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.

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]