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.

Radiative and Climate Effects of Stratospheric Sulfur Geoengineering Using Seasonally Varying Injection Areas

Original post from the OpChemtrails Library. Download this document here.

Notes:
“[…] varying the SO2 injection area seasonally would result in a similar global mean cooling effect as injecting SO2 to the equator, but with a more uniform zonal distribution of shortwave radiative forcing.” p.1

“Most previous modelling studies have investigated scenarios which inject sulfur along or close to the equator. This choice of injection region is well justified because the equator, on the average, receives the highest levels of solar radiation. In addition, the stratospheric circulation transports particles efficiently from the equator around the global atmosphere (Robock et al., 2008). However it has been found in several studies that preventing greenhouse gas (GHG) induced warming by equatorial injections of sulfur lead to overcooling of the tropics and undercooling of the polar regions, compared to the global mean decrease in temperature (Aswathy et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2016; McCuster et al., 2012; Yu et al., 2015).” p.2

“However, sulfur injected as SO2 takes weeks to months before it is oxidized and forms large enough particles to reflect solar radiation efficiently. Thus to obtain maximum aerosol forcing, one strategy could be to inject sulfur before the intensity of solar radiation has reached its maximum value at the injection latitude, thus leaving time for oxidation and particle growth.” p.3

“After two years, sulfate particles from the injections are removed from the atmosphere.” p.4

“[…] the lifetime of stratospheric sulfur is longer when injected to the equator (Robock et al., 2008).” p.6

“Previous research has shown that higher injections per unit volume lead to relatively larger particles, which in turn leads to relatively shorter lifetime of particles in the atmosphere (Heckendorn et al., 2009; English et al., 2012; Niemeier et al., 2011).” p.6

“Because SRM is turned on abruptly at full force in 2020, it would lead to a fast cooling. In the real world this kind of action is unlikely but based on the simulations plausible if needed for example prevent climate warming emergency (Kravitz et al., 2011).” p.9

“It has been shown that there is a slow decrease in temperature still decades after a decrease in shortwave radiation (Schaller et al., 2014).” p.10

“After the SRM is suspended in 2070 there is a very fast warming, called the termination effect of geoengineering (Jones et al., 2013). This warming is of the same magnitude as the cooling immediately after the sulfur injection is started. Thus, after the SRM is suspended, the climate remains significantly cooler for decades.” p.10

“Compensating the GHG induced global warming using SRM leads to a reduction in the global mean precipitation (Kravitz et al., 2013b; Ferraro and Griffiths, 2016). This is also supported by our simulations. Immediately after the injection has been started, the global mean precipitation falls clearly under the level of year 2010[…]” p.10

“Precipitation is thus more affected by the SRM than CO2.” p.10

“Aerosol particles both absorb radiation (which is then emitted as LW radiation) and they reduce the SW radiation at surface. These effects lead to a drier climate (Ferraro and Griffiths 2016).” p.11

“It has been also shown that P – E (Precipitation – Evaporations) will become more intense (Seager et al., 2010) which will cause wet areas to become wetter but also drying in the subtropical regions such as Mediterranean, Southern part of Africa and Australia.” p.12

“According our aerosol microphysical simulations by GCM, it would be possible to maintain as large global cooling effect as by injecting sulfur only in the equator while concentrating the cooling effect more to the midlatitudes than tropics. This could be achieved if the sulfur injection area is changed during the year.” p.13

“This highlights the role of feedbacks and ocean temperature which reacts slowly to the radiation changes in the atmosphere.” p.14

Click on the below links for futher information about the locations in this image or visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki and search the coordinates.

Map Information:
30° N – Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Persian Gulf, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, People’s Republic of China, East China Sea, Japan, Pacific Ocean, Mexico, Gulf of California, United States, Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, Morocco.

10° N – Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, Central African Republic, Sudan, South Sudan, Abyei, Ethiopia, Somalia, Indian Ocean, India, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Gulf of Thailand, Vietnam, South China Sea, Philippines, Sulu Sea, Tañon Strait, Cebu Strait, Bohol Sea, Surigao Strait, Dinagat Sound, Pacific Ocean, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Costa Rica, Caribbean Sea, Colombia, Venezuela, Atlantic Ocean, Guinea, Guinea / Sierra Leone border, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Ghana.

10° S – Atlantic Ocean, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia, Malawi, Lake Malawi, Tanzania, Indian Ocean, Indonesia, Savu Sea, Timor Sea, Arafura Sea, Coral Sea, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Sea, Pacific Ocean, Cook Islands, Kiribati, French Polynesia, Peru, Brazil, Bolivia.

30° S – South Africa, Lesotho, South Africa, Indian Ocean, Australia, Pacific Ocean, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Atlantic Ocean.

Global Radiative Forcing from Contrail Cirrus

Original Post via the OpChemtrails Library.

Download this document here.

Notes:
“Aviation makes a significant contribution to anthropogenic climate forcing.” p.54

“We show that the radiative forcing associated with contrail cirrus as a whole is about nine times larger than that from line-shaped contrails alone. We also find that contrail cirrus cause a significant decrease in natural cloudiness, which partly offsets their warming effect. Nevertheless, net radiative forcing due to contrail cirrus remains the largest single radiative-forcing component associated with aviation.” p.54

“Contrail cirrus initially form behind cruising aircraft as line-shaped contrails and transform into cirrus-like clouds or cloud clusters in favourable meteorological conditions, occasionally covering large horizontal areas. They have been tracked for up to 17 h in satellite observations. They remain line-shaped, and therefore easily distinguishable from natural cirrus, for only a fraction of their lifetime. The impact of aircraft soot emissions on cirrus in the absence of contrails depends on the ice-nucleating properties and the ice-active number concentration of soot-particle emissions.” p.54

“Contrail cirrus form and persist in air that is ice-saturated, whereas natural cirrus often require high ice supersaturation to form. This implies that in a substantial fraction of the upper troposphere, contrail cirrus can persist in supersaturated air that is cloud-free, thus increasing high cloud coverage.” p.54

“Over central Europe, contrail-cirrus coverage is largest, reaching up to 10%. Although the level of air traffic over the east coast of northern America is as large as over central Europe, contrail-cirrus coverage in the former region is lower, reaching 6%. It is mainly the coverage due to contrails older than 5 h that is smaller over the USA than over Europe…” p.54

“A large fraction of contrail cirrus is optically very thin (solar optical depth <0.02) and can therefore neither be detected by a satellite nor seen with the human eye from the ground.” p. 55

“The global net radiative forcing of contrail cirrus is roughly nine times that of young contrails, making it the single largest radiative-forcing component connected with aviation.” p.56

“Contrail cirrus change the water budget of the surrounding atmosphere and therefore can have an impact on natural clouds.” p. 56

“Locally, the decrease in natural-cirrus coverage (over Europe and the US) amounts to up to 10% of the natural-cirrus coverage or up to 20% of the contrail-cirrus coverage. Furthermore, in the main contrail-cirrus areas of North America and Europe, the optical depth of natural clouds is significantly (at the 95% significance level) reduced by up to 10% owing to the presence of contrail cirrus.” p.57

“Clouds are influenced by small-scale processes that cannot be resolved by a large-scale climate model and which therefore need to be parametrized.” p. 57

TweetStorm Update: #HandsOffMotherEarth

We Need Your Help!

When: January 9th 2018, 11am London Time. (view countdown clock here).

Duration: 1 hour

#HandsOffMotherEarth TweetStorm

Feel free to copy and/or download any of the information below. The images have been sourced from the #HandsOffMotherEarth Manifesto cover and hashtags added. Please note that twitter has cracked down on accounts posting the same tweet multiple times and posting too many unsolicited (@) tweets. For this reason we recommend rotating tweets, and limiting your @’s to 5 per hour; alternatively you can create your own tweets without @’s. For more information see twitters rules and best practices policies.

How to join in the Tweetstorm:
1. Use the hashtag #HandsOffMotherEarth on all of your tweets for one hour, starting at 11am London time.

2. Include a link to the Hands Off Mother Earth: 2018 Manifesto Against Geoengineering and/or website (see below).

3. Use the images provided, share your own images or visit @OpCImageGallery for images.

4. Send Tweets to the United Nations, your President/Prime Minister etc., local representatives, environmental organizations, media outlets, and academic institutions.

Links to the Manifesto pdf:
1. http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/home_manifesto_english_.pdf

2. https://web.archive.org/web/20190105094021/http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/home_manifesto_english_.pdf

Links to ETC Group website:
1. http://www.etcgroup.org/content/hands-mother-earth-1

2. https://web.archive.org/save/http://www.etcgroup.org/content/hands-mother-earth-1

Pretweets:

If you endorse geoengineering, you endorse genocide #HandsOffMotherEarth http://www.etcgroup.org/content/hands-mother-earth-1

We Do NOT Consent #HandsOffMotherEarth http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/home_manifesto_english_.pdf

How much more can our planet take? #HandsOffMotherEarth http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/home_manifesto_english_.pdf

Your Silence Means Consent. Support #HandsOffMotherEarth 2018 Manifesto Against Geoengineering http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/home_manifesto_english_.pdf

Did you consent? #HandsOffMotherEarth: Manifesto Against Geoengineering (2018) http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/home_manifesto_english_.pdf

Note: We will add more pretweets before Jan 9th.

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.

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

Harvard Science = Mad Sciene

The thing that many people do not realize is not only have they already been geoengineering the atmosphere for decades, but they have also been researching how to best market this to the public. As briefly discussed in the chapter ‘Psychology and Framing‘ (from the OpChemtrails Information Booklet), they have held many talks, meetings, surveys, panels etc to gauge how best to sway public perception and/or concerns about dumping tonnes of toxic substances into the atmosphere.

For how long will academia, media, politicians continue making excuses? When will their constant state of ignorance and denial stop? What tactics we have seen from the geoengineering establishment so far.

Denial – its not happening, people are just imagining things
Ridicule – its just a crazy conspiracy
Its accidental – oops it was an accident
Silence – if we ignore the publics concerns they’ll just go away
Intimidation & Censorship – gag orders on environmental monitoring agences, censorship of hashtags and social media accounts
Word Play – let’s keep changing the terminology and jargon to confuse people further
Climate Change Saviours – even though we don’t know the true state of the climate, let’s tell the public that by polluting the atmosphere we can prevent climate catastrophe
To Save Humanity – we want to poison the air you breath to save you
It’s cheap and easy – just no! Anyone who believes this has failed to see the big picture.

Scariest of all is the small group of people driving this grand plan. Even they admit this will potentially be harmful to humans and the environment, however, they rationalize it by proclaiming that to not understand the science is ignorant, and that we need to understand the science ‘in case’ we are forced to use it. However, many people will argue this rational is exactly what gave us the atom bomb, biological terrorism and so on. This technology has the potential to cause global disruption to natural weather and climate systems, food sources, water sources and viable land, which will inevitably lead to global conflicts and power struggles.

As this Harvard experiment will potentially affect Mexico, the notion of accountability and governance becomes even more important. This technology indiscriminately crosses boarders, so the complexity of regulation and administration alone will take decades to hash out and finalize. The scientists know this, yet, they continue with their crazy plans in haste, so blinded by personal beliefs that they have wrongly convinced themselves they are doing the right thing (just like the scientists who made the abomb).

While the public, academia, media, and politicians debate the ifs and whens and hows of ‘future’ geoengineering programs, we are left with a sky that is already under direct assault by these white coat criminals. And, by Harvard Science portraying this as the first, large scale, outdoors geoengineering experiment they are intentionally averting public attention from the fact our sky is already laden with metals and chemicals directly linked to both military and commercial aircraft. Furthermore, given Trumps attitude towards ‘climate change’, one must wonder why on earth he would allow this experiment to take place?

How much money is being put into our species adapting to the climate rather than trying to control it? Is this even about the climate, or is it more about control? After all, he who controls the weather controls the world.

When you read the articles below, please keep in mind, the people advocating geoengineering technology have been studying public reaction and perception surrounding geoengineering for years. They know how to market things in a way that makes them seem appealing, even essential. And they know how to quell the publics very realistic fears.

~ @OpChemtrails

✈UCSanDiego https://scrippsscholars.ucsd.edu/gcroberts/content/eastern-pacific-emitted-aerosol-cloud-experiment-e-peace

✈HarvardScience https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/

✈HarvardScience https://www.healthnutnews.com/harvard/

✈HarvardScience https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603974/harvard-scientists-moving-ahead-on-plans-for-atmospheric-geoengineering-experiments/

✈HarvardScience https://mashable.com/2017/04/19/geoengineering-research-launches-harvard-solar-radiation/

✈HarvardScience https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2015/01/geoengineering-going-outdoors.html

✈HarvardScience https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/proposed-test-stirs-debate-solar-geoengineering-180962745/

✈HarvardScience https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2015/01/geoengineering-going-outdoors.html

✈HarvardScience https://undergroundscience.net/other/harvard-scientists-plan-chemtrails-experiment-on-public/

✈HarvardScience https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/harvard-scientist-say-its-time-to-take-bioengineering-seriously

✈HarvardScience https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/magazine/is-it-ok-to-engineer-the-environment-to-fight-climate-change.html

✈HarvardScience https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/24/us-scientists-launch-worlds-biggest-solar-geoengineering-study

✈HarvardScience https://principia-scientific.org/ominous-future-harvard-scientists-geo-engineer-stratosphere/

✈Trump https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/mar/27/trump-presidency-opens-door-to-planet-hacking-geoengineer-experiments

✈HarvardScience https://www.climate-engineering.eu/single/press-review-us-solar-geoengineering-field-study.html

✈Carnegie https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/programs/ccgg/index/_res/id=Attachments/index=1/C2G2%20Initiative%20.pdf

✈Trump https://www.etcgroup.org/content/trump-administration-inflates-geoengineers-balloon

✈Carnegie https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/programs/ccgg/leadership

✈HarvardScience https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=48631

✈Carnegie https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/programs/ccgg/index/_res/id=Attachments/index=0/The%20Carnegie%20Climate%20Geoengineering%20Governance%20Initiative%20Our%20Approach.pdf

✈HarvardScience https://cleantechnica.com/2017/04/03/will-geoengineering-plans-get-boost-trump-administration/

✈Carnegie https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/programs/ccgg

✈Trump https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/trump-administration-backs-geoengineering-full-disclosure-of-the-climate-engineering-atrocities-grows-near/

✈HarvardScience https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/files/geoengineering/files/forum_report.pdf

✈HarvardScience https://anonhq.com/solar-geoengineering-experiment-manipulating-climate-to-begin/

✈HarvardScience https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/Forum-US-Solar-Geoengineering-Research-DC-March-2017

✈HarvardScience https://www.facebook.com/GlobalMarchAgainstChemtrailsAndGeoengineering/posts/638221393052982

✈HarvardScience https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/about/funding

✈HarvardScience https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?96855-Harvard-pushing-Solar-GeoEngineering-2017-Chemtrails-coordinated-by-NATO

✈HarvardScience https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/about/people

✈HarvardScience https://philanthropynewyork.org/news/sloan-foundation-contributes-harvard-research-program-solar-geoengineering

✈HarvardScience https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu

✈HarvardScience https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-catastrophic-risks/miscellaneous/harvard-university-solar-geoengineering-research-program

✈HarvardScience https://www.ecowatch.com/harvard-geoengineering-study-2340292654.html

✈HarvardScience https://www.newstarget.com/2017-03-31-conspiracy-theory-no-more-harvard-reveals-big-oil-approved-stratospheric-injection-geoengineering.html

✈HarvardScience https://www.theinertia.com/environment/harvard-is-launching-the-largest-solar-geoengineering-study-ever/

✈HarvardScience https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2017/03/30/harvard-engineers-plan-new-real-world-geoengineering-experiment/

✈HarvardScience https://www.activistpost.com/2017/03/harvard-engineers-plan-new-real-world-geoengineering-experiment.html

✈ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/

✈SPICE https://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/09/spice_put_on_ice.html

✈SPICE https://www.nature.com/news/geoengineering-experiment-cancelled-amid-patent-row-1.10645

✈HarvardScience https://www.pnas.org/content/113/52/14910.abstract

✈HarvardScience https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/11/geoengineering-crazy-for-sure-but-with-a-big-but/

✈HarvardScience https://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/372/2031/20140059.full.pdf

✈HarvardScience https://gwagner.com/forum-on-u-s-solar-geoengineering-research-24-march-2017/

✈HarvardScience https://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2031/20140059

✈HarvardScience https://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/01/solar_geoengineering_is_not_a_quick_fix.html

✈HarvardScience https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603974/harvard-scientists-moving-ahead-on-plans-for-atmospheric-geoengineering-experiments/

✈HarvardScience https://yournewswire.com/harvard-scientists-chemtrails-experiment/

[This post was first published on the original OpChemtrails website on 19 May 2017]