” either. There’s no evidence that it would be toxic even at that level (which, remember, is 29 times higher than what was actually found). The world health organization has set a drinking water level of 7 ppm after doing studies into the health effects of barium.

Barium has always been in water
The WHO also reported on the barium levels in drinking water (meaning, from a tap, not some dirty puddle) and they found: “In a study of water supplies of cities in the USA, a median value of 43 μgtre was reported; in 94% of all determinations, the concentrations found were below 100µgtre (IPCS, 1990)

So the average was 43 µg/L, but most were below 100µg/L. This means the amount of Barium found in this supposed chemtrail residue was about the same as was found in the municipal water supplies in the US, back in 1990. This is pretty low, it varies with geography based on the type of rocks in the aquifer.

In Tuscany, Italy, the barium in drinking water was around 1000µg/L (1ppm), quite a lot higher, but still within safe limits. If you Google "water-based disease in Tuscany" all you will find is an article about cryptosporidium. a water-based bacterial infection which we occasionally get here in the Canary Islands.

The amount of barium will also vary based on the weather. Very heavy rains will leach more barium out into the groundwater. So you’d expect more barium after very rainy seasons. This is actually what you find if you look at the historical records in California (which has very uneven annual rainfall). You see spikes in barium whenever there is a wet year after a dry year. Recent years like these are 1991, 1995, 1998 and 2004 (2001 and 2003 also spiked to a lesser extent). The expected peaks were confirmed by the results of Rosalind Peterson at California Skywatch.

So what’s going on here? Chemtrail theorists are constantly claiming that “chemtrails” are made of barium, and that it’s affecting our health. But whenever water is tested, it is found to have perfectly normal levels of barium, which vary as expected based on the rainfall. In the cases where they claim it’s got an unusual amount, this is just a misunderstanding of the units and limits involved.

Yes, there is barium in the drinking water, there always has been, and always will be. Trace amounts, mostly from the environment and some industrial pollution. It’s a very small amount, and not dangerous. There is no evidence to suggest it has anything to do with “chemtrails.”

When you post this sort of thing, Hilly, even after it has been debunked, it's like you've pulled down your kecks and shat on the site. Why do you do this?
02-09-2009, 11:06 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-09-2009, 11:08 PM by icosaface.)
How to fight back against Chemtrails

The Moses gif is from Northern Resistance

[Image: moses.gif]
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi

Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
02-09-2009, 11:19 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-09-2009, 11:21 PM by JazzRoc.)
It's FRAUDULENT all the way through, Icosafool. It takes lies and attempts to legitimise them by placing them amongst worthwhile concepts.

The "inside a sprayer" and the "gapped trail" I know for a fact are (and have proved them to be) fraudulent, lying, photoshopped pieces. The wingtip pod is a French Air Force refuelling spool.

Is it OK to LIE? Why follow ANYTHING if it requires lies to support it? If you hate Bush for being a liar, why can't you hate this? Isn't it the same thing?
02-10-2009, 01:56 AM,
"When you post this sort of thing, Hilly, even after it has been debunked, it's like you've pulled down your kecks and shat on the site. Why do you do this? "

Not really, just attempting to see where you are coming from with all the defending of TPTB. Lets just say, enlightening.
02-10-2009, 05:18 AM,
Bullshit Jizzrot! A few of the frames are obviously there for effect and not to be taken as fact. Is it ok for you to lie? You claim to be environmentally savvy and you claim that chemtrails, as described and pointed out in this thread, do not exist. You are either as environmentally aware as a cow patty or you are attempting to mislead those reading this thread.You haven't proved anything, don't let your "I'm a scientist, I know everything" cover story go to your head. If you can't see the truth in front of your face don't expect me to take your word cause you went to a few university classes and know what a wind tunnel is.
The idea of the video is to take action. The plane pictures may or may not be equipment that they use to spray aerosols with. It is not relevant to the idea behind the video and that is to google it and when you wake up, take action of some sort. The only time they spoke about having proof was in relation to the tests that they had done. Neither you nor I know the actual validity of their tests. You can spew reams of "intense research" around like a junior Richard Kleindienst but you aren't going to convince me that my experiential gathered fresh daily data is inferior to your "Piled Higher and Deeper but can't see what is in front of your face where ever you are on the globe" data.

I didn't like the picture of the young man who was throwing what I took to be a rock. That, in my opinion, is going to a gunfight with a rock, this is not the way to win. If you want to win you need to do what they don't expect you to do
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi

Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
02-10-2009, 05:40 AM,
The Chemtrail
Smoking Gun

Proof of global atmospheric geoengineering

by: Bruce Conway

"There are more things
in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt in your philosophy."
- Shakespeare

Five years ago I founded the
Chemtrails Hall of Shame web site to document and investigate
the elusive Chemtrail spraying operations in the skies above my
home in the Pacific NW. The site can be found at:

During this time I have had the opportunity to work with and befriend
several of the luminaries within this field of investigation:
Diane Harvey, Brian Holmes and a very special investigator who
chooses to remain anonymous in this article. Each of these individuals
has contributed greatly to the subject, keeping this topic alive
within the alternative media . These chemtrail spraying programs,
which are apparently being conducted on a worldwide basis, are
evident to anyone who has the desire to look up and perceive the
evidence. Yet, definitive proof has remained elusive.

Total denial by governmental
authorities, the shunning of this topic by mainstream media, the
systematic discreditation of researchers, ongoing coverups by
the scientific establishment, and a coordinated systematic policy
of disinformation has relegated this topic to the realm of fantasy
and paranoid delusion. Regardless, it continues to go on above
our heads, and has now grown to become the largest coordinated
global engineering project in the history of our species. How
can I make such a preposterous claim?

Brian Holmes of
has investigated these eco-crimes for the past several years.
Because of his efforts, many within Canada and on the net have
become aware of the ongoing spraying operations. Like other serious
investigators who have studied this phenomena, Brian's work has
been maligned, and there are ongoing attempts to discredit him
and his sources.

Some months ago, a Chemtrail
insider that Brian nicknamed 'Deep Shield' came forward with specific
and detailed information about this mysterious program, corresponding
with him via e-mail. A transcript of the communications with Deep
Shield and the Shield Project can be read online at:
For those of us who have studied chemtrails carefully, the revealing
dialog rang of the truth.

Since then we have been able
to study, and verify a number of Deep Shield's primary claims.
The anonymous insider gave Brian's readers some valuable clues
to follow if they wished to investigate deeper into the history
and hard science of chemtrails. A primary clue was to investigate
the term 'geoengineering.'

One investigator took the clues
provided by 'Deep Shield' and dug in. She eventually found an
N.A.S. study on Geoengineering and the Mitigation of Global Warming.
This study is still available online and is also available in
hardcover. This massive document validates the insider information
provided by Deep Shield, and has lead to an additional gold mine
of evidence.

This massive research study
is entitled: Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation,
Adaptation, and the Science Base - Panel on Policy Implications
of Greenhouse Warming, sponsored by the National Academy of
Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of
Medicine. The results were presented in 1992 and published in
book form in 2000 by the National Academy Press. This 994 page
study is the textbook on greenhouse gasses, global warming, policy
decisions and mitigation's (corrective measures). Included within
is the hard science many chemtrails researchers have been searching
for: the scientists, agencies, institutions and corporations involved,
cost factors, chemical formula, mathematical modeling, delivery
methods, policies, recruiting of foreign governments, acquisition
of materials, and the manufacturing of aerosol compounds, ect.

Policy Implications of Global Warming">This entire volume
can presently be read online at:
Keep in mind that this study is only the tip of the iceberg. Literally
hundreds of papers on related topics have been published in scientific
journals. We don't expect this featured study to remian online
for long once the cat is out of the bag. So do check it out soon.

The full involvement of foremost
government agencies, research firms, universities and private
corporations are detailed in this global 'geoengineering' study.
Keep in mind that this was approved by and funded by Congress.
We expect that this documentation will bolster the beliefs of
most hardcore chemtrail believers. It will also continue to undermining
what little trust still remains in our leaders and their institutions.
This documentation proves that they have lied repeatedly about
their involvement and the existence of chemtrail spraying programs.

It alsp appears that we 'Chemtrail'
investigators have been chasing our tails, being intentionally
discredited, maligned, and fed disinformation to keep the actual
truth just below the levels of media perception. The real story
has been taking place in broad daylight, safely concealed under
the scientific umbrella of 'Geoengineering and intentional climate

Chemtrails are just one of the
'mitigations' proposed to Geoengineering our planet. Once we began
sifting through the numerous studies, experiments and papers written
on intentional climate change, we found a wealth of supporting
evidence of well funded global atmospheric modification programs.
One such paper is Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan
Project http://www.metatronics.nett/geo2.html#two
(Jay Michaelson, published in the Stanford Environmental Law
Journal, January, 1998)

The author makes a very convincing
case for the pressing need of undertaking geoengineering projects.
He argues that regulation, environmental laws and other stumbling
blocks limit our ability to directly address the dangers that
threaten us directly and immediately. He writes: "The projected
insufficiency of Kyoto's emission reduction regime, and the problems
of absence, cost, and incentives discussed in part II, cry out
for an alternative to our present state of climate change policy

human-directed manipulation of the Earth's climatic systems--may
be such an alternative. This part proposes that, unlike a regulatory
"Marshall Plan" of costly emissions reductions, technology
subsidies, and other mitigation measures, a non-regulatory "Manhattan
Project" geared toward developing feasible geoengineering
remedies for climate change can meaningfully close the gaps in
global warming and avert many of its most dire consequences."

"In some ways, this phase
has already begun, as geoengineering has moved from the pages
of science fiction to respectable scientific and policy journals.
[FN127] One of the most encouraging proposals today focuses on
the creation of vast carbon sinks by artificially stimulating
phytoplankton growth with iron "fertilizer" in parts
of the Earth's oceans. [FN128] Another proposal suggests creating
miniature, *106 artificial "Mount Pinatubos" by allowing
airplanes to release dust particles into the upper atmosphere,
simulating the greenhouse- arresting eruption of Mount Pinatubo
in 1991. [FN129]" pp. 105-106, Geoengineering: A Climate
Change Manhattan Project."

In Policy Implications of
Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Bases
conclusion, the N.A.S. found that the most effective global
warming mitigation turned out to be the spraying of reflective
aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing commercial, military
and private aircraft. This preferred mitigation method is
designed to create a global atmospheric shield which would increase
the planet's albedo (reflectivity) using aerosol compounds of
aluminum and barium oxides, and to introduce ozone generating
chemicals into the atmosphere.

This method was the most cost
effective, and yielded the largest benefits. It could also be
conducted covertly to avoid the burdens of environmental protection
and regulatory entanglements.

It is evident to anyone who
cares to look up, that this mitigation is now being conducted
worldwide and on a daily basis. It is certain that our leaders
have already embarked on an immense geoengineering project; one
in which they expect millions of human fatalities, and consider
these to be acceptable losses.

This landmark study; the widespread
experimentation and published papers of atmospheric theorists
and scientists, combined with the visual evidence that atmospheric
mitigations are being conducted in our skies, clearly shows that
Chemtrail spraying has became a preferred solution to global warming

The evidence is all around us.
For example; this past week Boeing Aircraft received an enormous
initial order from the Pentagon for 100 Boeing 767 tanker planes,
to begin replacing the Air Force's aging fleet of KC-135s, the
most commonly seen chemtrail spray plane. The final order will
exceed 500 planes. There has been no mention of the usage of these

Geoengineering is being carried
on Earth on a staggering scale, without the impediment of environmental
laws or regulatory constraints. This grand experiment is being
conducted in full view, while being concealed in plain sight.


The following excerpts detail
the preferred geoengineering Mitigations for reducing greenhouse
gasses, global warming and radiation from space. Quoted from:
Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation,
and the Science Base - Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse

Evaluating Geoengineering

"Several geoengineering
options appear to have considerable potential for offsetting global
warming and are much less expensive than other options being considered.
Because these options have the potential to affect the radiative
forcing of the planet, because some of them cause or alter a variety
of chemical reactions in the atmosphere, and because the climate
system is poorly understood, such options must be considered extremely
carefully. These options might be needed if greenhouse warming
occurs, climate sensitivity is at the high end of the range considered
in this report, and other efforts to restrain greenhouse gas emissions

"The first set of geoengineering
options screens incoming solar radiation with dust or soot in
orbit about the earth or in the atmosphere. The second set changes
cloud abundance by increasing cloud condensation nuclei through
carefully controlled emissions of particulate matter."

"The stratospheric particle
options should be pursued only under extreme conditions or if
additional research and development removes the concern about
these problems. The cloud stimulation option should be examined
further and could be pursued if concerns about acid rain could
be managed through the choice of materials for cloud condensation
nuclei or by careful management of the system. The third class
increases ocean absorption of CO2 through stimulating growth of
biological organisms."

Screening Out Some Sunlight

"Another option
for mitigating a global warming would be to try to control the
global radiation balance by limiting the amount of incoming radiation
from the sun. This could be done by increasing the reflectivity
of the earth, i.e., the albedo. Proposals for increasing the whiteness
of roofs and surface features would have some effect, but only
a fraction of incident solar radiation reaches the earth's surface
and a purposeful change in albedo would have more impact if done
high in the atmosphere. According to Ramanathan (1988), an increase
in planetary albedo of just 0.5 percent is sufficient to halve
the effect of a CO2 doubling. Placing a screen in the atmosphere
or low earth orbit could take several forms: it could involve
changing the quantity or character of cloud cover, it could take
the form of a continuous sheet, or it could be divided into many
''mirrors" or a cloud of dust. Preliminary characterizations
of some of the possibilities that might be considered are provided

Stratospheric Dust

"Although the space
dust option does not appear to be sensible, computations of the
residence times of 0.2-µm dust above 20 to 40 km are of
the order of 1 to 3 years (Hunten, 1975). It seems to be generally
accepted that volcanic aerosols remain in the stratosphere for
several years (Kellogg and Schneider, 1974; Ramaswamy and Kiehl,
1985). A screen could be created in the stratosphere by adding
more dust to the natural stratospheric dust to increase its net
reflection of sunlight."

Mass Estimates

"Ramaswamy and
Kiehl (1985) estimate that an aerosol dust loading of 0.2 g/m2
for dust with a radius of about 0.26 µm increases the planetary
albedo by 12 percent, resulting in a 15 percent decrease of solar
flux reaching the surface. Since an approximately 1 percent change
in solar flux is required, and their Figures 13 and 15 suggest
that, at these loadings, the dust effects may reasonably be extrapolated
downward linearly, estimates will be made by using a dust loading
of 0.02 g/m2 with a particle radius of 0.26 µm."

"The dust in Ramaswamy
and Kiehl's model is distributed between 10 and 30 km in the stratosphere,
uniformly over the globe. The actual effect on radiative forcing
of a global distribution of additional dust would be somewhat
greater at low than at high latitudes because more of the sunlight
is effective there for geometric reasons. This would decrease
slightly the equator-to-pole temperature gradients and might have
some effect on weather intensity. Presumably, this effect can
also be studied with global climate models."

Delivery Scenarios

"Aircraft Exhaust
Penner et al. (1984) suggested that emissions of 1 percent of
the fuel mass of the commercial aviation fleet as particulates,
between 40,000- and 100,000-foot (12- to 30-km) altitude for a
10-year period, would change the planetary albedo sufficiently
to neutralize the effects of an equivalent doubling of CO2. They
proposed that retuning the engine combustion systems to burn rich
during the high-altitude portion of commercial flights could be
done with negligible efficiency loss. Using Reck's estimates of
extinction coefficients for particulates (Reck, 1979a, 1984),
they estimated a requirement of about 1.168 ¥ 1010 kg of particulates,
compared with the panel's estimate of 1010 kg, based upon Ramaswamy
and Kiehl (1985). They then estimated that if 1 percent of the
fuel of aircraft flying above 30,000 feet is emitted as soot,
over a 10-year period the required mass of particulate material
would be emitted.

However, current commercial aircraft fleets seldom operate above
40,000 feet (12 km), and the lifetimes of particles at the operating
altitudes will be much shorter than 10 years."

"An alternate possibility
is simply to lease commercial aircraft to carry dust to their
maximum flight altitude, where they would distribute it. To make
a cost estimate, a simple assumption is made that the same amount
of dust assumed above for the stratosphere would work for the
tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere).
The results can be scaled for other amounts. The comments made
above about the possible effect of dust on stratospheric ozone
apply as well to ozone in the low stratosphere, but not in the
troposphere. The altitude of the tropopause varies with latitude
and season of the year."

"In 1987, domestic airlines
flew 4,339 million ton-miles of freight and express, for a total
express and freight operating revenue of $4,904 million (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1988). This gives a cost of slightly more
than $1 per ton-mile for freight. If a dust distribution mission
requires the equivalent of a 500-mile flight (about 1.5 hours),
the delivery cost for dust is $500/t, and ignoring the difference
between English and metric tons, a cost of $0.50/kg of dust. If
1010 kg must be delivered each 83 days, (provided dust falls out
at the same rate as soot), 5 times more than the 1987 total ton-miles
will be required."

"The question of whether
dedicated aircraft could fly longer distances at the same effective
rate should be investigated."

Changing Cloud Abundance
- The Approach

"Independent studies
estimated that an approximately 4 percent increase in the coverage
of marine stratocumulus clouds would be sufficient to offset CO2
doubling (Reck, 1978; Randall et al., 1984). Albrecht (1989) suggests
that the average low-cloud reflectivity could be increased if
the abundance of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) increased due
to emissions of SO2. It is proposed that CCN emissions should
be released over the oceans, that the release should produce an
increase in the stratocumulus cloud albedo only, and that the
clouds should remain at the same latitudes over the ocean where
the surface albedo is relatively constant and small."

"Albrecht (1989) estimates
that a roughly 30 percent increase in CCN would be necessary to
increase the fractional cloudiness or albedo of marine stratocumulus
clouds by 4 percent. Albrecht's idealized stratocumulus cloud,
which he argues is typical, has a thickness of 375 m, a drizzle
rate of 1 mm per day, and a mean droplet radius of 100 mm, and
he assumes that each droplet is formed by the coalescence of 1000
smaller droplets. The rate at which the CCN are depleted by his
model is 1000/cm3 per day. Consequently, about 300/cm3 per day
(30 percent of 1000) of additional CCN would have to be discharged
per day at the base of the cloud to maintain a 4 percent increase
in cloudiness. This assumes that the perturbed atmosphere would
also remain sufficiently close to saturation in the vicinity of
the CCN that additional cloud cover would be formed every time
the number of CCN increased."

Mass Estimates of Cloud Condensation

"With Albrecht's
assumption in mind that cloudiness in a typical ocean region is
limited by the small number of CCN, we now extrapolate to the
entire globe. On the average, 31.2 percent of the globe is covered
by marine stratiform clouds (Charlson et al., 1987). If no high-level
clouds are present, the number n of CCN that need to be added
per day is 1.8 ¥ 1025 CCN/day. The mass of a CCN is equal
to 4/3pr3 ¥ density, and it is assumed that the mean radius
r is equal to 0.07 ¥ 10-4 cm (Charlson et al., 1987). Because
the density of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) is 1.841 g/cm3, the CCN mass
is 2.7 ¥ 10-15 g. The total weight of H2SO4 to be added per
day is 31 ¥ 103 t per day SO2 if all SO2 is converted to H2SO4

To put this number in perspective, a medium-sized coal-fired U.S.
power plant emits about this much SO2 in a year. Consequently,
the equivalent emissions of 365 U.S. coal-burning power plants,
distributed homogeneously, would be needed to produce sufficient

"Cloud stimulation by provision
of cloud condensation nuclei appears to be a feasible and low-cost
option capable of being used to mitigate any quantity of CO2 equivalent
per year. Details of the cloud physics, verification of the amount
of CCN to be added for a particular degree of mitigation, and
the possible acid rain or other effects of adding CCN over the
oceans need to be investigated before such system is put to use.
Once a decision has been made, the system could be mobilized and
begin to operate in a year or so, and mitigation effects would
be immediate. If the system were stopped, the mitigation effect
would presumably cease very rapidly, within days or weeks, as
extra CCN were removed by rain and drizzle."

"Several schemes depend
on the effect of additional dust compounds in the stratosphere
or very low stratosphere screening out sunlight. Such dust might
be delivered to the stratosphere by various means, including being
fired with large rifles or rockets or being lifted by hydrogen
or hot-air balloons. These possibilities appear feasible, economical,
and capable of mitigating the effect of as much CO2 equivalent
per year as we care to pay for. (Lifting dust, or soot, to the
tropopause or the low stratosphere with aircraft may be limited,
at low cost, to the mitigation of 8 to 80 Gt CO2 equivalent per
year.) Such systems could probably be put into full effect within
a year or two of a decision to do so, and mitigation effects would
begin immediately. Because dust falls out naturally, if the delivery
of dust were stopped, mitigation effects would cease within about
6 months for dust (or soot) delivered to the tropopause and within
a couple of years for dust delivered to the midstratosphere."

"Sunlight screening systems
would not have to be put into practice until shortly before they
were needed for mitigation, although research to understand their
effects, as well as design and engineering work, should be done
now so that it will be known whether these technologies are available
if wanted."

"Perhaps one of the surprises
of this analysis is the relatively low costs at which some of
the geoengineering options might be implemented."

(end of excerpts)


Following is a partial list
of those involved in this monumental study:

(former Senator) DANIEL J. EVANS

(Chairman), Chairman, Daniel J. Evans & Associates, Seattle,

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Coolidge Professor of Applied Mathematics, Emeritus, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts

of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

ROBERT A. FROSCH, Vice President,
General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan

THOMAS H. LEE, Professor Emeritus,
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts

President, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

of Economics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut

of Zoology and Director of the Institute for Environmental Studies,
University of Washington, Seattle

Interdisciplinary Climate Systems, National Center for Atmospheric
Research, Boulder, Colorado

MAURICE STRONG, Secretary General,
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, New
York (resigned from panel February 1990)

Green College, Oxford, England

VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Senior Consultant, Landers, Parsons and
Uhlfelder, Tallahassee, Florida

PAUL E. WAGGONER, Distinguished
Scientist, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New

PETER BREWER, Executive Director,
Monterey Bay Aquarium and Research Center, Pacific Grove, California

of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.

ROBERT EVENSON, Professor of
Economics, Yale University, Economic Growth Center, New Haven,

DOUGLAS FOY, Executive Director,
Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts

ROBERT A. FROSCH, Vice President,
General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan

RICHARD GARWIN, Fellow, Thomas
J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York, and Adjunct
Professor of Physics, Columbia University, New York

JOSEPH GLAS, Director, Vice
President, and General Manager, Fluorochemicals Division, E.I.
du Pont, Wilmington, Delaware

KAI N. LEE, Professor and Director,
Center for Environmental Studies, Williams College, Williamstown,

GREGG MARLAND, Scientist, Environmental
Science Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

President, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, and Director,
Center for Building Science, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley,

EDWARD S. RUBIN, Professor,
Mechanical Engineering and Public Policy, and Director, Center
for Energy and Environmental Studies, Carnegie-Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

MILTON RUSSELL, Professor of
Economics and Senior Fellow, University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
and Collaborating Scientist, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee

Interdisciplinary Climate Systems, National Center for Atmospheric
Research, Boulder, Colorado

of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

THOMAS H. STIX, Professor, Department
of Astrophysics and Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton, New Jersey

of Law, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. (resigned from
panel October 1990)

T. Jefferson Coolidge Professor of Applied Mathematics, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

of Hydrology, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York

ROBERT D. CESS, Leading Professor,
State University of New York, Stony Brook

Statistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Department of Atmospheric Sciences,
University of Arizona, Tucson

JOHN IMBRIE, H.L. Doherty Professor
of Oceanography, Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University,
Providence, Rhode Island

THOMAS B. KARL, Meteorologist,
Climate Research and Applications, National Climate Data Center,
Asheville, North Carolina

and Division Leader, Atmospheric and Geophysical Sciences, Lawrence
Livermore Laboratory, University of California, Livermore

BERRIEN MOORE, Professor and
Director, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space,
University of New Hampshire, Durham


ROB COPPOCK, Staff Director

DEBORAH D. STINE, Staff Officer

NANCY A. CROWELL, Administrative Specialist

MARION R. ROBERTS, Administrative Secretary


Papers of special interest
to Chemtrail Investigators

Jay Michaelson 1998 Geoengineering:
A climate change Manhattan Project - Stanford Environmental
Law Journal January - http://www.metatronics.nett/geo2.html#two

Edward Teller (director emeritus,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), "The Planet Needs
a Sunscreen" Wall Street Journal, October 17, 1997. -

Climate Change 2001: Working
Group III: Mitigation
- by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -

Ramanathan, V. 1988. The
greenhouse theory of climate change: A test by an inadvertent
experiment. Science 243:293­299

Schimel, D., D. Alves, I. Enting,
M. Heimann, F. Joos, D. Raynaud, T., Wigley, M. Prather, R. Derwent,
D. Ehhalt, P. Fraser, E. Sanheuza, X., Zhou, P. Jonas, R. Charlson,
H. Rodhe, S., Sadasivan, K. P. Shine, Y. Fouquart, V. Ramaswamy,
S. Solomon, J., Srinivasan, D. Albritton, I. Isaksen, M. Lal,
and D. Wuebbles, 1996: Radiative forcing of climate change.
In Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 69-131.

Ramaswamy, V., R. J. Charlson,
J. A. Coakley, J. L. Gras, Harshvardhan, G. Kukla, M. P. McCormick,
D. Moller, E. Roeckner, L. L. Stowe, and J. Taylor, 1995: Group
report: what are the observed and anticipated meteorological and
climatic responses to aerosol forcing? In Aerosol Forcing
of Climate, Vol. 20. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 386-399.

Ramaswamy, V., 1988: Aerosol
radiative forcing and model responses. In Aerosols and
Climate, A. Deepak Publishing, 349-372

Ramaswamy, V., and J. T. Kiehl. 1985. Sensitivities of the
radiative forcing due to large loadings of smoke and dust aerosols.
Journal of Geophysical Research 90(D3):5597­5613.

Reck, R. A. 1984. Climatic
Impact of Jet Engine Distribution of Alumina (Al2O3): Theoretical
Evidence for Moderation of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Effects. Report
GMR-4740. Warren, Mich.: General Motors Research Laboratories,
and paper presented to the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco,
Calif., December 1984.

Hunten, D. M. 1975. Residence
times of aerosols and gases in the stratosphere. Geophysical
Research Letters 2(1):26­27.

Mueller, A. C., and D. J. Kessler.
1985. The effects of particulates from solid rocket motors
fired in space. Advances in Space Research 5(2):77­86.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi

Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
02-10-2009, 05:55 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-10-2009, 06:08 AM by icosaface.)
The Shield Project. ( copied from the site.

Here we quote the communication from "Deep Shield":

Having read your email, I must say that you are full of questions. These questions I would dismiss immediately as being the frustrated attempts of fringe groups to bring a halt to the project, however these reports of biological material being part of the spray should be addressed. Therefore I will give as much attention to all of your questions as possible.

1. What purpose do polymer threads imbedded with biological material serve in this scenario?

Polymers are part of the mixture and they do form in threads and in `tufts'. The idea is simple and comes to us from the spider. As you may know spider webbing is very light, some newborn spiders spin a `parachute' to catch the prevailing breeze to travel far from their place of birth. Spiders have been able to attain high altitudes and travel great distances for long periods of time. Most of the elements used in the spray are heavier than air, even in their powdered form they are heavier and will sink quickly. Mixing them with the polymers suspends the particles in the atmosphere high above the surface for longer periods of time, therefore in theory we do not need to spray as often or as much material. Since the suspended particles eventually do settle into the lowest part of the atmosphere and are inhaled by all life forms on the surface there is an attempt to counter the growth of mold by adding to the mixture mold growth suppressants - some of which may be of biological material.

Mold comes in spores that travel on the winds; the polymers can attract mold spores through static charges created by the friction of the polymer threads and the atmosphere. Add a bit of warmth and moisture and mold begins to grow. The polymer is stored in a liquid form as two separate chemicals. When sprayed they combine behind the plane `spinning' long polymer chains (threads). Much tinkering has been done which the chemical matrix in past years. Many polymers (plastics) are non-biodegradable thus add to the problem of pollution. Various formula have been used, some which even use biological agents. It would be great if we could reproduce the same web material that spiders make, it is extremely strong, extremely lightweight and breaks down relatively fast in the ecology.

2. If this spraying is to mitigate global warming, why does so much of it take place at night?

Though it would appear that the dispersal rate of the spray is fast, it is actually takes much longer to be an effective shield. There is a desired concentration being sought. One that is thick enough to stem the UV and the Infrared, while being thin enough to allow visible light through. A perpetual cloud cover would have disastrous effects on plant life; the food chain thus disrupted would soon collapse. The desired effect wanted is a thin cover that would theoretically create a daytime haze that allows plenty of sunlight while providing protection. From UV radiation and also reflect enough infrared to maintain nominal temperatures.

The optimal condition is to use the least amount of material to provide the maximum amount of shielding. Ideally that would be a one-time application which would stay suspended for years, however, as noted, barium and aluminum and other trace elements are far heavier than air and they sink rather rapidly. The different temperatures between day and night causes massive volumes of air to rise during the night, the warm air trapped at the surface rises above the cooling air above. By strategically spraying in certain areas at night, we get the advantage of the rising air, which not only pushes the material higher, but also causes the material to disperse into a thin layer.

I would suggest studying on the subject of weather, namely highs and lows and how air moves to fully understand the times of spraying. I note, it is not just global warming we are combating here, we are also combating UV Summer. Global warming could effectively be treated by applications during the night, when the warm air rises. However the UV needs to be treated during the day. This is why on some days one finds that more spraying is done during the day. The UV indexes are monitored constantly for local areas. If the problem were simply cooling the earth, rockets would have been used to suspend particles in the high atmosphere. However the delicate nature of the Ozone Layer precludes this method of shielding. More on this in the answer to Question 6.

3. What other military programs are in place involving the spraying of barium and what are their purposes? Do you know and understand the chemical make up of the element?

A little knowledge will go a long way to understanding the need to use barium: Barium is often used in barium-nickel alloys for spark-plug electrodes and in vacuum tubes as a drying and oxygen-removing agent. Barium oxidizes in air, and it reacts vigorously with water to form the hydroxide, liberating hydrogen. In moist air it may spontaneously ignite. It burns in air to form the peroxide, which produces hydrogen peroxide when treated with water. Barium reacts with almost all of the nonmetals; all of its water-soluble and acid-soluble compounds are poisonous. Barium carbonate is used in glass, as a pottery glaze, and as a rat poison. Chrome yellow (barium chromate) is used as a paint pigment and in safety matches. The chlorate and nitrate are used in pyrotechnics to provide a green color. Barium oxide strongly absorbs carbon dioxide and water; it is used as a drying agent. Barium chloride is used in medicinal preparations and as a water softener. Barium sulfide phosphoresces after exposure to light; it is sometimes used as a paint pigment. Barite, the sulfate ore, has many industrial uses. Because barium sulfate is virtually insoluble in water and acids, it can be used to coat the alimentary tract to increase the contrast for X-ray photography without being absorbed by the body and poisoning the subject.

Note what Barium Oxide can do, absorb carbon dioxide - one of the chief gasses causing the green house effect. In my answer to Question 4 I will discuss the need to carry a current in the shield. I would like to point out that barium and aluminum work together to diffuse and strengthen an electrical charge. Somewhat like the current produced when acid is introduced between two dissimilar metals, such as iron and copper. There are military applications for everything you can think of, can not a butter knife be used as a weapon? The same concept holds true here.

4. What is the connection between ELF, EMF, VLF and Chemtrails spraying? Or is there one?

To understand the use of radio waves in the shield, one first understands how ozone is created. I cannot stress to you how dire the situation really is. The shield in place is only a partial solution; we must counter the depletion of the ozone- this means we must make ozone in the stratosphere. Ozone at ground levels does no good; indeed, ozone pollution at ground levels it what is used to determine the air quality. Higher levels of ground level ozone mean that air quality is bad. Pure ozone is an unstable, faintly bluish gas with a characteristic fresh, penetrating odor. The gas has a density of 2.144 grams per liter at standard temperature and pressure. Below its boiling point (-112?) ozone is a dark blue liquid; below its melting point (-193?) it is a blue-black crystalline solid. Ozone is triatomic oxygen, O3, and has a molecular weight of 47.9982 atomic mass units (amu). It is the most chemically active form of oxygen. It is formed in the ozone layer of the stratosphere by the action of solar ultraviolet light on oxygen. Although it is present in this layer only to an extent of about 10 parts per million, ozone is important because its formation prevents most ultraviolet and other high-energy radiation, which is harmful to life, from penetrating to the earth's surface. Ultraviolet light is absorbed when its strikes an ozone molecule; the molecule is split into atomic and diatomic oxygen: 03+ ultraviolet light ->0+02. Later, in the presence of a catalyst, the atomic and diatomic oxygen reunite to form ozone.

Ozone is also formed when an electric discharge passes through air; for example, it is formed by lightning and by some electric motors and generators. Ozone is produced commercially by passing dry air between two concentric-tube or plate electrodes connected to an alternating high voltage; this is called the silent electric discharge method. Since UV radiation is the problem, we can not use UV to produce more stratospheric ozone. Another method must be found. The shield acts like one plate of the electrode, when tickled with certain radio waves; it produces an opposite charge to stratospheric layers producing low atmosphere to stratosphere lightening. Creating ozone where it is needed.

5. If this is being done for the reasons you say, then why are other chemicals being used, why are different sprays being used?

Correcting the ecological damage that mankind has done has NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. We are relatively new to this notion of terraforming on a real scale. That is what we are doing, Terraforming. We are trying to recreate the ideal life-sustaining conditions on a dying planet. We have never done this before, not intentionally. We are testing and trying different methods. Granted, if we do nothing 89% of all species will go extinct and humanity stands a high chance of not surviving through two more generations (or less). However the idea of 2 billion casualties death and permanent injury is not easy to swallow either.

Several attempts to improve the application of Shielding material and getting the most out of each application are taking place all the time. The combined resources of the nations of earth are not enough to allow constant spraying. Though we have achieved a high level of technology, there is a great surface area that needs to be covered nearly daily. Large sections of ocean are all but ignored; the remaining land masses are more than what can be covered effectively. The Shield would work best if it was a single thin layer without interruption, however due to the movement of air, weather patterns and the sad fact that we do not have the means to place ample amounts of material at the same level at the same time we are getting a small fraction of the effectiveness from our applications.

6. Why is spraying found before storm fronts? Is it to cause drought?

Before a storm there is a front, the front clears the air before a storm, pushing particulate matter ahead of it, leaving a space relatively clear of particulate matter. UV radiation levels rise in these areas, sometimes to dangerous levels. The shield must be maintained. Since barium absorbs water as well as carbon dioxide, precipitation has been affected. Other kinds of sprays are in development and testing which may reduce the affects on precipitation. As I stated above, this is a new technology we are working with, it is still in its infancy and there are some problems with it.

7. Why are UFO's and disappearing spray planes reported?

I do not know.

8. What about the reports of sickness after spraying?

There are several causatives for this. Some people are more sensitive to metals, whiles others are sensitive to the polymer chemicals. As stated in a previous email, people will get sick, and some will die. It is estimated that 2 billion worldwide will be affected to some degree by the spraying. Without spraying we have a 90% + chance of becoming extinct as a species with in the next 20 years.

9. What is the relationship between these spraying programs and One World Order?

Personally I am against the move for globalization, and yes, there is potential to use the Shield to speed up the process of globalization, there are several countries that are involved in this project: European Union Nations, USA and Russia are the largest contributors to the project, many of the allied nations and UN Members participate to one extent or another. The material (chemical spray as you may call it) comes from all of these nations.

To insure that the chemicals are not tampered with, they are mixed and sprayed over random nations. This means that chemicals produced in the USA has a good chance of being sprayed over Russia, England and the USA. This random spray of material means that no nation would be certain that their chemicals will be sprayed over a nation which they have issues with. Russian planes may be seen in USA skies, but so too will USA planes be seen in Russian skies. The canisters used are sealed in a third nation that has no idea where its canister is going. Participating nations have their observers at every station where canister loading is done. All of this to insure that the shield is not used as a weapon. To further insure that the shield is not used as a weapon, non participant nations are sprayed by participants who must spray in order to get enough material to maintain their nations shield. It is understood that not spraying is as much a military offense as shooting at them.

Without the shield, UV poisoning would cause great death. The threat is a common one, which has brought nations together in defense. The natural outcome of having a common enemy is to strengthen international ties - a step toward globalization.

10. Is the Spraying related to terrorism?

Yes and no. Recent terrorist activity can be traced to resistance groups who feel that we should not interfere with the natural order of things. As you know, there are many rumors out there as to what the Shield Program is. Some believe that this is a population reduction scheme, designed to kill off 'undesirable' peoples. While others hold that this is a mind control program. There are many theories which have sinister plots in them these are propagated by the resistance groups in an attempt to stop the shield regardless of the consequences.

The same delivery method could be used for biological and chemical warfare. It could also be used to inoculate large populations, the effectiveness of these uses are low, there are better methods that can be used. As a means to fight terrorism it is ineffectual, it is far easier to inoculate a population individually and would insure full inoculation against germ warfare.

11. Why all the secrecy?

Due to the severity of the situation it is mandatory to maintain public calm for as long as possible. The Earth is dying. Humanity is on the road to extinction - without the Shield mankind will die off with in 20 to 50 years. Most people alive today could live to see this extinction take place. This means that an announcement of the situation we face boils down to telling every man, woman and child on earth that they have no future, they are going to be killed. People would panic. There would be economic collapse, the production and movement of goods would collapse. Millions would die in all cities on earth, riots and violence would reduce civilian centers to rubble within days. Half of the population in dense metropolitan areas would try to leave the cities seeking 'safety' in the rural areas thinking that they would be safe. Those left behind in the cities would be at war with their neighbors, fighting for the remaining supplies. We would be telling the world that the world is coming to an end, and even with the Shield the chances of survival are small.

UV Summer and Global Warming are the immediate problems we face, there are far greater problems that are raising their ugly heads and will present new problems which in some cases have no viable solutions at this time. Ecologies are collapsing. The extinction rate of species is climbing. The amount of chemical pollutants in the water and soil are fast approaching and in many places has surpassed the earth's ability to heal itself. Crop failure is on the rise, even in the USA the returns on crops are smaller than they were 10 years ago. Even with the advances in genetically altered food crops, we are falling behind in our ability to produce enough to go around. Throughout the 20th century chemical fertilizers and pesticides were used to insure the best yields. Unfortunately many of these have contaminated ground water, killed beneficial insects along with the undesirable insects. These chemicals have gotten into the food chain and are affected other species besides mankind. It is only a matter of years before famine spreads like a cancer throughout the world.

Clean fresh water is in short supply, in many places well water is non-potable, containing the run off of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers that have been used on crops and lawns. The water treatment facilities we have are unable to scrub out all of the toxins we have placed in the soil and water supply. Many of the toxins we find build up over time in the body, a long slow poisoning which has been making its presence felt in many areas of the world in the form of cancers, leukemia, sterility, birth defects, learning disorders, immune deficiency problems, etc. These are on the rise, any good researcher can find the records. For decades there was public outcry for the end to pollution. For every small step we made to clean up our production, millions where born who added to the problem. Yes, pollution is down per individual, however there are a couple more billion individuals producing pollution, thus the real numbers have an increase in over all pollution produced. Name a city that does not have problems with smog. You would be hard pressed to find one. Though smog controls on automobiles is higher than ever before, the number of autos on the road has increased thus the amount of smog producing pollutants is higher than ever before. All the clean air acts passed to curb individual factory and auto emissions did not address the production of more factories and more autos. Here an uneasy compromise was made between the need to maintain the economy against the need to maintain the ecology. The ecology lost since it was estimated to be a problem decades from now. The economy was a problem that would have dire effects today.

All of these factors combined have produced a scenario that in shorts boils down to the end of the world in 50 to 75 years. Even if we were to stop all emissions of pollution today, the inertia of past decades is enough to carry us over the brink in 100 years. However we cannot stop the production of pollution, to do so would mean shutting down every factory, every auto, every train, truck, ship and every household on the planet. Electricity is used to heat many homes in the Western World. The production of electricity produces fewer pollutants than heating all homes with wood or coal. Cutting our power generation abilities down to hydroelectric and fission reactors would leave a good chunk of the world in the dark. It is an impossible situation, our civilization is geared to the use of energy, take away our energy and civilization will collapse.

12. When will spraying stop?

There are several factors governing this:

A. Should the Ozone layer repair itself or our active attempts at repair reduces the amount of ground level UV to acceptable levels, spraying will stop. Present calculations place this between 2018 and 2024.

B. Should another method be found which is more effective, less costly or presents us with long-term solutions the Shield project would be replaced.

C. When the other problems become too big to make the maintenance of the shield worth the effort. The estimated date for this is 2025 to 2050.

13. Since Global Warming and UV summer are the problem, why is the Government backing down on its pollution controls?

Because they are ineffectual and will cause more economic problems than they would solve ecological problems. We surpassed the threshold of Earth's ability to absorb pollutants in the 1970's. Since that time the earth's population has nearly doubled. Emerging Industrial nations have come into being, more pollutants are produced now than back then, even with the stringent controls in place. The world is heading for economic depression, more emission controls would add to the economic problems. This translates into our being unable to do anything to start solving the problems.

Unfortunately our technologies require a strong economy to advance. We need that advancement, we need the trillions of dollars spent on research that a strong economy causes. Each corporation that produces a product has a product development program in place. Many of the past products invented came by accident through other unrelated products. There is a corporate drive to find methods to clean up the ecology, to reduce emissions, etc. These goals have been in place for decades, many of the large corporations are in the know when it comes to the ecological problems we face thus they are spending a great deal of money and time on finding solutions to the problems we face. Take away the economy and their research stops.

14. How are you related to the Chemtrails? How do you know that this is what is happening?

I would prefer to not state who I am or how I am related to all of this. To validate what I say, would require a bit of research on your behalf. I would recommend the following subjects to look up and study:

A. Population numbers for industrial nations and the tons of pollutants produced annually. Start with 1975 and work your way up.

B. Number of emerging Industrial Nations.

C. Number of cases of Skin cancers worldwide.

D. Crop Production vs. land area dedicated to crop production. Simple math will show that more acreage is needed to produce food per individual.

E. Automobile production from 1975 to present, estimated number of autos on the road and the average emissions of later model cars produced as compared the emissions of earlier model cars. A little math will show that though individual autos produce less emissions, the amount of emissions has risen due to the number of autos on the road. Remember that many autos are the road that were built before present emission control standards. 1980 is a cut off date - anything put on the road before then produces more pollutants than autos produced today. I would include research in the number of diesel autos produced, diesel has not been under the emissions control acts.

F. Severity of storms and the number of severe storms. Also include heat waves and droughts in that research, you will find that the numbers are staggering when compared to data from 1950, 1960 and 1970.

G. Research how naturally occurring Ozone is produced in the stratosphere. Compare to how it is produced industrially.

H. Research political reforms in the past 30 years, see which political institutions have changed, which nations have joined with whom. Concentrate more on these from 1982 onward. This would include the fall of the Wall and Iron Curtain.

I. Research polymers and how they are made, look at recent research done in biological polymers, medical polymers and filaments.

J. Check out spiders and spider web and the way spiders use their different webs and threads.

K. Research clean fresh water estimates as compared to the 1970's to today - world wide.

L. Research the following medical conditions per capita: Birth Defects Cancers Leukemia Immune deficiency diseases (excluding virus borne ID illnesses such as HIV) Occurrences of Learning disabilities, including dyslexia, ADD, and over all IQ tests Sterility for both male and females world wide Instances of glaucoma and cataracts.

M. Compare the history of UV indexes from 1970 to present. You may note that it was on sharp rise until 1997-99.

N. I would strongly recommend researching the reactions of different barium and aluminum compounds and how they are used. Research how long it takes for these metals in pure form to oxidize, how they combine with nitrates, carbon monoxide carbon dioxide and fluorocarbons and hydrocarbons and water vapor.

O. Research how mold propagates, the conditions it needs to grow and just how abundant it is in the atmosphere.

If you pursue these lines of inquiry, you will see the Shield Project as it really is.

At the time of the US-lead invasion of Iraq I had the opportunity to ask a few supplementary questions. There has been no attempt to integrate these questions and answers into the previous section therefore some may appear somewhat out of logical order.

A couple of the questions have a Canadian approach. By the way, I came up with the name - have to call the source something!

Here we quote the further communication from "Deep Shield":

15. Could you, "Deep Shield" - be described as a scientist or...?

Scientist is a good generic term. I do study and research in a scientific manner. I carry papers and degrees. My official capacity is in direct research of atmospheric issues in relation to pollutants. I also create models of potential long-term effects of green house gasses on the climate. Predict wind patterns, weather patterns, etc.

I have spent a good many years working on the project calculating the amount of material needed and creating models for dispersion patterns. I work other members who know the chemicals used and their interactions with the atmosphere, pollution and water vapor. I am part of a team which itself is part of a larger team, which is part of still a larger team. Government work with many chiefs and levels above the workers.

16. Are you prepared to comment upon your personal motives for sharing this information?

Not at this time, no.

17. Have you signed a non-disclosure or Secrets Act document that specifically relates to this project?


18. To your knowledge what categories of individuals officially know of the Project and are expected to remain silent? For example, my list of suspects includes government down to the county level, military especially air force, meteorologists, health specialists, mainstream media etc.

All those who know are expected to remain silent. All of those who suspect are either faced with trying to prove the virtually unprovable or are faced with good enough reasons to remain silent. I would assume that this situation is worldwide and could be considered one of the dangers of this project.

It was presented to me as a matter of national security. I can see the reasons why there is a desire to repress the information not that spraying is taking place but the hard little fact that we are facing a period of human history which might be the end of civilization.

19. Is the mainstream controlled media specifically ordered to avoid any mention of chemtrails? If so, have you anything further to add such as how was this done?

I would assume that the Media is controlled by its own desire to make money from what it reports. Since there is enough debunking out there, which says that contrails are part of the normal use of jet engines in the atmosphere, this would leave a reporter with very little to report unless there was solid evidence or pictures or something that could not be explained away.

You must know by now all the debunking methods that have been employed. The 'official' announcements are the media's main dish. The rest they regulate to the realm of the National Enquirer.

20. What government agency or agencies control this program? Is it under international control?

It is an international program. Many nations contribute in different ways. Measures have been taken to insure that what is sprayed over all countries is the same through triple blind deliveries; which include not knowing where a certain canister will end up, not knowing which aircraft a certain canister will be flown, and not even knowing who (in military craft) will be piloting a craft which has the purpose of spraying (Note: in today's world there is usually a mixed crew of different nationalities flying any one military aircraft on a Shield mission). I believe the Media caught Canadians in Iraq recently when Canada's official say on the matter was that Canada was not giving any support to the military might.

The fact remains that there were Canadian military with the USA forces. Some on aircraft carriers most being pilots. I think you can connect the dots.

21. How is the project funded - who pays for it? Have you any idea of the total direct operating cost? Also, does Canada make a funding contribution for the activities in our skies?

Most governments tend to over charge themselves to cover for their black operations (unofficial operations). That money comes out of the collection of taxes. So in effect the taxpayers of the world are paying for this project.

I would assume Canada does contribute funding to the Project. Canada is one of the top nations contributing time, material and funding to this project. Most of the Free World, the Western World, has taken on most of the burden of the costs.

22. Is the Shield Project the only such aerial spraying program?

Is it the only project designed to avert ecological disaster? Then yes. There are countless other projects that could be taking place which include spraying of some sort or another. Pesticides are usually sprayed. There has been great interest in weather control such as bringing rain to arid regions and taking the punch out of hurricanes and typhoons.

Weather control may be one of the final options left to us. Considering the amount of global warming that has taken place. There is a strong need to deflect a storm's fury, or to bring rain back to those regions which have been suffering drought.

What Mother Nature has done for millions of years automatically may now require mankind's hand to keep the schedule.

23. There are reports of four different chemtrail programs and other "code" names. For example, see: Holmestead: Chemtrails - what are they? Any comments?

It is possible that the Military does have a use for similar sprays. I cannot speak for the Military. However, my own personal research has come across these things as well. Are they possible? Yes. Are they practical? Only in the small scale say over the battlefield, or in the case of say the Iraq War, over Baghdad. Global application would be far too expensive and would require an obvious flight pattern of grids, circles and other heavy spray patterns.

24. Is all the spraying done using the "tank kits" described earlier or are the KC-135R and KC-10 types filled to the brim? Such aircraft have a load capacity of 200,000 pounds or more for refueling missions.

No. Several types of craft are used. Commercial jet airliners are used and they are not diverted from their flight paths to do so. How the canisters and the spraying is done on this kind of craft is unknown to me exactly. I do have my suspicions. I know best that which is my field; this is not to say that we do not talk around the water tank. So I know more than just my area and am able to think the matter through to its logical end.

I do know that even all the commercial jetliners in use are not enough to insure complete coverage all of the time. My computer models require knowing how much material needs to be sprayed. Certain conditions cause wide areas to suddenly (over hours) open up in the Shield. Then and only then is mass spraying done - and would be done with the most logical craft, a tanker.

Why not spray more from individual jetliners? That is one of the problems. Jetliners do not carry much material (100 to 500 gallons) because the material has to be spread out thinly.

Look at the kinds of material being used, aluminum, barium, titanium, etc. Most are highly reflective; in some instances the material is an absorber of gasses. In the case of reflection the desire is to reflect X amount of heat and X amount of UV while still maintaining acceptable (nominal) levels of UV and heat reaching the planet's surface.

Life requires a certain amount of both UV and Heat too much will kill - so will too little. The apparent amount looks like a lot more than what is actually being sprayed per volume of air it is covering. Most of the whitening of the sky is not the material per se, but the collection of water vapor, which forms into suspended ice crystals. The introduction of the material causes the water vapor to collect like rain collects on individual particles of dust.

Too much material would cause a "mud fall" of sorts where the naturally occurring water vapor would precipitate carrying the material with it.

Spraying is done in such away as to "layer" the material through a volume that will allow an acceptable level of UV and heat through along with all the other wavelengths of light. Photosynthesis is the foundation of life on our planet.

Only when all the material is removed in a local area does it require a massive spray, this is usually in the front of a weather system, or after a heavy period of precipitation. Then a tanker is flown, fully loaded.

25. Is there any truth in the story that some of the spraying is done by jetliners with modifications in the "honey" or waste compartment? For example, see mechanic story: Mechanic.

The technology used for spraying is rather simple. It requires at least two tanks under pressure, each carries half of the mixture which is sprayed at the same time forming a complete compound which is designed to be lightweight (so as to be suspended for longer periods of time).

There have been attempts to incorporate the materials in jet fuel, however the material binds with unburned jet fuel, water vapor, etc and does not have the added buoyancy of the polymer threads. The end result is a spray that is less than half as effective and is more dangerous since it can lead to sulfates, acids and other mixtures, which are more lethal than the spray.

It is very possible that the "honey" compartment is used. The amount of material needed is small compared to the payload of any given commercial airliner.

However, there is a good deal of fuel tank that is not used. Airliners only fuel their craft for the journey ahead of them; they rarely top off the tank. This has become public knowledge in light of 9-11. It was this small fact that caused the terrorists to pick pan-continental flights so they would have a plane fully loaded.

The majority of flights are short range and do not require the full capacity of an airliners fuel tanks. Any adaptations needed could easily be done during routine maintenance, and could be easily explained away as being a modification for safety and-or pollution controls.

This last is my own theory.

We can assume that any means possible to deliver the material is tried. Independent nations may favor one way of doing so over another.

26. Where are the official sources that state that a certain number of people (worldwide?) will sicken and possibly die as a result of the spraying? In other words, what *internal* studies have been done on the health issues and who carried them out?

WHO (World Health Organization) carried out most of the studies. Other nations have carried their own research on the matter. Some have said the ill effects will be minimal - along the lines of a million or so, while others have found the numbers to be far higher - 3 to 4 billion.

Some of the organizations include the CDC and independent labs. We are dealing with a situation where the amount of contamination is estimated to be far higher than what would normally take place but is far lower than historical instances of industrial contamination. This is important to note, the only real history we have with barium/aluminum/titanium etc. contamination is through factory workers, miners, etc, who receive a far greater dosage of the material than what is to be experienced by the populace under the Shield.

The amount of spray is very small compared to the volume of the space that is covered. Most of the harmful chemicals that are used are being dissipated over vast areas. Near coastal regions the fall out is not reaching land at all, but is being carried out to the oceans. The addition of polymers to make the material remain suspended in the air longer means that less material is being used.

Today the material used and its application is nothing like in the early days when it was sprayed in greater quantities and settling far faster to be inhaled by all.

The accepted Estimated Casualties (from WHO) is 2 billion over the course of 6 decades. The majority will be either the elderly, or those who are prone to respiratory problems. These numbers are based on the current estimates of the general health of the population, the average age and the occurrence of respiratory problems as a health issue. All are estimates since there are no solid numbers to work with.

27. Could you summarize the root causes of the initial destruction of the atmosphere that requires this "repair" work? Did it perhaps result in part from fluorides released/produced by the nuclear weapons programs?

In a word - Industry. Most fail to understand that the products we use, wear and live with are made in a manner that dumps CFC's and green houses gasses into the atmosphere. There is no one single causative in this issue. It goes way back to the Industrial Revolution and the use of coal to power steam engines. Since that time we have consumed greater and greater energy resources, dumping the waste where ever we wanted.

Up until very recently refrigeration was a big contributor, imagine all those hundreds of millions of households that owned and operated freon cooled refrigerators from 1940 to 1970. Not just one refrigerator per household, but over the course of time often multiple freon units. This doesn't include the various air conditioner systems or industrial refrigeration systems.

For a long period when the refrigerator or air conditioner unit was replaced, the old one was taken to the dump and thrown into the heap - the freon was free to escape and make its way up into the stratosphere to eat away at the ozone layer.

You can add to that list. Think of all the cars that had air conditioners, think of all those hair spray cans with their propellant gasses - the amount of those alone were enough to do great damage.

Styrofoam is another industry and product that has contributed to the problem. In the scheme of things atomic energy has contributed little compared to the consumer goods that have been manufactured during the past century.

Think of all the cars on the road today. In the late 1970's smog controls started getting stronger. Think of all the pre-1978 cars on the road - they are still producing a good many chemicals that leech into every corner of the globe.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi

Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
02-10-2009, 06:06 AM,
This post is also copied from the site.

James E. Phelps studied electrical engineering at the University of Tennessee with his thesis being in core reactor refuelling electronics for breeder reactors. Much of his work was at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee (ORNL) which is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) where he worked in the areas of radiation detection and measurements and site remediation amongst other tasks.

He developed the concept of air pharmacology while working at ORNL. This concept entails "treating" the air with chemicals to mitigate and offset the effects of other toxic chemicals in the air such as hydrogen fluoride and chlorine. The purpose was to lessen the extremely toxic effects of fluoride pollution while not stating that a problem existed to the public. The entire art of pharmacology is about how to add one more toxic effect to mitigate another from industry or environment.

The chemtrail technique is basically air pharmacology - how to add one more pollutant that has some positive synergistic effect against another. Phelps developed this approach while looking at weapons plants worker health effects at ORNL.

Jim has been actively and openly involved in criticism of ORNL and DOE and much related material may be found by searching online and also at his environmental newsletter web site: DOEWatch. There you will find much on "air pharmacology" or "scattering" or "geoengineering" or, in other words, "chemtrails". In his web pages he openly makes the claim of being a whistle blower.

Jim was asked for some opinion on the Shield Project web page and he has provided this short "review":


"I have been asked to comment on the earlier chemtrail question and answer web page regarding the: Shield Project. Here are my thoughts:

Sounds connected pretty close - sounds like one of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory types.

LLNL (funded by the DOE) is where all the weather and toxic computer science happens in the U.S. They do the EIS [Environmental Impact Statements] for the wars and things. Most of the science and logic "Deep Shield" describes is real close - not perfect. Any errors in the web page version may simply be due to note taking and transcription. Some additional questions could have been asked such as relating to the radiation conversion ionization mechanism of the barium and fluoride.

Keep in mind that the "Star Wars" program and "chemtrails" overlap. The Star Wars program called "Excalibur" uses all the physics connected to the chemtrail effects. Excalibur is a nuclear pumped x-ray LASER system, whose basic operations are the same as those for the Sun's radiation acting on the fluorides in the upper atmosphere. They are so close to each other that both of them use the "shield" term.

This "Deep" person speaks the exact lingo from ORNL in the 80's that was used as the national security justification for the chemtrails and their close association to Star Wars and Ed Teller.

"Deep" refers to the need to keep all this mess secret so as not to panic the planet. What this does is allow them to manipulate things. We all know that for a problem of this magnitude, that in order to fix it, you involve all the peoples of the planet. This process would bring on real global cooperation and peace.

This is basically the time when all the peoples of the world deserve to know the problems and learn to work together. This is the real definition for greater good and bringing on global oneness.

You are headed in that direction of openness and accountability with your web site work and this is good."

Jim Phelps

For more background material on the chemtrail discussion here is a paper recommended by Jim Phelps that is in Acrobat pdf format on: "Global Warming and Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Change."
It was prepared for submittal to the 22nd International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies Erice (Sicily), Italy August 20-23, 1997 by E. Teller, L. Wood and R. Hyde of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

The paper presents suggestions based on "scatterers" that prevent a small fraction of solar radiation from reaching all or part of the Earth: Global Warming pdf - 221KB.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi

Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
02-10-2009, 06:25 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-10-2009, 06:26 AM by ---.)
Good post. I think I'll have to read that pdf, myself. I have been trawling through JR's blog over the last few days too - reading in from this report this will make a fine counterpoint methinks.


@JR reading your blog is very interesting and informative about many aspects of this whole discussion but I do think that you wave off the idea that the UN has some sinister motivations too glibly.

You may wave off the idea of complicity or mechanistic operation to the ends of global population reduction but when I think back to the Rwanda crisis...

Also, maybe have DEEP look into the Dutroux affair in Belgium.

Not to mention the many eugenics advocates from influential old money families writing around the early to middle 20th century who all became very involved nie integral in it's inception in 1945 after the last great cull as means to an end.

The Great work sucks B)
02-10-2009, 06:27 AM,
Good posts.
02-10-2009, 04:21 PM,
for effect and not to be taken as fact -
Is it ok for you to lie? -
either or -
You haven't proved anything -
If you can't see the truth in front of your face -
take action -
may or may not be equipment that they use -
the idea behind the video -
in relation to the tests that they had done -
Neither you nor I know the actual validity of their tests -
reams of "intense research" -
my experiential gathered fresh daily data -
definitive proof has remained elusive.
Total denial by governmental authorities, the shunning of this topic by mainstream media, the systematic discreditation of researchers.
How can I make such a preposterous claim?
For those of us who have studied chemtrails carefully, the revealing dialog rang of the truth.
This massive document validates the insider information provided by Deep Shield, and has lead to an additional gold mine of evidence.
Included within is the hard science many chemtrails researchers have been searching for: the scientists, agencies, institutions and corporations involved, cost factors, chemical formula, mathematical modeling, delivery methods, policies, recruiting of foreign governments, acquisition of materials, and the manufacturing of aerosol compounds, etc.
this study is
The author makes a very convincing case for the pressing need of undertaking geoengineering projects
"In some ways, this phase has already begun, as geoengineering has moved from the pages of science fiction to respectable scientific and policy journals. One of the most encouraging proposals today focuses on the creation of vast carbon sinks by artificially stimulating phytoplankton growth with iron "fertilizer" in parts of the Earth's oceans. Another proposal suggests creating miniature, *106 artificial "Mount Pinatubos" by allowing airplanes to release dust particles into the upper atmosphere, simulating the greenhouse- arresting eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991.
In Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Bases conclusion, the N.A.S. found that the most effective global warming mitigation turned out to be the spraying of reflective aerosol compounds
It is evident to anyone who cares to look up, that this mitigation is now being conducted worldwide and on a daily basis.
It is certain that our leaders have already embarked on an immense geoengineering project; one in which they expect millions of human fatalities, and consider these to be acceptable losses.
This landmark study clearly shows that Chemtrail spraying has become a preferred solution to global warming mitigation.
The evidence is all around us.
Geoengineering is being carried on Earth on a staggering scale

"Several geoengineering options appear to have considerable potential" "(we could) screen incoming solar radiation, change cloud abundance." "The stratospheric particle options" "Proposals for" "A screen could be created" "estimates will be made" "this effect can also be studied." "emissions would change" "could be done" "the required mass of particulate material would be emitted" "An alternate possibility" "To make a cost estimate" "If a dust distribution mission" "If 1010 kg must be delivered" "The question should be investigated." "an increase in the coverage of marine stratocumulus clouds would be sufficient" "reflectivity could be increased" "emissions should be released" "release should produce an increase" "clouds should remain" "an increase in CCN would be necessary" "about 300/cm3 per day of additional CCN would have to be discharged" "The total weight of H2SO4 to be added per day is 31 ¥ 103 t per day" "Cloud stimulation appears to be" "possible acid rain or other effects need to be investigated" "the system could be mobilized" "Such dust might be delivered to the stratosphere" "These possibilities appear feasible" "as we care to pay for" "Lifting dust may be limited" "Such systems could probably be" "Sunlight screening systems would not have to be put into practice" "research should be done" "if wanted." "might be implemented."

Pah! So you don't mind lying and do like bullshit. Impressive...

02-10-2009, 04:47 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-10-2009, 04:48 PM by JazzRoc.)
Quote:reading your blog is very interesting and informative about many aspects of this whole discussion but I do think that you wave off the idea that the UN has some sinister motivations too glibly.
It's possible. I find politics disgusting. However, I supported the UN against the US and UK recently.

Quote:You may wave off the idea of complicity or mechanistic operation to the ends of global population reduction but when I think back to the Rwanda crisis...
Again, I know little of this. Point me to a succinct review.

Quote:Also, maybe have DEEP look into the Dutroux affair in Belgium.

Quote:Not to mention the many eugenics advocates from influential old money families writing around the early to middle 20th century who all became very involved nie integral in it's inception in 1945 after the last great cull as means to an end.
Well, you lot and your eugenics!:)

If you understood evolutionary science, you would understand that "eugenics" is a failed belief system that has no basis in fact. Consider the history of the Pharaohs or the European Monarchies. How successful were they?

I appreciate that its practice may occur, as people frequently do wrong things. One way YOU can help IS to understand evolution. Your continued rejection supports the eugenic belief system.

Genetic strength of the human population depends upon its diversity. That depends on its population size. Our public attempts to select for attributes we deem preferable are less viable than our private attempts. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The best genetic outcome we can expect will be from our NOT meddling in the process. The natural process is wiser than we are as individuals.

One bright point of this discussion is mortality. The old bastards shuffle off this mortal coil. However, soon....
02-10-2009, 04:59 PM,
Quote:where you are coming from with all the defending of TPTB. Lets just say, enlightening.
One day you'll grasp the fact that it is I that is attacking them, and you that is defending them. Just as soon as you realise that there's no reality to "chemtrails", and all this time you've just been wasting yours, and helping TPTB.

It would be really good if you did the same thing with "God". What's with a Red Indian following a Jewish myth? Your own myths not good enough?
02-10-2009, 06:48 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-10-2009, 06:57 PM by icosaface.)

W. Hall (Athens, Greece)
January 2005
There are two routes to engagement with climate change: one the broad highway of the mainstream
media, the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the big
international environmental organizations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. This is
where the `respectable' people are, the `Doctor Jekylls', as it were. This is where things are relaxed,
where doors and telephones are open, where relations with authority are satisfactory, even if there
are political differences. There is a live-and-let-live atmosphere, an agreement to differ.

Not so along the second route: the route of the `chemtrails' activists, the Mr. Hydes of climate
change. And there is a very simple reason for this. The coziness of the former milieu is predicated on
absolute denial and rejection of the latter along with everything pertaining to it. This denial has been
an important element in the learning experience of the Mr. Hydes, which typically begins from
unmediated evidence of the senses, followed by a lonely passage through the back lanes of the
internet to emergence in a rather problematic landscape with more than its fair share of stigmatized
personalities: `conspiracy theorists', UFO freaks, `right-wing' extremists, alleged and actual
nutcases, hypochondriacs, and also the authentically ill.

The story has been told so often that for me it is tedious to recite the basics yet again: the customary
distinction between `chemtrails' and `contrails', the grim tales of heavens darkened by the continual
passage back and forth of military aircraft apparently spraying some substance until the skies
become permanently overcast. Reports of the spraying have been coming in for a number of years
from vast swathes of Europe and North America, and from elsewhere. Though these reports are not
fictitious, they are the wrong place to start the discussion. A more logical starting point is the 1992
report of the American National Academy of Science: "Policy Implications of Greenhouse
Warming", with its official conclusion that the most effective method for mitigation of global
warming is spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing commercial,
military and private aircraft.
For those lacking the time to study the voluminous Academy of Science report there is the `light'
alternative of Gregory Benford's anti-Kyoto polemic in `Reason' magazine, where the linkage
between rejection of Kyoto and promotion of various `geoengineering' schemes, including aerosol
spraying, could not be clearer. For theorists there is Jay Michaelson's highbrow but not
prohibitively long "Climate Change Manhattan Project". And of course there is Edward Teller's
"Earth needs a Sunscreen" piece in the Wall Street Journal.
Still better as a more recent introduction for European readers is "White Skies", the English
translation of Gabriel Stetter's first `chemtrails' exposition in the German magazine `Raum + Zeit'.
And I myself have published a text called "Strategies against Climate Change".
The Benford, Michaelson and Teller articles give some idea of where the heads of the planet's
thousands of `chemtrails' watchers must have been at the beginning of 2004 when there suddenly
appeared in Britain's Guardian and Observer newspapers and on the BBC a series of journalistic
reports that were widely (and over-optimistically) interpreted as foreshadowing a `limited hangout'
indicating that at least some sections of the world's power elite were preparing to take responsibility
for their own actions.

On December 18, 2003, David Adam published a piece in the Guardian revealing that "levels of
sunlight reaching Earth's surface have declined by up to 20% in recent years because air pollution is
reflecting it back into space and helping to make bigger, longer-lasting clouds." ... This global
dimming effect, said Adam, could have implications for everything from the effectiveness of solar
power to the growth of plants and trees. "Over the past couple of years it's become clear that the
solar irradiance at the Earth's surface has decreased."

Next came Alex Kirby of the BBC with his announcement of a conference to be held in Cambridge
U.K., organized by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and the Cambridge-MIT
Institute, and aimed at studying possible ways of using `engineering' to help the world adapt to
increasing climate change `while ignoring political correctness'. Kirby conceded that "the organizers
say many options appear at the moment very unlikely to work, with some even appearing to be
crazy." But they insist that these options be evaluated. "They say engineering will probably have to
play its part in cutting greenhouse gases by the huge amounts necessary."

The Cambridge conference was to examine four main sets of possibilities: (i) sequestering (storing)
carbon dioxide, for example in the oceans, by removing it from the air for storage, or by finding
improved ways of locking it up in forests; (ii) modifying the albedo (reflectivity) of clouds and other
surfaces to affect the amount of the sun's energy reaching the earth (iii) climate design, for example
by long-term management of carbon for photosynthesis, or stabilising ocean currents by river
deviation, and (iv) providing large-scale migration corridors for wildlife.

At the conference Professor Hans-Joachim (John) Schellnhuber told BBC News Online that: "The
Kyoto protocol is in a very difficult position, and it may be necessary to find other exit strategies.
We may find we're in a cul-de-sac and have to think of other policies which transcend it."

An article entitled "Giant Space Shield to Save the Planet" appeared in the "Observer" of 10th
January. It mentioned an extraordinary plan, "underlining the catastrophic implications of climate
change", under which "scientists now want to curb the sun's life-giving influence to save mankind
from its biggest threat: global warming."

"Key talks involving the Government's most senior climate experts have produced proposals to site a
massive shield on the edge of space that would deflect the sun's rays and stabilise the climate.
Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of metallic `scatterers' would be ejected into the upper atmosphere
under the plans. In addition, billions of tiny barrage balloons could serve as a secondary barrier to
block rays from the Earth's nearest star.

On land, giant reservoirs holding saline water could be built to offset the rise in sea levels caused by
the melting of the polar ice-caps. The oceans, too, would be modified to cope with the planet's
increasingly warmer weather. Massive floating cloud-making machines would be dotted across their
surface while, below, large plantations of algae would be grown to absorb greenhouse gases from the

"These are exotic ideas," Professor Schellnhuber admitted. "The present climate policy does not
seem to be working... It is a desperate situation and people should start thinking about the
unconventional. Preventative plans on a larger scale are needed."

The Tyndall Centre
It was against this background that our discussion group sought to make contact with the Tyndall
Centre, our aim being to explore how far dialogue was possible between concerned citizens and
these scientists who in their concern to draw attention to the dangers of climate change had not
shrunk from associating themselves with such strange and alarming proposals.

With some persistence, we finally extracted some response from Professor Schellnhuber, but almost
immediately he handed over the task of liaising with us to his research assistant Sarah Cornell.

This is what she had to say to us:

"You ask three key questions:
· Is it feasible to optimise climate through geoengineering? (you refer specifically to alteration of the
planet's albedo through cloud formation.)
· Do aircraft contrails have an effect on climate?
· Are aircraft contrails being deliberately put in the sky?
We, as scientists, can comment on some aspects of these questions...... There is a great deal in your
(argument) that is speculation, or a matter of opinion and political choice. Of course, as scientists,
we have a responsibility to engage with the political world (and I'd argue that our politicians have a
duty to understand science too ­ we must find a common meeting point). However, as John said in
his last e-mail to you, we cannot comment `scientifically' on these issues of trust and political
engagement. It is our role to inform society about climate change and its impacts, and beyond that,
our views are no more authoritative than those of any other member of society."

"It is obvious," Dr. Cornell continued, "that human activities have already altered some of the key
functioning systems of the planet. In the last couple of centuries, industrialisation and the power of
technology have upped the pace of human-induced change. In other words, we know that what we
do has an effect on the Earth system, so the crux question for geoengineering is, `do we know
enough to control or manipulate our effects?' `Geoengineering' could be different in scale from
existing human-induced change, but its principal that it would be intentional
manipulation of the Earth system, not accidental or incidental like most anthropogenic change has
been so far. The economic and technological hurdles, despite being huge, are not as great, perhaps,
as the socio-political, ethical and system-scientific issues that would need to be resolved first ­ these
are all issues that need ongoing wide, frank and open debate before any macro-engineered solution
could be begun.

One of the conclusions of the experts at the symposium was that tweaking the atmosphere for
climate optimisation (altering albedo, for instance) was one of the least tractable approaches ­
because of the complexity of atmospheric chemistry, combined with the huge risks associated with
getting it just a little bit wrong. This particular geoengineering option isn't excluded because it is
`science fiction' ­ on the contrary, our knowledge of the science facts tell us unambiguously that
trying to manipulate the atmosphere will not lead to climate optimisation. Sequestration of CO2
through various means (forest growth, limestone formation) would possibly be a more likely
candidate for climate change mitigation for the next decades or centuries, because the processes are
generally rather better understood and errors likely to lead to less risky outcomes, and indeed
research schemes are active in bio- and geo-sequestration already.
It is very likely that the most significant climate impact of aircraft is not by means of alterations of
the planetary albedo, but by the chemistry of fuel burning, particularly in the upper layers of the
troposphere. Having said that, the USA's CERES programme (in partnership with other large-scale
multinational initiatives) was created precisely because the exact role of clouds in the planet's
energy balance and climate is not yet understood. Its outputs so far have confirmed that the cloud-
climate feedbacks are complex and uncertain. If you wanted to cool the planet by making clouds,
you would be very ill-advised to choose a mechanism (laying jet contrails) that made clouds with
such a short effective life, of the wrong type and in the wrong place (indeed, contrails are likely to
contribute to warming not cooling), and that was also much more likely to add to the warming of the
planet by increasing the concentrations of climate-active greenhouse gases. Water vapour, CO2 and
nitrogen oxides (precursors to climate active species, particularly ozone and methane) are formed by
fuel burning, and air travel is the fastest growing contributor to the greenhouse gas budget.

Air transport in general is undeniably changing the look and behaviour of the atmosphere, but this is
a wholesale social trend ­ people are demanding and using cheap flights, and expert consensus is
that this is contributing to global warming (see the IPCC's summary of its Third Assessment
Report). Your concern seems to be that emissions from aircraft are being altered deliberately to
`sunscreen' the planet. First of all, as I said, the radiative and chemical effects of the contrails tend to
work in the wrong direction for cooling, and the net effects globally are uncertain or indeterminate.

Secondly, there is no evidence at all in the atmospheric chemistry that chemically altered emissions
are being generated. Significant changes due to increased air transport have been detected in aerosol
chemistry, and they are exactly what would be expected. Several major global research partnership
programmes have sampled and analysed rainwater and aerosol around the world in recent decades ­
for example, the TRACE series ran through the 1990s, looking at the atmospheric transport and
chemical changes of aerosol, preceded in the 1980s by AEROCE - so we now understand better than
ever how human activities have altered the natural biogeochemistry of the planet. Spatial and time
trends in aerosol chemistry correlate very well with changes in industrialisation, urbanisation, land
use and transport patterns.

I studied the organic material in aerosol for a decade, and in 2002, I published a review of the
literature on organic matter in aerosol and rain over the last century; other groups have worked in the
same area, at all levels in the atmosphere, and published similar reviews for organic gases, too. We
have found nothing to suggest that the nature of the organic matter in aerosol has changed in this
period. There is certainly no indication that either organic matter or sulphate (the two most active
materials for condensation nuclei for aerosol formation) have been put into the atmosphere, apart
from the pollutants that we as society have tacitly accepted as normal and acceptable as a trade-off
for our pursuit of economic improvements. These are a serious enough problem to address."

A first reaction

David Stewart, an American activist who had previously published on the internet a series of
interviews with an anonymous chemtrails `insider' from the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
henceforth known as "Deep Shield" responded as follows to Sarah Cornell's e-mail:

"In short we are told that it is possible but ill-advised to use contrails to effect a change in the
Thus we are left with the possibility but still left in doubt as if it is taking place right now, or if it is
taking place if it is on purpose instead of in consequence of faster travel and economic advances. We
are, in effect, in the same spot we were at with Teller, the possibility is there but no one appears
eager to say `do it' or that it is being done.
One is left with asking: "Under what circumstances would geo-engineering in this manner be
considered and used?"
Considering that there must be some point in which the advantages far outweigh the possible
consequences, we should be asking where that point is, what circumstances need be in place before a
drastic use of aerosols would be necessitated. It seems that though it is possible no one wants to say
that it is being done, at least no one who wants to come out and public about it.
Yes there are long-term effects and short-term effects. One must wonder if there is a case where the
short term effects and needs outweigh the long term consequences. What is that case, what
motivation would lead to the use of contrails to change the earth's atmosphere? Is there a set of
circumstances where the ill-advised action becomes the best possible solution to a problem? If so,
have we reached that point?
According to my source [the reference is to "Deep Shield"] we are at a point where the risks and the
losses are far less bad than the problems we face. Thus the gamble is worth it, even if it is an utter
We humans tend to have a habit of waiting until the last moment then overreacting when had we
acted earlier on minor changes would have made a big difference. So there is a high probability that
we have reached the point where a major risky action is needed simply because we delayed.
We already know that particulate matter in the atmosphere increases the albedo of the earth.
Recently the news reported that the earth is more reflective than it was a couple of decades ago.
Something is taking place to increase the reflectivity of earth. We are still left with the question if it
is accidental or on purpose."

No reply

Dr. Sarah Cornell never responded to David Stewart's remarks, though they were among the more
temperate and restrained of those put forward by members of our group. Other remarks were more
heated: (e.g. "I cannot debate someone who plays an active role in participating in the demise of our
natural planet and yet denies they have any involvement....I do not care what they have reasoned as
what is best for the planet. I just want them to halt the spraying of these toxic chemicals into the

The situation was exacerbated by interventions by `chemtrails' debunkers who, on learning of what
Dr. Cornell had written to us, launched an incessant barrage of triumphalistic ridicule on the various
related forums. They also entered into correspondence with Professor Schellnhuber, some of the
character of which can be glimpsed in the appendix to this article included in the full version of the
text posted at the closed Ama Lahi website, to which access may be granted on request.

Dialogue on the content of Dr. Cornell's letter:


Colleague: All I can say at this point is that in my opinion Dr. Cornell's communication was
straightforward, accurate and honest.
W.H: I think it would have been good if you had been able to present this conclusion to her as part
of a documented critique of what she sent to us. This would show Dr. Cornell and her colleagues at
the Tyndall Centre that there is an overlap between their concerns and ours and that we should be
participants in the same framework of discussion.
Colleague: Too bad the issues involved have become so hopelessly politicized.
W.H: This is a formulation that you seem to share with Dr. Sarah Cornell, who says: `We, as
scientists, can comment on some aspects of these questions... There is a great deal else in your
debate that is speculation, or a matter of opinion and political choice.' As far as I am concerned the
difference between the stance of a person who wants to tell the truth and a person who for allegedly
political reasons judges that it is better not to do so, does not deserve to be called a `political
difference' or a matter of `political choice'. If a scientist, in the explanation he offers for a situation,
rather than outlining what `political choice' leads politicians to do, does the same thing
himself/herself, he/she ceases to be a scientist (or rather ceases to deserve the respect claimed by
science) and becomes a politician.
Colleague: For some reason I have a feeling I'm walking right into the Jaws of Death here but so be
it. I interpret Dr. Cornell's comment above as follows: I think what she's saying is that the
researchers themselves can comment on the specifically scientific aspects of a given project. (In my
personal experience most scientists are actually very pleased to respond to public inquiry regarding
the scientific aspects of their work as they tend to be somewhat isolated owing to the demands of
such an intrinsically focused working environment.)
When Dr. Cornell says, "There is a great deal else in your debate that is speculation, or a matter of
opinion and political choice" I think she is conveying by implication that public inquiry regarding
the political, social and ethical considerations of a given project is considered to be the sphere of the
public relations staff which are a part of every research institution.
In other words, it is the job of the researchers to conduct the studies and provide organized data - and
it is the job of the public relations staff to generate news releases and other communications which
serve to interpret the findings of the researchers to the non-scientist public.
For what it's worth I am going to add here that I spent 15 years as a research assistant in two labs of
a major medical school doing specialized cell culture and microsurgery, so I know from direct
experience that there is in fact a point beyond which scientists simply cannot be completely open
about their work until it is completed, peer-reviewed and published. Also, the research process is
demanding, sometimes tedious and endlessly repetitive, often thankless and very time-consuming as
well as extremely rewarding and exhilarating - and it above all requires a specific ability to
continually focus not only on a myriad of details but simultaneously on the Big Picture as well. One
has to be temperamentally suited for this kind of work in addition to having an aptitude for it.
Bottom line - and based on my own experience - while I can understand why people might think that
Dr. Cornell is withholding the desired answers to the questions at hand, it is my opinion that she is in
fact being completely honest about what she personally is in a position to provide. It is up to the PR
staff to interact with the public on other than the specifically scientific components of an institution's
work in progress.
W.H: Whatever we conclude about Dr. Cornell, the fact is that some of the Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory scientists participating in the Tyndall Centre conference were flagrantly political. Look
at the `Active Climate Stabilization' paper by Teller and others, which claims that its
recommendations will enable:
1. "Every person's right to a decent `energy standard of living' to be respected"
2. "Severe energy rationing not to be crammed down the throat of the Third World" ("Already a
widely-rejected gambit and a self-evidently unethical one" [sic])
The politics here is jumping off the page. But at the same time public participation (including `Third
World' participation) in the debate is systematically blocked!!!! The blockage is a prerequisite for
the Livermore scientists to be able to appoint themselves `Third World' spokespersons and use terms
like `self-evidently'.
Colleague: I've read this, too, and I was every bit as disgusted as you appear to be. I've read the texts
of a great many of the last 25 years' climate change think-tank discussions and have found them to
be permeated with a frankly patronizing orientation to `Third World' considerations. I am being very
restrained in my characterization here.
To allow myself a moment of spontaneous gut expression, I will say that not only does the `First
World' reserve the right to pollute unto death the basic life-support systems upon which every living
being on this earth depends for survival, but it also reserves the right to link `solutions' directly to
their impact on the economy that THEY wish to sustain in order to support THEIR desired standard
of living AND to micro-manage response to the negative impact(s) of anthropogenic climate change
on the very people (easily 60% of the world's population) who are least equipped to deal with them.
Unbelievably arrogant, infuriating and unconscionable.
W.H: Let's go back to Dr. Sarah Cornell, who states: "This particularly geoengineering option
[aerosol spraying] isn't excluded because it is `science fiction' ­ on the contrary, our knowledge of
the science facts tell us unambiguously that trying to manipulate the atmosphere will not lead us to
climate optimisation..."

"If you wanted to cool the planet by making clouds, you would be very ill-advised to choose a
mechanism (laying jet contrails) that made clouds with such a short effective life, of the wrong type
and in the wrong place (indeed, contrails are likely to contribute to warming not cooling), and that
was also much more likely to add to the warming of the planet by increasing the concentrations of
climate-active greenhouse gases."
Does this not contradict the assertions in the `Active Climate Stabilization' paper, which claims to be
an approach to `preventing BOTH TYPES of climate change' (i.e. both cooling and warming)?
Colleague: Dr. Cornell's point here is that `laying jet contrails' (in the upper troposphere) as a
methodology to achieve a net planetary cooling effect simply will not work as it has now been
conclusively determined that aviation contrails and resulting persistent contrail cirrus actually exert a
net WARMING effect on the atmosphere.
Note that she is not referencing the loading of the STRATOSPHERE with particulate emissions,
which is an ENTIRELY different matter.
W.H: She says: "Your concern seems to be that emissions from aircraft are being altered
deliberately to `sunscreen' the planet. First of all, as I said, the radiative and chemical effects of the
contrails tend to work in the wrong direction for cooling, and the net effects globally are uncertain or
indeterminate. Secondly, there is no evidence at all in the atmospheric chemistry that chemically
altered emissions are being generated."
"There is certainly no indication that either organic matter or sulphate (the two most active materials
for condensation nuclei for aerosol formation) have been put into the atmosphere, apart from the
pollutants that we as society have tacitly accepted as normal and acceptable as a trade-off for our
pursuit of economic improvements. These are a serious enough problem to address."
I reiterate my previous remark and add that the second part of the statement contradicts my
experience, because particularly in winter I see aircraft spraying something into the atmosphere over
Athens and elsewhere. They are clearly not scheduled flights. They involve more than one plane
flying back and forth in formation. I want an explanation what they are and what they are doing. An
OFFICIAL explanation. If we don't get it we will have to sideline existing officialdom and replace it
with officialdom that serves our needs better.
Colleague: I, too, am sick and tired of seeing, for the last five years, our skies being literally
STRAFED with shaving cream-thick trails and resulting chaotically-spreading `cirrus'. One thing I
can say here, and I think it's important to keep this in mind, is that what we are seeing is taking place
in the upper troposphere - NOT in the stratosphere where the by now familiar-to-us-all Tellerian
aerosol climate mitigation proposals are specifically designed to be deployed.

W.H: Mobilising public opinion about climate change while not telling the truth about
geoengineering (and `chemtrails'), is IMPOSSIBLE.
Colleague: I think this is a very important point and I happen to agree with you. However, I would
like to know if you are willing to at least consider the possibility that the 'true cover-up' re what we
are seeing in our upper troposphere has to do with the over-saturation of same with the waste
products of hundreds of thousands of aircraft per day just going about 'business as usual'. Doesn't
anyone think it's possible that we may have reached critical mass as to what our atmosphere is
capable of assimilating in this regard?
I think the science community IS trying to communicate something very important - and too many
people refuse to listen. Think about it. What would happen if the research community were
significantly more assertive (i.e. more openly PR-oriented) about their work which repeatedly shows
that aviation contrails and contrail cirrus are in fact seriously perturbing atmospheric chemistry,
atmospheric circulation and global hydrology cycles? This is not myth. It's the truth. What do you
think would happen if the general public really started looking into this? Why do you think some of
the more sophisticated of the chemtrails debunkers are so meticulous about derailing any substantive
discussion of that very same research (Patrick Minnis, et al) they are always touting? They want
complete control of any public dialogue that is even remotely likely to merge from an honest,
unsparing look at the increasingly informative (and increasingly reproducible) research being
completed by some very competent investigators.
2. W.H: Today Tyndall sent me a copy of their magazine 'the effect', containing an interview with Dr.
Schellnhuber entitled "Where next for climate research?" In it he says: "I'm forever asked about the
importance of the US to global warming, but so rarely about the actual science of this planet. I want
to explain the interesting science to help the public engage with science. I also never get asked about
the ethical issues of justice and liability to global warming - so few people want to go near it. This is
the not-in-my-backyard morality, where the polluter-pays principle so obviously shall not apply in
our own backyards."
My question: is it easier to complain that one is never asked about ethical issues of justice and
liability to global warming than it is to expose oneself, if only 'off the record', to the people who will
CHEMTRAILS??? (again, even 'off the record'). If the two sides have to start off talking in coded
and/or Aesopian language, is this not preferable to perpetuation of the present situation of scientists
trying to hide behind their index fingers? What suffers as a result is not the prestige of the political
or politico-economic system but the prestige of science and of scientists. The people who do want to
talk justice and global warming AND CHEMTRAILS are being subjected to never-ending
psychological attrition [and worse] from a myriad of amateur and professional operatives without
this seemingly ever coming to the attention of climate scientists, who merely observe that they never
get asked about the ethical issues of justice and liability to global warming? What is/are Tyndall,
and other foundations, doing about this?
Colleague: I know what you mean. In fact the relative failure of the science community to much
more assertively connect with the general public on, at the very least, information regarding the
climate change problem upon which concerned individuals and groups could in fact begin to act has
been a source of considerable anguish to me personally for some time now.
On the other hand - having done so much research reading over the last five years and having, in the
process, gotten a fairly good overview of the findings upon which the science community has, and
has not, to date, reached consensus, I have to say that I can understand the immense difficulty the
science community faces where transmission, under current geopolitical circumstances, of such a
complex (and politically and economically volatile) body of information from the research
environment to the public domain is concerned.
The fact is that several science writers have been trying to communicate with the public for years
now. Seriously, if you want to see just one example of a very good contribution in this direction,
please consider getting a copy of the following book: `Boiling Point' by Ross Gelbspan. Believe me,
Gelbspan has done his homework in the science department. I know this because I already have most
of the material to which he refers in his excellent summation of climate change research to date. This
was a very difficult job he took on, interpreting this material for the lay public, and he has more than
done it justice. He also understands and manages to very clearly convey the political challenges we
face in the years to come.
Further, he offers concrete suggestions for some working solutions as for what Tyndall is doing, I'm
familiar with their web venue and I would say they're doing quite a lot. They are geared toward
direct interaction with the societal sectors that are in fact already in a position to exert the influence
necessary for initiation of the changes in policy which will be required to deal with emergent
climate-change-related challenges.
W.H: Even if it is not possible to get a Dr. Schellnhuber at this stage of the game to oppose some of
our beloved operatives in their role as 'chemtrails' debunkers, it is worth trying to achieve their
concrete marginalisation as anthropogenic climate change 'sceptics'. That is better than not opposing
them at all, except at the level of hand-wringing and unfocused moral protest.
Colleague: I think the research community is already more than aware of the problem of climate
change 'sceptics'. Dealing with 'sceptics' (and with the standard peer-review process for that matter)
are just part of the territory whatever field of research one is involved in.
And I don't necessarily agree with you that the research community, or individual scientists, are "not
opposing (climate change debunkers) at all." You are leaving out a crucial component of the total
picture here and that is the absolutely necessary emergence of a critical mass of public will to face
and begin to deal with reality where this issue is concerned. There is a great deal of reliable
information out there but it is useful only in proportion to the general public's willingness to at least
consider it. We have enough scientists, and they are doing a great job under less-than-ideal political
circumstances. What we need is more educators.
W.H.: Places like Tyndall are in a difficult situation, trying to get the public to pay attention to such
an abstruse subject as climate change without talking about the one phenomenon that could
concentrate people's minds more quickly than anything else. Presumably the reason they don't
mention `chemtrailing' is that it could be construed as illegal and they themselves implicated in it.
They act as if they are frightened of the public knowing what they are doing (or at least advocating).
But they have no reason to be frightened of the public. What they need to be frightened of is the
political system, those that operate its levers, and the way they make the public act. If they could
establish direct contact with the public, or with people such as ourselves who presumably seek to
represent the public, bypassing the political/media system, things would be much simpler for them.
But how can they do that when the political/media system is their main communication channel with
the public?
None of this implies that climate mitigation is the whole story with `chemtrails'. But it is the only
part of the story where you have these people on the other side who may be susceptible to discussion
as equals owing to the notion that `this is being done for our own good'. It is the weakest point in the
wall of disinformation and silence, and who knows, securing the co-operation of climate scientists
might be the way to find out more about the aspects of the activity that are NOT explicable as
climate mitigation.
That is something unfortunately neglected by Clifford Carnicom and others, who seem to think the
first priority is to show how climate mitigation is not a plausible explanation for `chemtrails',
ignoring the factor of the possible self-image and self-justification of people (like the late `Deep
Shield' [who committed suicide in September 2004). As many others have done, Dr. Sarah Cornell
uses the implausibility of aerosol spraying as a means of climate mitigation to argue that it is not
happening so that we should ignore the evidence of our senses. Absurdities like this derail dialogue.
We have to make sure that it doesn't derail dialogue for us also.
As a group we have the advantage of possessing a wide spectrum of views, some even apparently
overlapping with the positions being adopted publicly by climate scientists. This should strengthen
our claims as alternative interlocutors to representatives of the political/media complex, who will
always approach climate scientists either in a spirit of complicity as fellow-conspirators against the
public or as inquisitors in search of scapegoats. Both of these must be unnerving prospects,
reinforcing the ivory-tower reflexes of scientists.
Perhaps the fear is that acknowledgement of `chemtrails' will trigger an avalanche of private
litigation. But even if it is arguable that private interests must sometimes be overridden for the
greater good of society, can it be said in the same way that public health and the integrity of the
natural environment must also take second place to some more urgent priority? What on earth could
that priority be? And how can there be justification for removing this question from public scrutiny?
What really has to change is the behaviour towards `chemtrails' activists and anthropogenic climate
change skeptics respectively. Though critical of the dwindling number of corporate-funded scientists
still seeking to deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change, the media ­ ostensibly in the name
of pluralism ­ still reserve a role of controversial opponent for climate change skeptics. But there is
no correspondingly pluralistic attitude when it comes to `chemtrails' activists, who are ignored,
disdained, stigmatized, in short given no role at all in the debate, not even the role of pointing out the
absurdity of the geoengineering pseudo-solutions to climate change. This is a role the climate
scientists reserve for themselves, presumably owing to fear that things will get out of their control if
they allow the task of criticism to be delegated to anyone else. We are thus presented with the weird
spectacle of seeing scientists advocating measures which they simultaneously ridicule and deny are
being implemented.
And the situation is out of their control anyway because the fossil fuel and nuclear power lobbies are
still calling the shots.

The Jekylls and Hydes of climate change have to date followed conflicting trajectories: the former
for the most part unaware of the existence of the latter; the latter filled with seething resentment
against the former. Both have been more prone to issuing demands than asking questions.
Respectable climate change activists have demanded reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, at least
to the extent required by the Kyoto guidelines, along with incentives for transition to renewable
energy sources. `Chemtrails' activists have been demanding an end to secrecy and denial, and ­
more desperately ­ an end to the activity whose reality is officially denied: i.e. illegal spraying from
aircraft of huge areas of the planet with toxic substances.
The first step required for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to become an integrated entity is that the
demands give way to a question: "Is the spraying of substances from aircraft an acceptable answer to
the problem of climate change?"
The mass media's, the politicians' and climate scientists' answer to the question has so far been:
"No, it isn't, and it isn't happening!"
Civil society's and climate scientists' answer to the question must become: "No, it isn't, and it is

As someone whose political apprenticeship was served in the non-aligned anti-nuclear weapons
movements of the nineteen-eighties, I went through the experience of seeing `civil society' in
Eastern and Western Europe demobilized after the fall of the Berlin wall, having served its purpose
of overthrowing Communism. The European anti-nuclear movement, presented with the
opportunity in 1991 to demand abolition not just of the Soviet nuclear weapons in Ukraine,
Kazakhstan and Belarus but also those in Russia, failed to avail itself of this opportunity. The
powerful constituency in both Eastern and Western Europe that had been brought together to put an
end to the Cold War system of nuclear terror .....was abandoned and left to its own devices.
There can be no excuse for continuation of the demobilization today when the possibilities for
unleashing civil society against the OTHER superpower have never been better.

APPENDIX: Extracts from Ross Gelbspan's `The Heat is On': `A scientific critique of the
Greenhouse Sceptics'.
Tom Wigley (senior scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research, responding to
Congressional testimony from greenhouse sceptic Dr. Patrick Michaels):
"The latest projections available at the time of Michaels's testimony (Kattenberg et al, 1996) are for
a global-mean warming over 1990-2100 of around two degrees Celsius, with an extreme range of 0.8
degrees C-4.5 degrees C. While it is true that these results are slightly smaller than the projections
given by the IPCC in 1990, the important thing to note is that they are not directly comparable with
these earlier results. This is because the 1990 results were based on different emissions scenarios,
scenarios that differ markedly from the 1992 emissions scenarios. The 1992 emissions scenarios,
furthermore, now include sulphur dioxide emissions, which lead to the production of sulphate
aerosols with, in most cases, an attendant cooling effect (albeit relatively small)."
"Another misconception that Michaels propagates is the idea that some radical change has been
made in the performance of the Hadley Centre model between 1990 and now. This, too, is wrong.
The model
has been changed, but not in any way that is relevant to the debate. The most important change that
has occurred has been not to the model but to how the model is forced (viz., now including aerosol
"It is true that calculations published in the 1990 IPCC report gave larger warming amounts than the
latest values, but there are no qualitative differences. The differences do not arise from any change in
models or in our understanding of the climate sensitivity. Rather they arise from the use of different
forcing scenarios for the future. The earlier projections were based on different emissions scenarios.
They are not directly comparable with the latest results because of this and because aerosol effects
were ignored."
Similarly from Jerry Mahlman , director of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at
Princeton University and chair of NASA's Mission to Planet Earth Scientific Advisory Committee:
Question: "What are the reasons that the IPCC projections of global warming appear to have come
down somewhat?"
Jerry Mahlman : "The sulphate offset of greenhouse-gas-induced warming is the reason for the
lowered IPCC warming projections. Michaels and a few others seem to think that a cooling effect
somehow lowers the sensitivity of the climate to increased greenhouse gases. I cannot find any logic
in such assertions."
Final comment from W.H.
It seems that aerosol operations (including what we call `chemtrails') have been effective in
mitigating some of the symptoms of climate change. Anthropogenic climate change sceptics have
taken advantage of this `success' of their opponents to reinforce their own assertion that
anthropogenic climate change is not occurring!! If the aerosol operations were conducted with full
transparency and full cognizance of the public, trickery of this kind would be impossible because the
relations between cause and effect would be obvious. But as things are, the lies are mutually self-
reinforcing. The deceit that no deliberate spraying of aerosols is in progress strengthens the deceit
that anthropogenic climate change is a myth. How many climate scientists worry about the fact that
by concealing mitigation activities they strengthen the hand of `greenhouse sceptics', i.e. climate
change debunkers. <span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%">
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi

Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Thousands of strange 'Nazca Lines' discovered in the Middle East attariq 0 833 09-16-2011, 11:10 PM
Last Post: attariq
  Strange Underwater Anomalies: Florida, Cuba, Japan!, pinkfloyd 0 1,004 03-23-2011, 10:55 AM
Last Post: pinkfloyd
  Alien Forests, Oceans and Skies: Genetically Engineered Forests icosaface 12 5,060 10-15-2010, 02:07 PM
Last Post: JazzRoc
  Giant unmanned airships to patrol Afghanistan skies for up to three weeks at a time TriWooOx 0 952 07-13-2010, 03:51 PM
Last Post: TriWooOx
  Strangeness in the skies hilly7 2 1,193 07-28-2009, 02:50 PM
Last Post: JazzRoc
  Chemtrails from strange flying object TeslaandLyne 54 9,175 10-14-2008, 09:51 PM
Last Post: JazzRoc
  THE STRANGE STORY OF TMI......BEFORE AND AFTER SerialExpLain 1 1,177 10-03-2008, 08:13 AM
Last Post: yeti
  In Six Days! trueaim 8 1,605 05-27-2008, 08:54 AM
Last Post: humbug
  Qx: On days of contrails/chemtrails(?)...? SerialExpLain 10 2,930 03-12-2008, 05:42 AM
Last Post: hilly7
  Strange clouds - Phangan, Gulf of Thailand flatron 0 1,125 02-15-2008, 10:50 AM
Last Post: flatron

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)