Frequently Used Terminology

[Read More: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/119]

Chemtrail
Chemical-Trail. A trail containing chemical and/or metal particulates.

Modern usage refers to man-made trails in the atmosphere which are by aircraft. Although there is a variety of methods available to disperse atmospheric chemical trails e.g. rockets, ground-based deployment technologies, ships.

Chemtrails can contain metal and chemical particulates including: Sulfur, Carbon Black. Aromatics, Aluminium etc. Such substances cause/contribute to aviation induced cloudiness and often referred to as ‘Cloud Condensation Nuclei’ or CCN’s.

The word ‘chemtrails’ is often used interchangeably with and/or can refer to: Weather Modification, Cloud Seeding, Geoengineering, Solar Radiation Management (SRM), Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), Climate Engineering, Persistent Contrail, Aviation Induced Cloudiness, Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB), Sky Whitening and Weather Warfare.

Atmospheric Convection Management (ACM)
Management of earth’s convection processes. Convection is a process which acts to transport much of earth’s surface heat to the upper troposphere and is linked to earth’s atmospheric circulation and climate systems.

Albedo Modification
Modification of earth’s reflectivity (albedo); with high albedo meaning bright, and low albedo meaning dark.

Aviation Induced Cloudiness (AIC)
aka Induced Cirrus Cloudiness, Artificial Clouds, Man-Made Cloud, Aviaticus Cloud.

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)
The deliberate removal of carbon dioxide from earths’ atmosphere. This technology also involves a Carbon Dioxide Storage and/or Recycling component.

Contrail
Condensation trail created by aircraft.

Persistent Contrail (aka Aerodynamic contrail)
A persisting contrail which forms man-made high-altitude cirrus clouds, or high thin cirrus clouds which have been found to trap heat.

Young Contrail
A contrail less than 5 hours old.

Contrail Cirrus (aka High Thin Cirrus)
A contrail that has formed into a cirrus cloud. Known to trap heat.

Climate Engineering/Intervention
The deliberate and large-scale engineering/intervention in the Earth’s climatic system.

Cloud Brightening (aka Marine Cloud Brightening, MCB)
Introducing sea water particles (as little as 2 µm in diameter) to increase cloud reflectivity (albedo), making clouds brighter.

Environmental Modification (EnMod)
EnMod also refers to an international 1978 UN treaty, prohibiting the hostile use of environmental modification technologies. See the Environmental Modification Convention (https://www.unog.ch/enmod), aka the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques.

Earth Radiation Management (ERM)
Management of earth’s (radiation budget) long and short-wave radiation.

Geoengineering
The deliberate large-scale manipulation of an environmental process.

Global Dimming
A reduction in the amount of sunlight reaching earth’s surface.

High-Frequency Advanced Auroral Research Project (HAARP)
Originally a US Military funded research project, now used by academic researchers, the HAARP facility is located in Alaska and aims to research and/or enhance earth’s ionosphere, enabling better radio communications and surveillance technologies. (See also ionospheric heater).

Ionosphere
A region of earth’s atmosphere which includes earth’s thermosphere and some of earth’s mesosphere and exosphere.

Ionospheric Heater
Technology designed to transmit strong radio waves into earth’s ionosphere and upper atmosphere, modifying electron temperatures, to research plasma turbulence.
(Full map http://climateviewer.org/pollution-and-privacy/atmospheric-sensors-and-emf-sites/maps/haarp-ionospheric-heaters-worldwide).

NEXRAD (aka Weather Surveillance Radar or WSR-88D)
S-band doppler radars used by institutions (e.g. DoD, NOAA, FAA) to ‘detect’ rain, wind, and atmospheric movement. Energy pulses produced by NEXRAD radars have the potential to interact with metallic aerosols and impact weather patterns.
(Full map http://climateviewer.org/pollution-and-privacy/atmospheric-sensors-and-emf-sites/maps/nexrad-doppler-radar-stations)

Ocean Fertilisation
The introduction of nutrients to the upper ocean. The goal of Ocean Fertilisation is to boost marine food production and to remove of carbon dioxide from earths’ atmosphere.

Particulate Matter (PM)
More info: Suspended particulate matter (SPM), Respirable suspended particle (RSP), Particles with diameter of 10 micrometres or less (PM10), Ultrafine particles Diameter of 2.5 micrometres or less (PM2.5), Nanoparticles Particles between 1 and 100 nanometres in size.

Radiative Forcing (RF) (aka Climate Forcing)
Altering earth’s radiation balance. Positive forcing refers to more incoming energy, and Negative forcing refers more outgoing energy

Solar Geoengineering
Managing earth’s radiation budget by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere to increase earth’s reflectivity.

Solar Radiation Management (SRM)
See Solar Geoengineering

Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE)
A Solar Radiation Management (SRM) Research Project commencing in 2010, and led by the University of Bristol, the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford and the University of Edinburgh which began in October 2010. (See http://www.spice.ac.uk/)

Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment Scopex (SCOPEX)
A solar geoengineering research experiment developed by the Solar Geoengineering Research Project at Harvard University.

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Lofter (SAIL)
The name given to a newly developed solar geoengineering aircraft designed to carry a dense mass of molten sulfur into the stratosphere to be deployed for solar geoengineering. (See https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d/meta)

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI)
See Solar Geoengineering

Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering (SAG)
See Solar Geoengineering

Weather Modification
Intentionally creating, manipulating or altering the weather (can refer to local, regional, global and/or seasonal weather modification).

Chemtrails: the taboo word

Its a word which rouses an array of responses. From blank stares, laughter, eye rolling, criticism, curiosity and sometimes even looks of excitement when the people you are speaking with realise you use the word ‘chemtrails’ too. Obviously the latter is my favourite response, like finding a kindred spirit that speaks your language and with whom you can finally have a rational conversation with about the subject.

But is it okay to use the word chemtrails? After all it is said the word originated from the U.S. Military. Or does using the word chemtrails discredit you and the information you provide?

The simple answer is, it depends on your audience. The word chemtrails is descriptive and is an apt way to describe the ‘chemical trails’ we witness in our sky more days than not. Moreover, the word chemtrails encompasses technologies such as solar radiation management (SRM), stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), marine cloud brightening (MCB); technologies all based on deploying man made atmospheric chemical trails (visible or not) in an attempt to ‘engineer the climate’.

Then again, if you are talking to someone who will instantly shutdown once you say the word, is there any point speaking to them at all?

The word chemtrails is now part of pop culture. Meaning it is a word known and used by the masses. Moreover, numerous articles and papers have long suggested that the man-made clouds produced by aircraft (aka chemtrails) are indeed already geoengineering the atmosphere [1, 2, 3] (a whole other topic in and of itself, deserving of its own post).

Image by Piotr VaGla Waglowski
Despite this, the word chemtrails is often cited as one of the top 10 ‘conspiracy theories‘ and when you search the word chemtrails, most search engines turn up page after page of debunking sites before anything resembling an anti geoengineering or chemtrails website appears in the search results (if they show up at all). Even many of the larger anti geoengineering activists frown upon those of us who dare use the ‘C’ word.

Language is funny like that. Certain words or phrases provoke prejudice, hostility, passion… sadness etc. Trigger words are analysed by psychologists, monitored by governments, and used by politicians, marketers, the media, internet trolls, and yes, even everyday people.

However, irrespective of one’s position in society, cultural background or educational status, one way or another we seem to adapt to the language which surrounds us as much as the language which surrounds us adapts to us. And as history illustrates, those who speak the language deemed to be ‘proper’ or ‘noble’ will always look down upon those of us who dare to use slang, defy the rules of grammar or digress from the hodgepodge of prescriptivist jargon which they deem appropriate.

Having said all that, as for the word chemtrails, for me when I am talking to friends and family I do not hesitate to use the ‘C’ word. I sometimes even use it to trigger a reaction from certain people. But when around strangers or peers I will often use terms like weather modification, climate engineering, geoengineering, solar radiation management.

Those who are already familiar with these terms will often respond with “oh you mean chemtrails?”, but if they don’t I will usually continue using the mainstream jargon. If they ask for more information I tell them to visit the opchemtrails website and library (or if I think they are going to be super anal about the word chemtrails, I will point them to other credible sites). From there it is up to them.

Again, whether or not you use the word chemtrails is up to you, and really depends on your audience and how clearly you want your message to be received.

___

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


Written by Kali_Furies, for OpChemtrails.com, 2019.

Chemtrails, Rabbit Holes and Paintings

Those who have spent time traversing the chemtrails rabbit hole will probably agree that it is a rabbit hole with many tunnels. Tunnels which are often interconnected, go for miles and are riddled with off shoot tunnels.

In other words, it can become a maze. Even those who feel like they know most of the ins and outs of the world of geoengineering can become disorientated.

With this in mind, while watching James Corbett, of the Corbett Report, discussing how when ‘looking at a painting we can become so fixated on the individual brush strokes it distracts us from the painting itself.’ In other words, we can lose sight of our original path, becoming side-tracked by the noise. For some reason this stuck with me, nagging in the back of my mind.

After mulling over this for a few days I wondered, am I looking too closely at the individual brush strokes and thus loosing site of the painting? Has the topic of chemtrails been so micro analysed and saturated with diverging theories, opinions, jargon, information and disinformation, that I stopped looking at the painting?

For me this was one of those moments when the foggy veil lifts and the whirling amass of thoughts and information suddenly become clear. I won’t even bother going into the many, many, many interconnected rabbit holes I have been down. Time wasted debating with people about wording, motives, outcomes, methods, scientific studies, statistics, not to mention the countless insults which have been endured. Just saying the word chemtrails is controversial and can trigger a flurry of hostility.

But here’s the thing. At the core of everything is the fact that planes are making clouds (aka chemtrails), and have been doing this for decades. Chemtrail clouds vary in type and the particulates can remain in the atmosphere for hours if not days. It can take hours before chemtrail clouds become indistinguishable from natural cirrus clouds. Moreover, chemtrail clouds are not ‘just water vapour’ (which btw is a greenhouse gas), they also contain metal and chemical particulates, including: carbon black, sulfur, aromatics, aluminium, etc. [1, 2].

Trolls can try to ridicule you for believing in chemtrails but unless they are devoid of any brain cells they can not argue with the simple facts:

  • Clouds affect earths’ natural climate and hydrological cycles,
  • Clouds affect earth’s natural weather patterns,
  • Clouds impact on regional micro climates,
  • Clouds are interconnected with precipitation patterns,
  • Aviation induced cloud cover has been recorded as covering km’s of the earths surface on any given day,
  • All of the above impact on human health and the environment.
  • Publicly scientists admit they do not even really know what impact chemtrails (or, persistent contrails) are having on our climate. Moreover, it is only recently that scientists have started factoring clouds into climate models; an area which has many deficiencies, uncertainties and issues surrounding transparency.

    Any honest Scientist will openly admit we still have much to learn about the true relationship between clouds, the earth, the climate and our atmosphere. Even the loudest geoengineering advocates, while acknowledging the predicted negative impacts e.g. increase mortality rates, natural sacrifice zones, admit they are uncertain as to what the true impacts of geoengineering technologies (once ‘officially’ deployed) will be.

    The impact these man-made chemical clouds are having on earths’ climate, weather systems, our environment and our health has been largely ignored by governments, environmental hierarchies, medical professionals, the media… you know… all the people who are meant to have our best interests at heart. These people remain wilfully ignorant, too fearful (or unable) to speak out, or are busy discussing ‘official‘ deployment of geoengineering technologies.

    Though for me, the simple, clear explanation, ‘planes make clouds (aka chemtrails) and clouds impact on climate and weather’ is at the very core of the chemtrails rabbit hole, or I guess you could say it is the ‘outer layer of the onion’.

    The interconnected rabbit holes e.g. climate change, weather warfare, wifi/frequencies, depopulation, haarp, ship tracks etc. are just that… more rabbit holes. Yes they are relevant, but they are also the layers beneath the outer layer, the individual brush strokes that are a part of the painting.

    Personally, I still firmly believe there are multiple programs, initiatives, motives, and goals driving the chemtrail agenda, but rediscovering the entrance to the chemtrails rabbit hole I stumbled into over 4 years ago has allowed me to filter out the noise and to appreciate the painting in its entirety once more.

    Further Reading:
    Elemental composition and morphology of ice-crystal residual particles in cirrus clouds and contrails
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809597000835?via%3Dihub

    Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming
    https://web.archive.org/web/20190104044744/http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045102

    Impacts of aviation fuel sulfur content on climate and human health
    https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/10521/2016/?utm_campaign=OpChemtrails

    Influence of fuel sulfur on the composition of aircraft exhaust plumes: The experiments SULFUR 1–7
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2001JD000813

    The Assessment of Aviation Cloudiness in IPCC Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis
    https://opchemlibrary.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-assessment-of-aviation-cloudiness.html

    ClimateViewer News:
    Jet Fuel https://climateviewer.com/tags/jet-fuel/
    Dopped Jet Fuel https://climateviewer.com/tags/doped-jet-fuel/

    Verification for Different Contrail Parameterizations Based on Integrated Satellite Observation and ECMWF Reanalysis Data
    https://web.archive.org/web/20180603001446/https://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2017/8707234/

    ___

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


    Written by Kali_Furies, for OpChemtrails.com, 2019.

    The Big Geoengineering Squeeze: time for political pressure

    Governments and academic institutions vehemently deny such programs exist, yet the fact that for decades our atmosphere has been geoengineered by aircraft trails and ship trails is increasingly understood and acknowledge by a majority.

    Although the recent news coverage on Harvard’s geoengineering circus and American State University was a double slap in the face to many anti geoengineering activists, concepts such as or similar solar radiation management (SRM), stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB) are finally being discussed by the broader community. More importantly is has caused many people to question what they have already been witnessing in their sky.

    Personally, I believe Harvard formally announced its’ ‘hypothetical’ plan to dim the sun (problem) to generate a flood of public concern (reaction), which will enable them to implement their plans for global governance of geoengineering programs (solution). Despite my personal opinion, the recent mainstream coverage concerning geoengineering may in fact be a positive development.

    How on earth could it be positive?
    We all know that voting systems these days are questionable to say the least, but now that geoengineering has been propelled into the mainstream arena political parties can be pressed to affirm the political party’s view on the matter (in black and white).

    Ask your local representatives about their level of understanding and opinion on geoengineering; do they support research and/or future deployment? If a representative is found to endorse geoengineering technology, this can be used to launch a social media campaign which will inform voters that if they vote for ‘X’ they are voting for geoengineering. If representatives are unaware of geoengineering, this would be a perfect time to provide them with information.

    Even if your local representatives deny the ongoing geoengineering programs we currently witness in our sky, they can no longer deny that governments and members of academia, adorning their sophisticated facades and passive aggressive mentality, are and now openly, but coyly, calling for the ‘official future deployment’ of geoengineering technologies and for the creation of a global governing body.

    Academics keep the public bewildered by claiming geoengineering is only in the research stages, yet, the same people often fail to mention that some of these research projects last for almost as long as Smith and Wagner’s conjectural ‘SAIL’ program, which has a projected deployed lifespan of 15 years. Another detail which is often neglected is the fact that scientists and academic institutions were conducting outdoor experiments as early as the 1950’s.

    Also, it is well documented that for a decade or more psychologists, sociologists, public relations experts and even philosophers have been employed by governments and academic institutions to research public opinion, reactions, apprehensions and knowledge regarding geoengineering. Is such research into human behaviour and psyche what is driving the geoengineering narrative now promoted by mainstream?

    More Information
    Below is a list of relevant information and websites you may like to share with your local representatives (or anyone who would like to learn more about geoengineering).

    Artificial Clouds [website]: http://artificialclouds.com/

    Weather Modification History [website]: https://weathermodificationhistory.com

    Hands Off Mother Earth: Manifesto Against Geoengineering [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/504

    Evidence of Clear-Sky Daylight Whitening [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/499

    The Belford Group Report: Case Orange [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/491

    Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy, and Potential (1978) [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/522

    Additional Resources:
    OpChemtrails Library: https://opchemlibrary.blogspot.com/

    Links to informative websites: https://opchemtrails.com/home-2/welcome/links-info

    ___

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


    Written by Kali_Furies, for OpChemtrails.com, 2019.

    The Push for Global Governance of Climate Engineering

    In October 2018 the Academic Working Group on Climate  Engineering Governance Governing Solar Radiation Management released its report which explores the “governance needs and options for Solar Radiation Management(SRM) technologies.”

    More specifically the report focuses on “feasible and needed actions” which can be achievedby 2025 at “the national, regional, and international levels and by non-state actors.” Meaning these actions will be managed by both regional and corporate powers and will undoubtedly involve United Nations forming a new ‘body’ responsible for the governance of global climate engineering technologies and programs, as recommendedon page 30 of the report.

    “Who should take action? Established by the UN General Assembly, with members appointed by the UN Secretary-General” p.30. Read the entire document below. And please take the time to view and sign this petition.

    Download the PDF here.

    Finding Wally: Propaganda, Inner Circles & Deniability

    Finding Wally

    Media outlets and online scientific communities came alive this week, with headlines such as “Could an anti-global-warming atmospheric spraying programme really work?”,  “100 Special planes and $2.5 Billion per year for sulphate geoengineering” and “Solar geoengineering could be remarkably inexpensive”.

    This buzz of activity surrounds findings of a ‘new’ study, “Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment”, by Wake Smith and Gernot Wagner. The study looks at the hypothetical possibility and costs of conducting a global geoengineering program. Interestingly, and perhaps in an attempt to deflect from questions surrounding ongoing aviation induced cloud cover being reported by citizens worldwide, the study also looks at  whether the SAIL (Stratospheric aerosol injection lofter) program could be deployed secretly, concluding that it could not. This conclusion will be explored by examining existing relevant documentation relating to SAI technologies and by comparing US air traffic statistics to the SAIL deployment statistics provided by Smith and Wagner.

    I would also like to note, that when looking closely at many of the scientific papers relating to geoengineering, certain names and institutions keep popping up. As highlighted in the article “Harvard Science = Mad Science”, the pro geoengineering community appears to be dominated by a top down (vertical) hierarchy. Meaning a small group of people are using various types of capital to influence the many. Any observer has to wonder why Harvard  appears to have developed a propensity for publishing pageant articles related to ‘geoengineering and secrecy’.

    Download >> Finding Wally: Propaganda, Inner Circles & Deniability

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gf4ONSETZQG5VDJQl1di0jtVF-Z14AnP/view?usp=sharing

    Geoengineering: Psychology and Framing

    A Chapter from the OpChemtrails Information Booklet

    The Royal Society in the 2010 document titled “Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering “asserts that “public attitudes towards geoengineering should be a critical factor in considering the future of geoengineering.” It is well known that agencies have been perfecting ways to manipulate the public for some decades; incidents such as the Gulf of Tonkin preceding the Vietnamese War, the Nayirah testimony and programs such as Operation Mockingbird only further demonstrate a willingness to induce the general public.

    Documentation detailing ways to better understand (and therefore control) public perception of geoengineering proposals are well recognised; including discussions, forums, information gathering, and networking between key stakeholders, all to determine the soundest ways to frame geoengineering programs when it finally comes time to inform the general public and begin the open implementation of said programs.

    The document Public understandingof solar radiation management [3.4. Conspiracy theories], details findings that include “2.6% of the subjects believe that it is completely true that the government has a secret program that uses airplanes to put harmful chemicals into the air, and 14% of the sample believes that this is partly true.” “Conspiracy Theory” is a disparaging term used to vilify and ridicule the very people it is used to describe. By examining responses to different terminology and by using focused terminology in documentation they are “no longer lucidly [expressing] the nature of things, but rather [obscuring] and [distorting] them” (Chilton, 2); below is another example of this, taken from the same document [4. Discussion].

    The word supporter has a positive connotation, whilst the word detractor has a negative connotation; when you search both words often (as below) supporters and shown in green and detractors in red.

    Ultimately this conveys the message that supporters of geoengineering are more agreeable and those against or critical of geoengineering are defiant. This is further demonstrated when looking at the Cambridge Dictionary: synonyms, related words and phrases.

    Nobody wants to be seen as opposition and many studies have determined that human beings do not like to be singled out, ostracized or socially rejected, this is a key component used to sway public opinion on the topic. Being labelled a conspiracy theorist or a ‘detractor’ will almost certainly influence whether or not people object to or consent to geoengineering.

    What They Want to Know 
    • How widespread is public knowledge of geoengineering and SRM? 
    • How does the public perceive geoengineering and SRM? 
    • How the seriousness of climate change affects individuals views on geoengineering? 
    • What are key areas of concern, perceived trade-offs and risks (table 5 below)? I.e. what is the public more willing to accept. 
    • The role/opinions of specific groups/communities i.e. environmentalists, economists, media.

    Beware the Geoengineering Salesman

    Things we are hearing and seeing that show they are testing the waters with regards to public response include:

    Sales pitch: Geoengineering may be one possible response to climate change.

    What They Really Mean: They’re going to emit/spray us with chemical & metal particulates to save us [example: To Fix Climate Change, Scientists Turn To Hacking The Earth]

    Sales pitch: Using media and imagery to depict apocalyptic version of climate change.

    What They Really Mean: We need to geoengineer the planet or we are all going to die [example: COP21: Can we avoid climate apocalypse?]

    Sales pitch: Saying that it is accidental rather than intentional.

    What They Really Mean: Oops we didn’t realise it was happening [plausible deniability] [example: Airplane Contrails May Be Creating Accidental Geoengineering]

    Sales pitch: Because YOU won’t change YOUR ways and YOU pollute the planet with Co2 we have to geoengineer the planet to save it.

    What They Really Mean: We are just going to ignore the fact that aviation is having a detrimental and largely ignored impact on climate and weather systems and it is not adequately represented in any of our climate models [example: As the effects of global warming begin to frighten us, geoengineering will come to dominate global politics]

    Documentation

    Public Engagement on Geoengineering Research: Preliminary Report on the SPICE Deliberative Workshops https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-VlNHZzhSVVlCMmc/view

    Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering (2010) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-OFU4SElkYTFvRTg/view

    Opening up the societal debate on climate engineering: how newspaper frames are changing
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-X053YzhMZzFGQ1k/view

    A Review of Deliberative Public Engagements with Climate Geoengineering
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-d3lkRENxc2IxX2s/view

    Cognitive Epistemic Lock-in and Geoengineering https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-U2NaX2x5SDFDd3c/view

    Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists ‘open up’ appraisal of geoengineering https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-NnpjRzhfVHBheGM/view

    Examining framings of geoengineering using Q methodology https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-bzZtWUNhOFk3TTg/view

    Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-LWQ3R2VVU3hua2M/view

    Appraising Geoengineering https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-RTI5czlfRUdDYWc/view

    Geoengineering and its governance https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-NHNteEZKRHpseHc/view

    Public understanding of solar radiation management https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-aFJJdmRvcXJha2s/view

    The International Legal Framework for Climate Engineering https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-N0pEdUhMdEVQMHM/view

    More reading available via the OpChemetrails Google+ Library https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxU9tnVzYv2-aFdpcmNXOUstS2s<

    [This post was originally posted on the archived OpChemtrails website on 26 Jan 2017]