A new study by the University of California Irvine has apparently debunked the “chemtrails conspiracy” once and for all.
According to the Carnegie Science Center, there is no evidence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program by the government.
The study, Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program, was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
We find broad scientific consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program. Our goal is not to sway those already convinced that there is a secret, large-scale spraying program—who often reject counter-evidence as further proof of their theories—but rather to establish a source of objective, peer-reviewed science that can inform public discourse in the future by seriously addressing the underlying concerns of science, governance, and public trust.
We therefore offer the first peer-reviewed expert response on SLAP data, from both atmospheric scientists with expertise in condensation trails and geochemists working on atmospheric deposition of dust and pollution.
The authors of the study conducted a survey of the leading contrail and atmosphere scientists to find out if there was sufficient evidence to support claims of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program (SLAP). The contrail and atmospheric experts overwhelmingly rejected evidence cited by believers of what is sometimes known as the “Chemtrails Conspiracy.”
According to the Chemtrails Conspiracy weather modification programs are actively taking place in our skies, and the “normal” contrails created by planes are actually geoengineering programs being covertly carried out. The “chemtrails” label comes from the portion of the crowd that believes these programs are delivering dangerous chemical additives to the food, water, soil, and humans below for nefarious purposes. According to a 2013 congressional report:
The term ‘geoengineering’ describes this array of technologies that aim, through large-scale and deliberate modifications of the Earth’s energy balance, to reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change. Most of these technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Moreover, very few studies have been published that document the cost, environmental effects, socio-political impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering.
If geoengineering technologies were to be deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects.
In general, geoengineering technologies are categorized as either a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method or a solar radiation management (SRM) (or albedo-modification)method. CDR methods address the warming effects of greenhouse gases by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CDR methods include ocean fertilization, and carbon capture and sequestration. SRM methods address climate change by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere or surface. Aerosol injection and space-based reflectors are examples of SRM methods. SRM methods do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but can be deployed faster with relatively immediate global cooling results compared to CDR methods.
The researchers at University of California Irvine and Near Zero used the Web of Science database of citations to identify authors of the most-cited peer-reviewed papers concerning contrails and atmospheric conditions between the years of 1994 and 2014. The researchers write:
Nearly 17% of people in an international survey said they believed the existence of a secret large-scale atmospheric program (SLAP) to be true or partly true. SLAP is commonly referred to as ‘chemtrails’ or ‘covert geoengineering’, and has led to a number of websites purported to show evidence of widespread chemical spraying linked to negative impacts on human health and the environment. To address these claims, we surveyed two groups of experts—atmospheric chemists with expertize in condensation trails and geochemists working on atmospheric deposition of dust and pollution—to scientifically evaluate for the first time the claims of SLAP theorists.
The team searched the terms contrails, atmospheric deposition, aluminum, barium, or strontium to narrow down the results to scientists working on those elements. The study defines “contrail expert” and “atmospheric deposition expert” as a person who co-authored one or more of the 100 most-cited papers in the search. On average these experts had been professionally active for 26 years and 22 years, respectively. After identifying 220 contrail experts and 255 atmospheric deposition experts, the researchers narrowed it down to 49 contrail experts and 65 atmospheric deposition, a total of 77 purported experts.
The surveys asked the experts to examine data from websites that promote the narrative that covert geoengineering programs are taking place. These include Geoengineering Watch and Global Sky Watch. “Individuals who assert the existence of such a SLAP assume different purposes of the program,” the researchers wrote. “Initially, the most commonly inferred goals were control over population, food supply, and/or the weather.”
The two surveys examined four photographs of trails made by airplanes that are alleged to be active geoengineering, and elemental analyses of water, soil and snow samples that are supposed to contain high levels of toxins. The researchers were asked if they had ever come across evidence that might indicate the existence of SLAP.
The results show that 76 0f 77 scientists said they had not encountered evidence of a secret aerosol program. The scientists also said evidence provided by the websites could be explained by typical airplane contrails and poor data sampling. The experts say that none of the pictures showed anything out of the ordinary and that the mechanisms behind the contrails “are well documented in the peer-reviewed literature.”
Three different elemental analyses were looked at, including pond sludge alleged to contain high levels of barium, strontium, and aluminum; a sample of airborne particulates from Phoenix, Arizona; and a snow surface sample taken in July 2008 on Mount Shasta, California. The experts also examined two sets of instructions from the websites on how “non-specialists” can gather samples for testing. In both examples the experts overwhelmingly disagreed with the instructions (71% and 68%) and stated that the collection methods would contaminate the sample and alter the levels of elements.
“We wanted to establish a scientific record on the topic of secret atmospheric spraying programs for the benefit of those in the public who haven’t made up their minds,” said Steven Davis of UC Irvine. “The experts we surveyed resoundingly rejected contrail photographs and test results as evidence of a large-scale atmospheric conspiracy.”
Interestingly, the researchers did admit that contrails are indeed lasting longer, a claim that has been made by the chemtrail crowd for some time now. However, the experts in the study were divided in the reasons they provided for the longer lasting trails. Thirty-five percent believe that aircraft are flying higher, 22% say that modern and larger engines are producing more water vapor, 18% said that more plane traffic at higher altitudes creates more contrails, and 10% believe the decreased temperature of aircraft exhaust is behind the longer lasting contrails. Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira said it’s possible that the climate is causing contrails to persist for longer periods of time.
That’s five different reasons for longer contrails offered by contrail experts. If the experts cannot even agree on what is causing the longer contrails should we readily accept the notion that there is nothing to the chemtrail theory? Despite the knee-jerk dismissal from many casual researchers, the theories might be grounded in reality.
In February 2015, while speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Jose, California, Professor Alan Robock discussed the possibility that the CIA is using the weather as a weapon of war. Robock has done research for the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) in the past. His fears might not be completely unfounded.
In late June, John Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, spoke at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting, calling for more research into geoengineering. There is also the issue of a 1996 U.S. Air Force document entitled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather by 2025” which discusses a number of proposals for using the weather as a weapon. The Environmental Modification Treaty was also signed by the United States and other nations to halt global weather modification. During the Vietnam War the US government operated covert weather modification programs under Operation Popeye. In 2012 it was revealed that the US Army sprayed toxic chemicals over the skies of St. Louis without informing the public.
These individual pieces of knowledge might not specifically point to the existence of secret spraying program, but they do indicate that the U.S. government will conduct covert programs for years before admitting it the public. Should we really expect these experts to be fully aware of what the government does behind closed doors?
Regardless of where you stand, geoengineering has been a controversial topic in recent years, both as a subject of conspiracy research and environmental concerns. One of the reasons the topic is so controversial is because of the possible risks. At least one previous study has found that geoengineering could cause the white haze and loss of blue skies that Long is observing. According to a report by the New Scientist, Ben Kravitz of the Carnegie Institution for Science has shown that releasing sulphate aerosols high in the atmosphere would scatter sunlight into the atmosphere. He says this could decrease the amount of sunlight that hits the ground by 20%, as well as make the sky appear more hazy.
Ironically, the promotion of geoengineering might actually cause more harm than good, including an increase in droughts. In February 2015, an international committee of scientists released a report stating that geoengineering techniques are not a viable alternative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat the effects of climate change. The committee report called for further research and understanding of various geoengineering techniques, including carbon dioxide removal schemes and solar-radiation management before implementation.
The scientists found that SRM techniques are likely to present “serious known and possible unknown environmental, social, and political risks, including the possibility of being deployed unilaterally.” The report was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. intelligence community, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Department of Energy.
According to a 2013 study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, if geoengineering programs were started and then suddenly halted, the planet could see an immediate rise in temperatures, particularly over land. The study, titled, “The Impact of Abrupt Suspension of Solar Radiation Management,” seems to indicate that once geoengineering begins, the programs cannot be suspended without causing the very problem the engineering was intended to solve.
Is this first-ever peer-reviewed study on geoengineering and covert weather modification programs really the nail in the coffin the mainstream media and science experts seem to believe? Or is this just another ploy designed to distract you from the pattern of X’s being sprayed in the skies above you?
Latest posts by Sean Adl-Tabatabai (see all)
- Obama Defies Congress, Bans Prosecution Of Planned Parenthood - December 7, 2016
- EU Threatens “Action” If Facebook Doesn’t Censor Alt. Media Immediately - December 7, 2016
- Wikileaks: Turkey Has “Sinister Relations” With ISIS - December 6, 2016