Originally published on A Plague on Both Houses. Also published on Real Left’s substack. Please consider subscribing if you haven’t already.
In the first of this series of articles, I will pick apart the unsavoury ingredients lurking in a seemingly bland offering: a House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, published on 18 March 2010, titled The Regulation of Geoengineering. The government paper trail on geoengineering predates this report, but I think it’s a good place to start as it seems to be the most detailed, publicly available government or parliamentary report on one aspect of geoengineering plans – regulation – and it gives a very clear indication of what the committee members’ objectives were at the time.
To begin with: are we imagining that disgusting blight in our skies? No. This paper trail should convince even the normies that we are being sprayed. It’s taking place both openly and clandestinely. It’s open in the sense that it’s patently obvious that we are being sprayed like livestock on an almost daily basis. You only have to look up at the morning sky on a clear summer day and, before you can fully enjoy it, the bastards come out to ruin it with their straight-line doodles on nature’s most beautiful canvas. It’s clandestine in the sense that no-one responsible for commissioning these almost daily sprayings has stepped forward and made a transparent declaration of exactly what they’re spraying and why they think they don’t need to consult us.
The report’s summary regurgitates climate alarmist orthodoxy, which uncritically demands large-scale measures to mitigate the effects of “highly disruptive climate change”. The paper’s objective is to discuss the “regulatory regimes for geoengineering”, as well as the controls accompanying these regimes. With respect to controls, the report refers to:
“the disclosure of geoengineering research and open publication of results and the development of governance arrangements before the deployment of geoengineering techniques.” [emphasis added]
My aim in researching the government paper trail is to determine how much disclosure there has been, what cover the sprayers think they have for doing this and, on the basis of the knowledge gained, explore possible legal avenues to resist and end this gargantuan abuse. Regardless of whether you subscribe to climate alarmist orthodoxy or not, we cannot agree, tacitly or explicitly, to indiscriminate exposure to these undisclosed chemicals in what is effectively a vast human and ecological experiment to which we have not consented. Anyone with an ounce of self-respect should be deeply offended by this psychopathic treatment.
Unlike previous multi-part articles I have written, I do not have a plan for the next parts in the series. I have not researched them and I don’t know what I will find, or even if I will find that much more. I just know that I had to start writing because I am sick and tired of looking up at the sky and seeing chemical grey shit instead of natural blue.
Key takeaways
Geoengineering was already underway before this report was issued in 2010. In the usual paternalistic style of these memos from our overlords, we are assured that this testing has been “very small scale”. There is no description of what “small scale” actually means in order to allow the reader to make a reasonable assessment of whether that is true, and nor is there any mention of the length of time for which “geoengineering testing is already underway”.
The report envisaged the UN as the route to a regulatory framework. And by ‘regulatory’ they really mean legalising. This might obviate the need for national legislation by simply using UN agreement to geoengineering as cover for individual countries to spray us and the skies with impunity.
The report is not concerned with whether it is acceptable to conduct mass experimentation on human populations and ecosystems. This is a forgone conclusion, confirmed by the authors’ smug reiteration of a view expressed in an earlier report, aptly titled Engineering: turning ideas into reality:
“We were of the view that the Government should give the full range of policy options for managing climate change due consideration and that geoengineering technologies should be evaluated as part of a portfolio of responses to climate change, alongside mitigation and adaptation efforts.”
Thus, the purpose of this 2010 report was to craft a fig-leaf of due diligence for consumption by a gullible public: a pretence, cloaked in the mantle of ‘regulation’, that due consideration has been given to risks.
Categories of geoengineering
The report defines “geoengineering” as those “activities specifically and deliberately designed to effect a change in the global climate with the aim of minimising or reversing anthropogenic climate change.” [emphasis added] Geoengineering is divided into two main groups:
1. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
2. Solar radiation management (SRM), which aims to offset greenhouse warming by reducing the incidence and absorption of incoming solar (short-wave) radiation. In plain terms, dimming the sun. The more disturbing methods discussed in the report include aerosol injection, which entails injecting sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect solar radiation back to space. Investigative work done by others indicates that the aerosols are in fact a toxic cocktail of chemicals and heavy metals that are destined to wreak havoc on us and the planet.
The key distinction the report makes between CDR and SRM is that the former, in their view, treats the root cause of anthropogenic climate change while the latter only treats the symptoms.
All of this is not news to most readers of this blog, but it is important for unfamiliar newcomers to understand that a ‘climate emergency’, for which there is no scientific consensus (despite the furious insistence on it), is the cover story for geoengineering. If most people can be convinced that the situation is desperate, then most people are likely to acquiesce to desperate and dangerous measures.
Both methods entail large-scale environmental interference, manifesting in potentially disastrous long-term consequences for our complex ecosystems. However, without trying to understate the insanity of CDR, I will focus on SRM because it is more insane by virtue of its intent to literally and figuratively, in the words of the marvellous Manic Street Preachers song, steal the sun from our hearts while simultaneously poisoning us and the entire ecosystem. Its sheer outrageousness also presents more of a regulatory problem for these perverse environmental abusers.
For those who have become alienated from nature and think that sunlight is a negotiable variable in the complex cocktail of ingredients that nurture life on planet Earth, here is a reminder from NASA on how important the sun is:
“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]
Again, no matter how mesmerised you are by climate alarmism, it is both ghoulish and megalomaniacal to interfere with a natural planetary interaction by seeking to ration the life-giving energy of the sun by dimming it.
What’s more, hidden in plain sight in that quote is a clue that man-made CO2 emissions may not be a significant causative variable in climate variation. A recent climate study published this month points out that “published studies agree that the observed decrease of planetary albedo [the earth’s reflection of incoming solar energy] and the associated increase of solar-energy uptake by the planet must have had a significant impact on the global temperature.” Attempts to quantify this effect have been unsatisfactory to date. However, this new study seeks to address this gap by quantifying the effect and finds that solar forcing (changes in solar radiation) explains “100% of the observed global warming trend and 83% of the interannual GSAT [Global Surface Air Temperature] variability over the past 24 years”.
The study’s authors posit that the amount of heat gained by the earth over the past 45 years is “due to a sustained increase in solar-radiation uptake, which is a completely different mechanism from the proposed theoretical trapping of radiant energy by greenhouse gases.” They also believe that their calculations “indicate a lack of long-term heat storage in the system that could commit the planet to a prolonged future warming.”
I would not pretend to be qualified to opine on the integrity of the study data and methodology but, if the IPCC was a truly scientific body, it would publish the study and call for debate on its significance. But the IPCC won’t do that because it’s not a scientific body; it’s a political institution dedicated to promoting CO2 as the dominant cause of a purportedly catastrophic man-made ‘climate crisis’.
The fundamental problems with geoengineering
There are two fundamental problems with geoengineering, only one of which is admitted to in the Science and Technology Committee’s report.
The problem that is acknowledged by the MPs who produced this report is articulated very well by them:
“for any research activities on geoengineering techniques to have a noticeable impact on the climate, they will have to be deployed on a massive scale, and thus any unintended consequences are also likely to be massive.” [emphasis added]
The fundamental problem acknowledged by the mad scientists and bureaucrats is that the only way to find out if geoengineering ‘works’ is to conduct an experiment in which the entire planet’s atmosphere and the whole of humanity are sprayed with chemicals to which we have never been subjected on this scale and in this manner. Virtually all of humanity is both the control group and the experimental group and, if it goes wrong, we all suffer the consequences – consequences to which we could not possibly have agreed owing to a colossal absence of informed consent.
We should also not be so naïve as to assume there is only one criterion for determining whether geoengineering works, namely dimming the sun. This may well be a cover story for something far more nefarious, which we will explore in a follow-up piece. The climate crisis is the cover story for dimming the sun, and dimming the sun is the cover story for something else. If you think putting a stake through the heart of the ‘climate crisis’ narrative will end sun-dimming and geoengineering, think again. Another cover story will be found.
In a tacit recognition of both the absurdity of such an experiment and the ‘virtual’ world that is increasingly becoming a substitute for the real world, the report states that “the nature of geoengineering research meant that much of it would need to be done on a “virtual” basis and the use of climate models would also enable a risk assessment of individual options” [emphasis added]. In other words, there is no way of conducting a controlled and limited experiment in the real world to determine if they are shooting us in the head, neck, chest and foot, so the assessment of risk is to be conducted in the ‘virtual’ world, using climate models. When you conduct an experiment in the real world, the results don’t lie. When you conduct an experiment in the virtual world, the results can be anything you want them to be. The climate models they refer to are the very same models that have been predicting that we would all be living under water by the year 2000 if we didn’t stop the planet from self-combusting in a fiery ball of CO2-fuelled flames.
Conducting a mass experiment on humanity and the environment, the results of which can only be known if and when irreversible harms befall us and the entire planet, exposes yet another absurdity of this report – this is not a risk that can be addressed by regulation. Deciding to play Russian roulette and then regulating the insanity does not ameliorate the risk of getting our heads blown off. It merely records the gory details of playing Russian roulette. The entire Western world is essentially one massive sprawling bureaucracy devoid of common sense and morality. The paradigm of a regulatory regime painted in this report (and probably thousands of others like it) is not one of risk reduction but rather one of enabling the desired risky action under the guise of risk reduction.
If you still doubt the fact that the purpose of today’s bureaucracy is to serve evil, then consider this conclusion reached by the geniuses on the committee. They compare the action of reducing emissions to the action of releasing stratospheric aerosols. In order to have a desired global impact, reducing emissions requires global action, and getting the whole world to agree to that has proven to be impossible. On the other hand, releasing stratospheric aerosols is a local action that can have a global impact. The report’s happy conclusion to this bang-for-buck realisation is:
“The regulatory regime applying to a geoengineering technique does not need to be so extensive as that for the reduction of emissions. It could focus on setting targets, managing a process and cost-sharing. This reduces the complexity of the governance task, while simultaneously reducing the need for a universal process, though wide participation would remain strongly desirable on ethical and political grounds.”
Ethics and wide participation – agreement by the whole of humanity to an act affecting the whole of humanity – are mere political after-thoughts. Talk of a “governance task” is infuriatingly stupid jargon to mask the real meaning of what they are trying to do. The “governance task” is to ram geoengineering down the throats of everyone on the planet. In the mind of an evil Vogon, if you refer to this as a “governance task”, this makes it perfectly acceptable.
The fundamental problem not dealt with in the report is whether there really is a ‘crisis’ that warrants upending the global social and economic order with measures that threaten widespread famine and poverty. To which you can add environmental destruction in the guise of geoengineering. The ‘climate crisis’, though highly questionable, is beyond questioning. But that is standard operating procedure in the deployment of the Hegelian dialectic: the ‘problem’ is real because those generating the narrative say it is, and their proposed solution is the only one available because they ruthlessly control the solutions narrative.
The ‘regulation’ problem
The report’s authors conclude that CDR and SRM techniques are so different that trying to compress them both into a single regulatory framework “is neither practicable nor desirable”. Instead, they opt for a system of grading techniques according to “transboundary impact” and then tailoring the regulatory frameworks accordingly. They conclude that:
“geoengineering techniques should be graded according to factors such as trans-boundary effect, the dispersal of potentially hazardous materials in the environment and the direct effect on ecosystems. The regulatory regimes for geoengineering should then be tailored accordingly. Those techniques scoring low against the criteria should be subject to no additional regulation to that already in place, while those scoring high would be subject to additional controls. So for example, at the low end of the scale are artificial trees and at the high end is the release of large quantities of aerosols into the atmosphere.” [emphasis added]
They go on to identify a key problem with the existing international systems of regulation, namely: “no existing treaty deals explicitly with geoengineering” since “none of these treaties was drafted with geoengineering in mind”. This is particularly problematic for SRM techniques because, in contrast to CDR techniques, “regulatory regimes for many SMR [sic] techniques have yet to be developed.” The report states at paragraph 39:
“The oceanic cloud brightening technologies would not fall under national jurisdiction and no existing international institutions have a clear mandate, so modifications and extensions of existing treaties (e.g. ENMOD)[i] and institutions would be required. Existing treaties governing the atmosphere and space (CLRTAP79[ii] & OST[iii]) would similarly not be adequate to regulate stratospheric aerosols and space mirrors.”
Having identified a gap in the regulatory framework for SRM geoengineering, the report then asks: “does this gap matter?” It concludes that it does matter since, in the opinion of the authors, there is a growing urgency to press ahead with geoengineering research. The Science and Technology Committee’s spurious justification for going full-steam-ahead on SRM geoengineering includes:
- It would be considered prudent to have a plan B (SRM) up their sleeves and fully ready to deploy in the likely event that plan A (CDR decarbonisation) targets to avert the ‘climate crisis’ proved too difficult to achieve.
- The need to pre-empt “uninformed and rash unilateral action by less responsible actors”.
The fact that the US and the UK, two leading members of the most destructive global institution on the planet – the US-NATO empire – consider themselves to be more rational and responsible than the countries they routinely reduce to rubble with war and sanctions should have all sane people rolling in the aisles. The logic, however badly disguised in propagandistic sophistry, is blatant: it is preferable for the UK and US to be the first to engage in “uninformed and rash unilateral action” than for their opponents to beat them to it.
Unsurprisingly, the sage members of the Science and Technology Committee conclude that in an atmosphere of a global geoengineering arms race, “the Government’s focus on Plan A [CDR]…is becoming increasingly untenable”. Their unequivocal recommendation is “that the Government review its policy on geoengineering to give it greater priority.”
What we’re seeing in this report is distinctly odd. A bunch of MPs are advocating for an extremely risky global environmental intervention that supposedly hasn’t happened yet, while also advocating for some sort of regulation of the said intervention. There is normally a healthy independence of those engaged in a risky activity from those regulating it. For the regulation to work, there has to be a clear separation of the regulator from the regulated entities. And yet clearly, this committee is pushing for both the activity and the regulation of it. And to me, that signifies plainly that the ‘regulation’ is a cover to boost the activity.
Nowhere is there any reference to a debate of the fundamental question that precedes both the activity and the regulation thereof – should the activity be taking place at all?
How to solve the ‘regulation’ problem
Because geoengineering is an undertaking by a small group of countries with an impact on all of humanity – ‘trans-boundary’ effects – the main concern of this report is how to secure international legitimacy for the activity without actually risking an international veto of it in the process. It’s a catch-22 that strains the mental resources, such as they are, of the august Science and Technology committee. The hand-wringing, sophistry and mental gymnastics dedicated to navigating this dilemma would be amusing were it not for the fact that the geniuses writing the report were plotting the vandalism of the entire planet.
In a section of the report titled Future regulatory arrangements, they are clear that placing geoengineering in the hands of “some sort of UN forum” would be counterproductive since “you could end up with a decision […] to make geoengineering a taboo, to outlaw it, and that would be a mistake”. Indeed.
The flight from coherent thinking into the arms of idiocy goes hand in hand with any attempt to justify the unjustifiable, and this is illustrated in paragraph 89 of the report: “it would be premature to start a full UN scale EU Court treaty process, because it is simply not clear yet what the capacities are and states, individuals, have not had long enough to consider seriously what the trade-offs are.” [emphasis added]
This is an astoundingly stupid way to say that it is easier to sin first and seek forgiveness later. But I am being too harsh on the committee brainiacs because a parliamentary committee report whose objective is to pave the way for an atrocity can’t very well blurt out the truth. So instead, they have to say it’s too soon to ask those who will be affected by the atrocity if they might object. The right time to ask them is after the deed has been done. And, in any case, the other affected parties haven’t had time to consider the alternatives to the atrocity…because the geoengineers haven’t told them what they’re planning to do! It’s a perfectly circular logic that closes off any silly thoughts about dealing transparently with the world.
The whole UN dilemma is articulated in this extract from section 99 of the report:
“As Mr Virgoe [an expert quoted extensively by the committee] noted in his recent article, there are important arguments in favour of a UN process. It would give the implementation of geoengineering legitimacy… The problem … was that the UN process complicated and slowed down the decision-making process and any serious geoengineering proposal would certainly lead to vigorous international debate. He considered that the chances of achieving a multilateral agreement to deploy geoengineering were “not good”.” [emphasis added]
“Vigorous international debate” ought to be regarded as an essential prerequisite to achieving a shared understanding and trust. But to the geoengineering enthusiasts, it’s the equivalent of a cross to a vampire. Nevertheless, conceding that there is no way to circumvent the UN in the pursuit of the fig-leaf of international acceptance of depriving the planet of sunlight, the committee commits itself to a UN path for ‘regulation’. However, at the time of this 2010 report, the precise UN mechanism was not yet clear. The conclusion (paragraph 123) the committee came to was:
“The UN is the route by which eventually we envisage the regulatory framework operating but first the UK and other governments need to prime the UN pump.”
The precise mechanism within the UN is hinted at in paragraph 64 of the report, in which the committee noted the view of an expert who pointed out that “there were more technically oriented UN bodies that would be more appropriate, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)” [emphasis added]. Should we be surprised to see the committee leaning towards ‘regulation’ of geoengineering by the UN body tasked with disseminating climate alarmism?
Public attitudes
The report contains a cursory section on public attitudes. The reports’ authors believe that “the acceptability of geoengineering would be determined as “much by social, legal and political issues as by scientific and technical factors”. What is astounding about this section is that the word safety is not mentioned once. Safety, of course, is what the public would be most concerned about. Instead, the authors refer to “the public acceptance of the risks of new technologies”.
There are three simple questions to ask here, the answers to which would cause the vast majority of us to sober up very quickly, leaving the mad geoengineers out on a limb:
- What is the precise chemical composition of the stratospheric aerosols?
- How much will be / is being sprayed on us on a daily basis?
- What scientific evidence exists regarding the effects on humans and the environment?
These questions are of course not broached in the report.
Principles to be applied to geoengineering research
There is a very fleeting moment at the start of a section titled Principles to be applied to geoengineering research in which the sophistry and doublespeak appear to give way to noble sentiments espousing the need for public approval of geoengineering. In a list of five principles, the report expresses reasonable sentiments such as “geoengineering to be regulated as a public good”, and the need “to notify, consult, and ideally obtain the prior informed consent of, those affected by the research activities”, although this is qualified by the words “wherever possible”. There is also an expressed desire for “complete disclosure of research plans and open publication of results in order to facilitate better understanding of the risks and to reassure the public as to the integrity of the process”.
This humanistic language about public good jars violently with the whole cynical tone of the report which, up to this point, had done a brilliant job of doublespeaking its way to justifying the unspeakable. So, imagine how relieved I was when the sophistry quickly returned with expressions of angst over how to define the public and public good. The Animal Farm pigs quickly returned to their proper selves with the astute observation that:
“some publics were suffering very badly, or would be suffering very badly, from the effects of climate change. But some populations might benefit from climate change”.
If some populations will suffer and others benefit, doesn’t that open up a question as to whether there really is a global ‘climate crisis’? The committee did not allow that line of thinking to derail their purpose. This ‘climate crisis’ anomaly, according to the gung-ho geoengineering MPs, is what makes the whole issue of public good very thorny.
Questions were then raised about intellectual property rights for private companies that must be allowed to make a profit from their research. Before long, the committee was wringing its hands over the thorny issue of “the public good”, concluding that the principle of ““geoengineering to be regulated as a public good” needs, first, to be worked up in detail to define public good and public Interest.” What a relief. For a brief moment there I thought an angel had arrived to banish the devil whispering in their ears. Not so!
Public participation in geoengineering decision-making is given similar sophistic treatment, with the committee concluding that such a tricky principle “needs to spell out in the explanatory text what consultation means and whether, and how, those affected can veto or alter proposed geoengineering tests”. [emphasis added] What would be the point of it all if the Great British public could veto a decision by their government to spray them like livestock with undisclosed chemicals? Where’s the fun in that?
The committee raises the spectre of the precautionary principle being applied too robustly by overly cautious ninnies seeking to put paid to their geoengineering ambitions. Unsurprisingly, they conclude that the precautionary principle should not be made “predominant” since this “risks not only halting geoengineering research … but it could also force from international and public scrutiny any research carried out by other bodies or states not playing by the rules.” Ah, so there you have it. How comforting to have it confirmed by British MPs – that breed of person purer in spirit, if not appearance, than cherubs – that we are the good guys and everyone else can’t be trusted to “play by the rules”…rules which don’t exist and probably can’t because what are the rules for spraying the global commons and humanity with goodness knows what?
What did the committee think of Sir David King’s suggestion of a temporary ban on SRM (paragraph 92 of the report) owing to its “unintended consequences [which] are extremely difficult to foresee”? You ought to know by now but, in the interests of accuracy in reporting, here is the answer:
“While we understand Sir David’s concerns, we consider that a temporary ban on SRM may not be the way forward. First, it would have to be negotiated through an international agreement which will take time and may not be achieved. Second, as we noted in the previous chapter, small scale testing may already be underway. Third a ban on all testing could inhibit laboratory development of geoengineering techniques.”
See that third point? For once, I couldn’t fault their logic – a ban on geoengineering would inhibit geoengineering.
Absurdities, atrocities and order followers
Those who can make you believe absurdities can also make you commit atrocities. Thinking that it is necessary to ‘decarbonise’ the planet to avoid a ‘climate crisis’ is a colossal absurdity. Dimming the sun to avert this ‘crisis’ is an atrocity.
The whole mindset driving geoengineering is so diabolical and demented that even those of us who understand the absurdity find it difficult to acknowledge the inherent barbarity of literally stealing the sun. To do so requires us to acknowledge that we too are a product of the society that produced these demented fools. But we must face up to the fact that these people are well beneath us in moral and spiritual development. They are the product of an insane society, and those of us still in possession of our mental and moral faculties have a duty to step in and call time on the madness.
To those flying the planes and dropping these chemicals on us, I will quote the inescapable logic of Mark Passio’s[iv] words: the order follower is always more morally culpable than the order giver. Every mass atrocity ever committed in human history was the result of someone just following orders. The order giver is just some mad man or woman telling people to kill each other. If you obey, although the order giver is not exonerated, the blood is literally on the hands of the order follower. It’s the order follower who pulls the trigger or, in this case, drops the chemicals. Saying No to evil leaves the mad men powerless and impotent, as all mad men should be. Saying No to evil is ultimately our final and most effective defence. It is our only defence. This all ends with a big enough No.
“Order followers have ultimately been personally responsible and morally culpable for every form of slavery and every single totalitarian regime that has ever existed upon the face of the earth.” – Mark Passio.
I know there are many in the freedom movement who will baulk at that statement because they say it removes culpability from those who have the most power – the ones who own and control The System and who are planning and implementing a global totalitarian bio-technocracy. It does not. What this statement does is recognise, in stark terms, that the power to resist lies with us, the many. The few who plot and scheme will not, indeed cannot, surrender unless the many reach a critical mass of acceptance that the power is ours to take.
Failure to acknowledge this hard but simple truth removes the responsibility from us, the many, to undergo the required spiritual revolution that is the only lasting way out of this millennia-old mess. To deny that we are responsible for getting out of this mess is to say that those who own and control the wealth and power will inexplicably grant us our freedom. We all know that the reason they are taking wealth and power from us is to keep and consolidate it. We all know that power and freedom are not willingly surrendered by the slave master. They must be taken.
In Part II, I will bring the paper trail up to date with more research on what the UK government has disclosed about geoengineering. To reiterate my objective – I want to understand what the government has or hasn’t disclosed in order to understand what might be possible in terms of a legal challenge. I haven’t figured that out yet.
[i] In 1977, UN members agreed to the “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques” (ENMOD). The treaty, as well as forbidding the use of environmental modification techniques in hostile circumstances, supported the use of weather modification for peaceful purposes.
[ii] The 1979 Convention on Long-range Trans-boundary Air Pollution.
[iii] The 1967 Outer Space Treaty.
[iv] Presentation by Mark Passio: “Two Masks, Same Face: The Dark Occult Origins Of Nazism & Communism”, time stamp 7hr:37min. https://www.whatonearthishappening.com/news