The first in a two part series on ‘the elephant in the climate-change room,’ which tackles the sparsely covered and controversial issue of geoengineering and deliberate weather manipulation. Originally published on A Plague on Both Houses.
In my rebuttal of Jonathan Cook’s fact-bending ‘climate-crisis’ narrative, I speculated that:
“If human activity is not a significant driver of climate change, it stands to reason that the proposed measures aimed at curbing humanity’s alleged contribution to this climate catastrophe will not only be futile but will also likely be disastrous for humanity.”
The disastrous measures I had in mind were the Agenda 2030 rationing measures aimed at severely curbing fossil fuel usage combined with unrealistic renewable energy goals; measures designed to choke economies and immiserate the bulk of humanity.
There is, however, an elephant of sorts in the climate-change room when it comes to discussing ‘decarbonisation’ measures: that elephant is human climate manipulation, or geoengineering. Coverage of it is increasing in the alt-media Freedom Movement space, but I can’t help feeling there is a reluctance to tackle unscientific climate alarmism and geoengineering together. It’s as if there’s a fear of sceptic-overload, and yet I don’t see how you can be a climate sceptic and ignore geoengineering. But the Daily Sceptic, which is prolific in its high-quality debunking of unscientific climate alarmism, doesn’t seem to know how to broach the topic of geoengineering. A search on the Daily Sceptic site threw up just two results, and one was a reference to another article in their round-up section. I’m beginning to find that odd.
Geoengineering has been rising steadily in my consciousness over the past year or two, and it is truly terrifying. So terrifying that I haven’t yet been able to quite express my thoughts on it. It has left me stupefied. Watching a documentary on it has helped me clarify why it has had this effect. I will share that documentary in a post to follow this one because it deserves its own space. This essay is an attempt to un-stupefy myself; to find the words to describe how insane geoengineering is. But the words don’t come easy.
Dr Joseph Mercola has recently published an exposé on geoengineering. His piece is based on the U.S. presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s recent interview with Dane Wigington, founder of GeoengineeringWatch.org. I highly recommend watching it if you haven’t already done so. It’s a video that should cause a glitch in the matrix of those living in normie world because it discusses compelling evidence that makes the whole subject a little harder to dismiss with the usual thought-terminating cliché of ‘conspiracy theory’.
Geoengineering in a nutshell
Geoengineering is man-made manipulation of the climate – playing God with the weather. It’s the deliberate manipulation of climate and weather systems using, among other things, toxic aerosol spraying of light-scattering particulates into the atmosphere to block sunlight from reaching the earth’s surface, with the aim of creating a cooling effect. This is done from the back of military and commercial jet aircraft. Yes – chemtrails. They’re real. These particulates contain heavy metals such as aluminium nanoparticles. Lab tests conducted by Geoengineering Watch also show the presence of barium, strontium, titanium, manganese, polymer fibres, surfactant chemicals, and graphene in these particulate trails, as well as in rain. Aluminium alone kills the root systems of plants and trees, as well as the soil microbiome. It also alters soil pH, which makes it harder for some crops to grow. We end up ingesting it in food grown in the contaminated soil, and it’s neurotoxic to humans.
Mercola cites a geoengineering map created by the ETC Group and the Heinrich Boell Foundation, which shows how geoengineering projects have expanded from some 300 in 2012 to more than 1,700 in 2023.
Dane Wigington believes that there has been a 25-30% reduction in the sun’s rays that reach the earth’s surface owing to the effect of toxic aerosol spraying that has been going on for decades without our permission and knowledge. These particulates settle in oceans, rivers and in the soil, causing damage to those ecosystems. Just how much damage has been caused to date is unclear.
This report by News Uncut quotes reliable sources confirming that geoengineering experiments are taking place. Mainstream propaganda machines like CBS News were giving it their trademark cheery spin as far back as 2021. As with all propaganda, the CBS report begins with an unchallenged premise, uncritical acceptance of which is your civic duty – namely that climate change and global warming are evils that we must “fight”. I have expressed my doubts about the climate-crisis assumption in previous articles by positing a very different paradigm, namely that it is your civic duty to be a climate sceptic because that’s what the scientific method demands, especially when there are a group of scientists who claim there is a climate crisis and another group of scientists who claim, in good faith, that there isn’t one. Under those circumstances, to insist, as CBS News does, that there most definitely is a climate crisis simply makes you a climate and/or science religionist.
A dimmer switch for the Sun – The Science™ is so simple!
Let’s take a look at reports that disclose planned geoengineering activity, bearing in mind that these reports would not be coming out if the technologies were not already being seriously considered and if they had not already pilot tested the technologies.
The White House’s report issued in June 2023 titled “Congressionally-Mandated Report on Solar Radiation Modification” sets out in detail its plan for use of “atmospheric-based approaches to solar radiation modification (SRM), specifically stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB)”.
“What you do is you fly planes into the stratosphere, about 60,000 feet into the atmosphere, and you just spray aerosols, and it blocks out, it dims the sun, enough of the sun to perhaps reduce temperatures by a degree Fahrenheit. Of course you wouldn’t want to do too much of that. It’s very simple. It’s very inexpensive. It may only cost a few billion dollars a year….but because it’s so inexpensive it freaks a lot of scientists out. It can be done unilaterally. It could be done by a small nation. It could be done by a really rich person. And we don’t know what the side effects are. There hasn’t been much research done into this yet.” [emphasis added]
In fairness to the CBS News boy and girl in the linked video, they point out that it might not all be strawberries and cream because they say that the cumulative effect of any temperature-blocking might rebound all at once as soon as the intervention was paused. But even that is probably a gross oversimplification of what would happen if humans cackhandedly interfered with nature’s complex weather systems because the boy, while managing to preserve the expression of a three-year old who’s been handed a puppy for his birthday, then says this rebounding is predicated on not having engaged in any decarbonisation measures, which, in turn, is based on the contested IPCC theory that carbon dioxide is the dominant cause of all global warming.
The more important point to make, which is not given sufficient prominence by the CBS News dynamic duo, is that it is impossible to predict the outcome of this insane experiment, and that we would not be contemplating it if the ‘scientists’ promoting this stupidity were capable of acknowledging the limits of their puny knowledge base.
I make no apologies for the boy/girl characterisation because it’s impossible to watch that video and see anything other than children playing at being adults. Their self-abasing psychological regression is integral to the ‘news’ pantomime that infantilises the public with IQ-lowering kindergarten narratives designed to brainwash the masses into not just accepting but enjoying the abuse inflicted on them by their overlords.
Enter some sober adults
Gregg Braden is a five-time New York Times best-selling author, scientist and educator, and has been invited to speak to The United Nations, Fortune 500 companies and the U. S. military. Let’s juxtapose the CBS News Kindergarten version against his more circumspect and adult assessment of solar radiation modification. Page 22 of the White House’s detailed plan states:
“For SAI [stratospheric aerosol injection] experiments, of interest is how aerosols are formed and evolve in the real stratosphere in response to the injection of aerosols or aerosol-precursor gases (e.g., sulfur dioxide).” [emphasis added]
In a video titled “Now They Want to Block the Sunlight From Reaching the Earth”, Braden points out that spraying millions of tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere has a lot of potential downside:
· It returns to the earth as acid rain which lowers the PH of the soil.
· It lowers soil fertility.
· It is harmful to forests.
· It increases soil erosion due to loss of plant life.
· It returns to rivers, lakes and oceans, increasing acidification of those water reservoirs.
· It kills phytoplankton, which is the base of the ocean food chain.
· It kills marine life.
· It causes allergic and respiratory problems for humans.
Braden illustrates the complexity of the earth’s ecosystem by showing a map of the human metabolic system. Click on the human metabolic map to appreciate not only its mind-boggling complexity but also how one change in a dietary variable affects myriad metabolic pathways in ways we still don’t understand. Then ask yourself why this same principle would not apply to the planet’s complex ecosystem of interrelated systems, including the atmosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere and biosphere. This mooted barbaric interference in such a dynamic, interrelated and complex system must surely amount to attempting to fix a Swiss watch with a monkey wrench. It’s also another reason why it is unfathomable to me that anyone could be confident of the simplistic argument that global warming today is predominantly driven by one variable, namely CO2.
Braden also discusses a Yale report that speculated on what might be involved in implementing this idiotic scheme. It would require a mere 175,000 particle-spraying flights per year, which…wait for it… would release millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the air. Thankfully, it seems that the morons may have stymied themselves with their own simplistic single-cause, single-solution model of climate catastrophe.
Citing Geoengineering Watch, Mercola notes that:
“while global cooling is the stated aim of most of these geoengineering programs, as the planet warms, the laws of physics state you need more precipitation to cool it, not less, because the atmosphere carries more moisture as the temperature rises.
To cool the planet, you need to create more rain, but these programs have resulted in less rain, and the reason for the reduction in rainfall is due to the particulates in the atmosphere. In addition to deflecting heat from the outside, these particles also trap heat down below, making the overall heating of the planet massively worse.”
If these people are claiming they have science on their side, it’s not difficult to expose the absurdity of that claim. Dimming the sun has never been tried before, and basic principles of ethical science demand that a containable, small-scale experiment be conducted in order to predict and avoid industrial-scale mayhem. It can’t be done in this case because scaling up the experiment is the only way you’ll know if it really works. Under this potentially genocidal plan, the test subjects are the entire human species and planet Earth. We don’t have a control group – as far as we know, there’s only one planet Earth and one human species.
I had a sneaking suspicion that the sun is vitally important to life on Earth, so I went in search of some reliable confirmation. Here’s how NASA’s history division expresses it:
“Nothing is more important to us on Earth than the Sun. Without the Sun’s heat and light, the Earth would be a lifeless ball of ice-coated rock. The Sun warms our seas, stirs our atmosphere, generates our weather patterns, and gives energy to the growing green plants that provide the food and oxygen for life on Earth.” [emphasis added]
There you have it. No further emphasis or elucidation is required to convince me that dimming the sun by poisoning the environment and humans with toxic particulates would be an act of global terrorism, ecocide and possible genocide. To add to the senselessness of it all, if that were possible, it would be done in the name of preventing something that might not be happening – namely a CO2-driven ‘climate crisis’.
Geoengineering also turns the already deceptive ‘climate crisis’ debate into a hall of mirrors: is it the real man-made climate change monster being used to fulfil the false prophecy of a man-made climate crisis while also doubling up as the excuse to fight the alleged crisis? More on that in Part II.
Another thing that jumped out at me was NASA’s admission that the sun “generates our weather patterns”. That looks like an admission that climate change is multifactorial and can’t be pinned solely on man-made CO2 emissions. Now, I suspect that the climate-crisis alarmists will immediately accuse me of confusing climate change with weather patterns. Well, don’t blame me because that’s what the alarmist-in-chief, the UN, is doing. Its definition of climate change is:
“Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.” [emphasis added]
There’s more than one problem with the UN’s definition that signifies both an ideological stance and leads to ideological blowback. First, there is no definition of “long-term”, which I think is deliberate because they want to incorporate weather patterns which, in turn, serves the purpose of using wildfires and hot summers as incontrovertible evidence that the end is nigh.
Second, it’s dishonest to claim that “since the 1800s” burning fossil fuels has been the main driver of climate change. Take a look at this linked graph and you’ll see that fossil fuel usage only ramps up to any significant degree post-1950. So what we’re really seeing is a claim that in a relatively short space of time (roughly 50 years since 1950 to the early 2000s), fossil fuel usage has created an existential climate-crisis that will be dramatically averted in an even shorter time frame (between now and 2050) by drastically dialling back fossil fuel usage before 2050. My point being, where does “long-term”, not defined, come into any of this?
Third, there’s the admission of the role of solar activity and other factors at play in climate change, immediately followed by the complete dismissal of these factors in the modern era because only humans could possibly be the problem. But there is no explanation of how they managed to unequivocally untangle the potential influence of human and other climate change factors. Needless to say, untangling the effect of all these factors, human and other, is vital to understanding the causes of climate change. After all, it has been happening since the beginning of time, and if the climate experienced dramatic changes before 1800 (hint: it certainly did), humans might not be the sole causative factor in the post-1800 era.
Dangerous man-made CO2 climate change versus dangerous geoengineering climate change
Suffice to say, there is more than enough reason to halt all geoengineering that has been going on for decades and to nix any future Frankenstein projects. In concluding Part I, I want to discuss what I think is an incongruity in Dane Wigington’s conceptualisation of climate change. He believes that man-made CO2-driven climate change is a real danger but has chosen to focus his efforts on raising the alarm about geoengineering on the grounds that the latter is a more dire environmental threat than the former.
Given that his website resource focuses on geoengineering, his particular arguments, if they are qualitatively different to the IPCC’s, aren’t clear to me, so I don’t understand the basis for his expressed certitude in dangerous man-made CO2 climate change. My position is scepticism based on the rational premise that his position is not based on a scientific consensus. It’s not even based on a consensus of scientists. (The two are different, and if one of the conditions were met, I would regard my position as a little more shaky.)
I am aware of a view that posits from a political perspective that one has to acknowledge, even if one has doubts, the CO2 man-made ‘climate-crisis’ narrative in order to make some progress on putting the brakes on geoengineering. This form of intellectual dishonesty makes no sense to me, to put it mildly, because disingenuously acknowledging a CO2-driven climate crisis not supported by a scientific consensus opens the door to some kind of dangerous mitigation policy, either in the form of Agenda 2030 economic strangulation, or environmental destruction by geoengineering, or worse still, a combination of both. If both the CO2 ‘climate crisis’ and geoengineering are wrong, an either/or choice leaves you trying to decide between two ‘mitigating’ poisons that are both potentially lethal. If both are wrong, both must be rejected.
In Part II, I will zoom out in an attempt to put geoengineering into some kind of moral context and give a sense of the enormity of the issue.