Did I Just Come Across The 'Chemtrail' Smoking Gun?

Part 1

OK, hands up, I’ve been an outspoken critic of the chemtrail conspiracy theory for quite some time now, insisting that ‘chemtrails’ are not a global geoengineering conspiracy and are simply persistent (and admittedly annoying and very unsightly) contrails (nucleated ice crystals precipitated by jet engine exhaust particles emitted at high temperature into sub-zero air). It was all the hoo-hah around the UK government approval of geoengineering ‘sun dimming’ experiments which prompted me to look a lot closer at the proposals being submitted by ARIA (Advanced Research and Invention Agency - created by an Act of the UK Parliament). What I found is very interesting because it might lend credence to the claim that governments (including the UK government) have (illegally) been conducting geoengineering experiments aimed at cooling the planet. I must stress that I have found the motive and now the plausible means for the commission of this crime against humanity, but there is no evidence of governments, or Bill Gates, or whoever, availing themselves of the opportunity to commit said crime. That still requires a conspiracy theory.

The interesting thing is that a main area of ARIA’s proposal has got nothing to do with dimming the Sun to cool the planet; in fact, it’s the opposite - an intention to reduce naturally occurring high level cirrus in order to increase outgoing long wave infra red radiation, thus cooling the surface. Because even though brighter sunshine not being filtered through high level cirrus increases the amount of incoming short wave penetration to the surface, this is more than compensated for by the insulating effect of high level cirrus trapping outgoing long wave radiation (especially during the night time). The same is true for artificial cirrus created by aircraft exhaust plumes - persistent spreading contrails (or chemtrails, as some insist) tend to cause net warming at the surface. So forget all the online hysteria about ‘dimming the sun’ and look at what ARIA are actually proposing, because, as it turns out, the facts are far more interesting (and possibly even more damning) than the rampant, ill-informed hysterical speculation currently doing the rounds on social media.

Here’s why ARIA (and Program Director Mark Symes) think it’s a good idea to hack the planet. It’s all about ‘tipping points’ apparently:

The ‘sustainable’ way to avoid them (bullshit pseudoscientific tipping points) is Net Zero - where most of the world’s population dies off because of a lack of access to cheap, abundant fossil fuels and nuclear energy. The quick fix urgent way to avoid crossing a catastrophic tipping point is to cool the planet right now, thus giving us more time to get to the Net Zero depopulation of the planet.

Here’s how ARIA propose to lower the earth’s temperature to ‘buy us more time’:

Climate change, largely caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, could cause the global temperature to increase by several degrees by the end of the century, precipitating climate tipping points with serious consequences. The solution to this problem is to cease the burning of fossil fuels and to eliminate excess greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. However, lowering atmospheric greenhouse gas levels – even under the most aggressive scenarios – may not happen fast enough to prevent the onset of tipping points.

Such reasoning has led to proposals for methods to actively cool the Earth in order to “buy time” to decarbonise, and there has been considerable debate around the risks and benefits of these various methods. However, in the absence of substantial physical (as opposed to simulated) data on the mechanisms behind how these concepts might work (and what their effects might be), there is no prospect of being able to make proper judgements on what are or are not feasible, scalable, and controllable approaches for cooling the Earth.

This programme aims to answer fundamental questions as to the practicality, measurability, controllability and possible (side-)effects of such approaches through indoor and (where necessary) small, controlled, outdoor experiments. In answering these questions, we plan to fund not only the experiments themselves, but also the necessary modelling, simulation, observation and monitoring required to support the experiments, as well as research into the ethical, governance, law, and geopolitical dimensions of the approaches under investigation. Our objective is that the information gathered by this programme will allow for more definitive assessments on whether one or more of the approaches examined may one day be used responsibly and ethically to delay or avert the onset of temperature-induced climate tipping points.

Again, the emphasis on scaremongering with bullshit tipping points. After reeling off some spiel about the risks of tipping points vs. the risks of geoengineering and whether cooling the planet is ethical, practical or even feasible, ARIA comes down on the side of the ‘we must do something’ club and advocates for research into geoengineering with the possible aim of rapidly scaling up any small scale experiments:

Questions like these have fuelled a debate that has been ongoing for years [20], but which remains unresolvable with our current level of understanding. After considerable deliberation on the balance of risks, ARIA has come to the view that the risks of not being able to answer such questions are greater than the risks of researching approaches for actively cooling the Earth through a well-governed research programme. Others have come to similar conclusions regarding the need for research in this area to be undertaken transparently and in the public interest [21, 22]. It is in this context that ARIA has chosen to pursue a research programme into approaches for actively cooling the Earth.

The UK government has bunged them 50 million quid to do it. And here’s what they propose:

Our discovery process has suggested to us that a key barrier to advancing our understanding of this field and being able to reach more definitive conclusions on particular approaches is a comparative dearth of real and relevant physical data from outdoor experiments [23-25]. Hence, we see a need for a programme that will accommodate small, controlled, geographically confined outdoor experiments on approaches that may one day scale to help reduce global temperatures. These outdoor experiments are intended to answer critical scientific questions as to the practicality, measurability, controllability and likely (side-)effects of the proposed approaches that cannot be answered by other means. They may not be necessary or possible for all the projects we fund, and they are not meant to be stepping stones to deployment. To support the outdoor experiments, we plan to fund activities ranging from modelling and simulation, through to in-field observation and monitoring, and research on the legal, ethical, governance and geopolitical dimensions of the approaches under study.

But don’t worry, it will all be above board and legal and they’ll do their best to minimise any risk to the environment and they’ll keep people informed ‘where possible’:

1. ARIA will not fund experiments where the activities proposed are prohibited by domestic or international law. Project teams will be required to show how their tests comply with all applicable laws.

2. A risk assessment will be performed and the findings made publicly available before any outdoor experiment. This will be conducted by experts who are independent of the team performing the experiment, and will include relevant potential technological, environmental and socio-economic risks.

3. Minimising risk by design. Outdoor experiments should be designed at the minimum viable scale required for the generation of robust data, and where the magnitude of any perturbation has a natural analogue or commonly accepted anthropogenic precedent (and therefore where the effect of the perturbation is within the range of known and benign phenomena). Such considerations are summarised in Figure 2.

4. Transparency, public participation and consultation. Wherever possible, those conducting outdoor experiments will be required to notify and consult those who could reasonably be considered as likely to be affected by the experiments. ARIA sees consultation and engagement with the public as processes that will be sustained for the lifetime of projects. To facilitate informed decision making, detailed plans for the outdoor experiments, and the key decisions taken in developing these plans, will be consulted upon as transparently as possible well in advance of any experiment. The specific protocols for transparency will be developed in consultation with the Oversight Committee, and will include provisions for transparency regarding what the experiments involve, why the experiments are necessary, who is conducting the experiments, and who might be impacted by the experiments. The results of the experiments (including negative results) will also be made publicly available in an accessible form.

5. Independent impact assessment. Post-experiment, the environmental and any socio-economic impacts will be assessed by experts [that’s reassuring - the experts will let us know what went wrong after they’ve performed their experimental hack of the atmosphere] who are independent of the team performing the outdoor experiments, and the results of these assessments will be made publicly available. ARIA may also commission assessments of the broader implications of the experiments as appropriate.

6. Limited scope. Activities in this programme will be limited to research scale – ARIA will not fund deployment or any demonstration beyond the approved experiments.

So, small scale tests, careful risk assessments, public transparency. Only stuff which is legal. No covert global geoengineering conspiracy. What could go wrong? Not too much, you might think.

But wait, contrary to assurances of small scale experiments and adherence to local laws, ARIA’s already talking about going global:

The impacts of climate tipping points (and the effects of actively cooling the Earth to delay or avoid the onset of these) are likely to be felt globally. Therefore, we contend that it is vital that public institutions lead research into approaches for actively cooling the Earth, acting in a spirit of open international collaboration and cooperation, with full transparency, for the benefit of the global community [32]. By funding research into both the technical and non-technical aspects of approaches for actively cooling the Earth, this programme aims to drive forward both fundamental understanding of these approaches and their risks, and the development of structures for just and informed deliberation on their benefits and risks in lockstep. Responsible and transparent research into actively cooling the Earth - including what the impacts of these approaches might be, and how their use might be governed - will require an international effort, led by public institutions. To aid international cooperation, ARIA intends to:

1. Fund projects and researchers globally as part of this programme

2. Bring an open mindset to co-funding projects with other government funding agencies

3. Make ourselves and our expert networks available to other government and (potentially other public benefit) funding agencies which are considering establishing their own research programmes in this space, including support with validation and verification of experiments

4. Create opportunities for sharing best practice and learning with representatives of international and public benefit funding agencies, including annual workshops and invitations to observe the outdoor experiments that we fund

5. Upon invitation, send expert teams from ARIA, or within its network, to observe and feed back on experiments being funded by other government funding agencies

6. Consider requests from other government funding agencies (both UK and non-UK) to observe the workings of the ARIA programme’s oversight committee.

WTF. That’s almost a global geoengineering conspiracy right there. But it’s OK because it’s all open and transparent and is ‘collaboration’ rather than conspiracy. Keep digging into this report and you find that such assurances look increasingly fragile, despite the fact that the report specifically states that large scale geoengineering experiments are out of scope for the ARIA program:

Out of scope areas for this programme:

Large-scale trials of climate engineering technologies continuously or over extended durations.

This programme will only fund activities at research scale.

In Part 2 of this analysis, I will look closely at their specific proposals for ‘small scale experiments’ and demonstrate the possible ‘smoking gun’ of a global scale geoengineering experiment.