Chemtrails, Conspiracy Theories and Cons

Although visible and amply documented, chemtrails have long been ‘debunked’ by the MSM as a conspiracy theory. Wikipedia still describes them as follows:

“The chemtrail conspiracy theory posits that some trails left by aircraft are chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for purposes undisclosed to the general public and directed by various government officials.[1] This theory is not accepted by the scientific community, which states that they are just normal contrails, as there is no scientific evidence supporting the chemtrail theory.
Because of the popularity of the conspiracy theory, official agencies have received thousands of complaints from people who have demanded an explanation.[1][2] The existence of chemtrails has been repeatedly denied by scientists and government officials around the world, who say the trails are normal contrails.[3]

The term chemtrail is a portmanteau of the words “chemical” and “trail,” just as contrail is a contraction of “condensation trail.” The term does not refer to other forms of aerial spraying such as agricultural spraying (‘crop dusting’), cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting.[4]
The term specifically refers to aerial trails allegedly caused by the systematic high-altitude release of chemical substances not found in ordinary contrails, resulting in the appearance of characteristic sky tracks. Supporters of this conspiracy theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be for solar radiation management, psychological manipulation, human population control,[1] weather modification,[2] or biological or chemical warfare, and that these trails are causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems.[5][6]”

Now the official explanation has changed to something like:
“Yes, we do create chemtrails and no, they are not “contrails.” We do it only for the good of the planet. Of all those purposes you suspected, like solar radiation management, psychological manipulation, human population control, weather modification, or biological or chemical warfare, you were wrong about all but one: we really do it just to protect the planet from solar radiation. Stop complaining because without chemtrails we would all boil at high temperatures.”: Here is how it goes:

The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that, despite global side effects and long-term consequences, geoengineering techniques involving solar radiation management (SRM) should be maintained:

“If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.” [emphasis in original]

“Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis,” (referred to as “AR5”) supercedes the former report published in 2007. [1] The IPCC’s first Assessment Report was published in 1990.

The discussion in the Summary for Policymakers and in the body of AR5 commends solar radiation management over carbon dioxide removal methods, which are limited in their efficacy on a global scale, yet admits that neither are ideal, and that both geoengineering techniques will have long-term consequences.

“While the entire community of academia still pretends not to know about the ongoing reality of global geoengineering,” comments Dane Wigington at Geoengineering Watch, “the simple fact that they are now discussing geoengineering in the latest IPCC report indicates that the veil is beginning to lift.” [2]

Well, why didn’t they say so in the first place if it is all for our own good? Why vilify the questioners as conspiracy theory nuts? One such ‘nut’ was Congressman Kucinich:

“As head of the Armed Services oversight committee, Congressman Dennis Kucinich is acquainted with chemtrail projects. He introduced the Space Preservation Act 2001 to prohibit certain “space-based weapons” of the United States, including chemtrails. In Sec.7(2)(B)(ii) of the bill, it states “The terms `weapon’ and `weapons system’ mean a device capable of any of the following…”and “Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as…chemtrails”.
Unfortunately, the bill was rejected as is and was extremely watered down into
the Space Preservation Act 2002 in which the term “chemtrails” was
completely removed from the text, along with other important language,
so as to allow the chemical spraying to continue.”

So is this now the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Or is it a ‘limited hangout’ position to be later modified again by another version if ‘conspiracy theory nuts’ continue to apply pressure?

According to geoengineering activist, David Keith, creating chemtrails (allegedly for increasing the earth’s “albedo” (reflectivity) entails injecting 13,000 tons of sulphate aerosol into the stratosphere on a daily basis. 

Aside from other larger questions (like is that the only chemical used, are there any studies made on their effects on human and animal health, etc) one cannot help thinking that whichever corporation sells the chemicals to the government must be making a mint. The main thing we are supposed to conclude is that it is good for all of us, good for the planet…..


About Ariadna Theokopoulos

View all posts by Ariadna Theokopoulos

One Response to “Chemtrails, Conspiracy Theories and Cons” Subscribe

  1. Ariadna Theokopoulos December 10, 2013 at 11:04 pm #

Leave a Reply