Geoengineering, Real and Imagined

Humans have been geoengineering since the dawn of agriculture. Plows turn living soil into lifeless dirt while releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This process is properly termed geoengineering, and it has clear implications for climate change.

We continue to geoengineer every time we fire up an internal-combustion engine. Or turn on the lights powered by a coal-fired power plant. Or put a plow into a cornfield. Or … well, you get the idea.

Geoengineering is real, and it has been going on since civilization began. For much of that time, humans have been ignorant about the consequences. Even the compound word is relatively new to the English language.

On the other hand, the type of geoengineering proposed by the nut-jobs well-intentioned, easily misled folks promulgating mythical chemtrails is imaginary. This approach has been discredited thoroughly in the scientific community — notable critiques based on reason can be found here, and here — but the conspiracy freaks continue to pound the drum of their collective imagination, rabidly avoiding the evidence in a manner reminiscent of the deniers of abrupt climate change. I’ve no doubt they’ll shy away from reading the evidence presented in this short essay because it is contrary to their favorite faith-based junk science.

“Look up in the sky,” they proclaim, as if condensation trails provide convincing evidence of members of the Dreaded New World Order spraying toxic chemicals into the atmosphere. Operating in an evidence-free zone, chemtrailers offer excellent examples of confirmation bias, even when the “confirmation” is illusory. For a seriously scientific explanation, the likes of which chemtrailers are not interested, read this article.

In a move surprising only to the true believers in the chemtrail myth, the only journal article supporting the notion was retracted shortly after its publication. Check it out here. On the other hand, a paper published in an August 2016 issue of Environmental Research Letters further debunks the notion of a chemtrail conspiracy.

I don’t know which is worse: the chemtrail conspiracy crowd or the larger group that believes voting for the lesser of myriad evil candidates will lead to solutions for myriad insoluble predicaments. If you are contemplating The Donald, Jeb, Hillary, Bernie, or anybody else willing to take on the task of working for the big banks while allegedly promoting democratic ideals, your faith in a flawed system is unsupported by evidence (which, now that I think about it, is why it’s called faith).

Instead of voting for a substantive difference in this irredeemably corrupt system, one may as well go on the speaking circuit to profess the ills of the invisible, motive-challenged Illuminati trying to kill us. If they are trying to kill people, then they are failing miserably: The human population grows by more than 200,000 people each day. If anybody in a position of influence wants to kill people, war has worked stunningly well throughout human history. And the clueless followers who vote for the clueless “leaders” fall for war every time (conquest works, too, and is the tool of choice in America’s toolkit). The string of patriotism is easy to pull, and the groundless citizenry is yanked along for the ride of lies.

Initially, the chemtrail crowd claimed they — whomever “they” are — are trying to kill us by spraying toxic chemicals from airplanes. More recently, probably because of the abject and obvious stupidity of their former argument, the chemtrailers claim they — presumably the same mysterious “they” — are trying to keep us alive by blocking incoming solar radiation (skies are becoming brighter over time, probably because high-altitude ice particles from aircraft contrails scatter the incoming sunlight).

Actually, the arguments are so varied and ludicrous I can’t keep up with the latest excuse to blame others. HAARP is sometimes brought into the fray, apparently to double down on the conspiratorial “other” expressed with the use of the word “they.” And therein lies the heart of the issue.

Blaming others obviates responsibility. If the bad guys are spraying, regardless of their intent, then it’s not our my fault. Liberated from blame, we need not change a thing about how we live. If “they” are manipulating the weather and climate, we can keep living in the city and depending upon the services rendered therein. We can continue to promote the omnicide of civilization, sucking at the teat of empire. Why would we not?

We claim to be self-reliant. But take away the Nanny State and I doubt we’ll see many citizens taking care of themselves, much less each other. As a society, we traded in Edward Abbey’s anarchism-inspired version of the American Dream for a few extra dollars a long time ago. We continue to vote for patriarchy at our own expense (albeit with the attendant, unacknowledged privileges).

Ed Abbey quote about self reliance and growing food

For readers interested in the science of geoengineering, I’ve copied below some relevant information from my long essay, “Climate-Change Summary and Update.” Even a cursory glance at this information reveals what any rational person already suspects: Further attempts to use the tools of civilization to address a predicament created by civilization cannot be expected to succeed. The hubris underlying these attempts is stunning only to those unfamiliar with patriarchal human behavior.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits global warming is irreversible without geoengineering in a report released 27 September 2013. The IPCC is among the most conservative scientific bodies on the planet, and their reports are “significantly ‘diluted’ under political pressure.” On 22 April 2014, Truth-out correctly headlines their assessment, “Intergovernmental Climate Report Leaves Hopes Hanging on Fantasy Technology.” As pointed out in the 5 December 2013 issue of Earth System Dynamics, known strategies for geoengineering are unlikely to succeed (“climate geo-engineering cannot simply be used to undo global warming“). “Attempts to reverse the impacts of global warming by injecting reflective particles into the stratosphere could make matters worse,” according to research published in the 8 January 2014 issue of Environmental Research Letters. In addition, as described in the December 2013 issue of Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, geoengineering may succeed in cooling the Earth, it would also disrupt precipitation patterns around the world. Furthermore, “risk of abrupt and dangerous warming is inherent to the large-scale implementation of SRM” (solar radiation management), as pointed out in the 17 February 2014 issue of Environmental Research Letters. About a week later comes this line from research published in the 25 February 2014 issue of Nature Communication: “schemes to minimize the havoc caused by global warming by purposefully manipulating Earth’s climate are likely to either be relatively useless or actually make things worse.” Finally, in a blow to technocrats published online in the 25 June 2014 issue of Nature Climate Change, a large and distinguished group of international researchers concludes geoengineering will not stop climate change. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences piles on with a report issued 10 February 2015, concluding geoengineering is not a viable solution for the climate predicament. An analysis in Europe reached the same conclusion in an assessment published 16 July 2015. As it turns out, the public isn’t impressed, either: Research published in the 12 January 2014 issue of Nature Climate Change “reveals that the overall public evaluation of climate engineering is negative.” Despite pervasive American ignorance about science, the public correctly interprets geoengineering in the same light as most scientists, and contrary to the techno-optimists.

Unimpressed with evidence and public opinion, some scientists forge on, illustrating that the progressive perspective often means progressing toward the cliff’s edge. As reported in the 27 November 2014 issue of New Scientist, initial efforts to cool the planet via geoengineering have taken shape and might begin in two years.

I don’t mind the insanity of the chemtrail crazies except when the insanity is pointed my way. Unfortunately, it happens now and then. Fortunately, I’m so accustomed to dealing with insanity of all types that it’s more a source of amusement than aggravation.

I spent a bit of time two days ago in conversation with Kevin Hester and Robin Westenra (Seemorerocks). The resulting audio file is embedded below, and the description and audio are linked here.

McPherson’s latest book is co-authored and illustrated by Pauline Schneider. Ms. Ladybug and Mr. Honeybee: A Love Story at the End of Time can be ordered from the publisher here and Amazon. Trailer is embedded below.

Comments 134

  • I think Guy has done a very courageous job in telling the world about the facts. He has taken a lot of arrows in the back. He’s even taken threats on his life for doing the right thing. I really enjoyed his web talk with Paul Enrich(sorry about the spelling paul). Paul even commented on the crap Guy has had to go through. Guy is a academic and needs clear facts. Provable without a doubt because he’s up against such a large wall of industrial money that if he sites something that isn’t fact they will ripe him apart. Guy keep up the awesome work I salute you and your wife.

  • Chemtrails will seem like child’s play when shit really hits the fan and millions are dying. Mad scientists will rule the day and nothing, no scheme conceivable by man, will be off the table.
    Humanity will go down fighting.
    It surprises me that I haven’t heard more about mitigation strategies. Obviously there are no workable solutions to talk about.
    I am now grateful for the lines criss-crossing the sky. As summer comes to a close I must admit the cloud cover has been a welcome relief. I no longer care about what it is or isn’t.

  • While i do agree that those persistant clouds left in the sky by planes are in fact contrails, I believe that the government is intentionally flying planes in the sky on days when contrails are likely to form so as to cool the atmosphere. On these days (which are usually days with above average temperatures) I see small planes flying very high in the sky barely visible releasing contrails that spread out and persist all day. Now I’m not saying this proves anything, it is just my observation.

  • I apologize for the third post….

    @ Haydukes……BTW, love the handle

    You state:

    “For instance, you quoted Lidia speaking about “dying,” but then shifted her expression about such an event to death itself. While some may think this is a semantic quibble, I see it otherwise in regard to your exploration.”

    You’re quite correct, I made more of a grammatical error than a semantic one in writing:

    “I have to admit, I’m torn between both of your perspectives. On one hand I agree with Lidia that death “…is a deeply personal and private process….”

    I as well see the two being quite separate, and personally am far more interested in the dying process than the actual death. It’s the unprecedented acceptance of mass death that I believe has the power to completely change how we approach dying.

    Thanks for reading so carefully and pointing it out, that’s no small quibble.

  • @Wren, ha! That wasn’t harsh.. it was just me riffing on my recollections of New England beaches of the 1970s. It wasn’t directed towards anyone’s particular taste in music. You want harsh? In my mind’s eye I was cast as the leather-skinned crone (though, living in VT as I do, I’m rather pasty). Just so you know my harshness is of the equal-opportunity sort.


    @Daniel, that’s sort of an interesting conceit, but one that I don’t think I’d personally be interested in.

    I wouldn’t go out of my way to knock it, though.

    There are various personality types, and I’m just not a “joiner” or “follower”. My once-religious husband said that he’d never met anyone like me.. not merely because I was an atheist or iconoclast, but that I didn’t “struggle” with these positions. I was easily able to dismiss many of the ideas people hold dear (since there seemed no reason to take them seriously, I never have). Even if I wasn’t exactly laughing, I was, at any rate, thoroughly skeptical of most -isms, and have tried to steer clear of the worst of human delusions.

    I am well aware that group rituals of all sorts make things “meaningful” for people. I’m just not particularly satisfied on a personal level by that sort of exercise. I’m one of those INTJs, and while I can be chatty and gregarious in the right moment, ultimately most social interactions drain me rather than recharge me.

    I’m really in a conundrum regarding my DH, actually, since he is just not the suicidal type (whether by nature or by dint of much Catholic indoctrination). Yet I would feel terrible leaving him “alone”, as we have no particularly close friends in the town we moved to 3 years ago; all his real friends and family are in Italy. Would he want to go back there if possible? He says no. He is a fine man, but more passive than I am, so I worry about what would become of him, more psychologically than physically at the moment. He understands and sees the likelihood of NTE, but I don’t think he chooses yet to plumb the depths of what that really means effectively. He doesn’t like statistical thinking, preferring to “wait and see”. I’ve tried without success to elicit an “end-time” speculation from him—he’s a slippery one. Right now, we are concentrated on cultivating our garden (Voltaire) and waiting for the final shoe to drop.

    Frankly, if I were not married, I (truly) might seek out a convent of some sort. Not at all to find any sort of salvation, but just to be left “alone”, decisively and officially out of the mainstream, to have an excuse to strip away superfluous possessions and contacts/contracts that, as a part of “normal” society, I’m required to maintain. The price to pay would be pretending that there’s a Sky God or some other sort of supernatural accounting process. Not sure why there’s always that Catch, but there always is. :-(

    Outside of clausura as I am, I have to instead pretend that there is infinite growth on a finite planet, that “development” is good, that we live in a “democracy”, that debt is necessary, that police and the poor rednecks who choose to join the military are “Heroes” with a capital “H”.. Which set of fictions is the most heinous or fantastical? Rather a toss-up.

    It’s sad and crazy-making that that’s all we have to choose from, in every form of society going—fictions—but whaddayagonna do? Like Granny in front of the TV at 1 p.m…. people love their “stories”. I don’t think there has ever been a society dedicated to “truth”, except perhaps for a smidgen during the height of the Greek civilization. Truth, like a lot of other things humans value, is (I think) a luxury only approachable even in theory in times of plenty and, as we face constraints, so too will our thinking become constrained and crabbed, and fictions find more fertile ground than facts.

  • Hey Doc:
    Please forgive my ignorance.

    Wigington made an interesting comment when he pointed out that when you look up “Chemtrails” on Wikipedia it says it is a term used by “Conspiracy Theorists” to describe a sinister program to control the minds of the people by using some sort of mind control powder that renders the public submissive to government rule.
    Then when you look up “Geoengineering” , it says its a legal form of solar radiation management done by the Gov to help cool down the inland areas , especially the places we grow crops. Also referred to as “CHEMTRAILS”
    I AM CONFUSED. PLEASE HELP.
    John

  • Guy & Dahr Jamail say that we are beyond the point of no return.

    This was posted at Scribbler, but not here.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14473

  • OK. I just looked up the two references I just made on Wikipedia and it appears to have changed since my last visit. However, I have heard many references to “Geoengineering” by the IPCC and Paul Beckwith. I also once saw a advertisement seeking investors in a scheme to “Geoengineer” airspace in “International Waters” where no government can regulate what is being sprayed ect…

  • You should have stayed at your college gig Mcpherson. Now you have to write submissive disinformation to survive. HAVE YOU NO SELF RESPECT??? You will spend eternity in Dante’s eighth circle taking it up the ass from David Keith. What a piece of shit you are.

  • daniel and others, the whole point of not wanting to die alone is that a supportive, compassionate companion to one’s suicide ought to significantly relieve loneliness related anxiety, making one’s final moments as happy, or serene, as possible. if one prefers solitude or doesn’t mind it, fine, but for one who would prefer not to be alone, it would be lovely to not have to be. laws prohibiting assisting suicide are, to my mind, dogmatic, puritanical, and cruel (3 traits that tend to always go together, and are, imo, unfortunately very common). individuals who think they have the right or duty to interfere in the personal choices of others (imposing ‘morality’) should mind their own effin business.

  • @Haydukes & Daniel, an interesting insight. Of course the process and its concomitant pain and fear is what we dread most and are preoccupied with (even the super-religious who should ostensibly be thrilled to meet their “maker”). “Death” assumes the cessation of the dying process.


    Re. conspiracy theories. While I agree with Guy that the chemtrail theory in particular is unlikely to be true at the moment, I can see why some people might believe it, having no reason to trust information that’s been given them in the past:

    http://www.morningliberty.com/2012/04/08/top-33-conspiracy-facts-risking-it-all-for-truth/

    (N.B., I’ve never seen this site before tonight, nor do I necessarily subscribe to its content. I just happened to Google and find there a list similar to one I’d seen before.. There are a number of variations of these, with more- or less-credible “entries”. I haven’t even read this list in its entirety. For purposes of argument, it suffices that a number of “true” conspiracies are indeed listed.)

    Sometimes I find myself wanting to remain agnostic about what might otherwise seem like far-fetched accusations, since every time I’ve come to a tentative conclusion about something, I’ve found the truth to’ve been far worse. I can’t remember having been wrong believing the worst, about the NSA, about Iraq, about Fukushima. You start to get a nose for these things.

    In Italy, conspiracy theories never die. When I first moved there in 2000, they’d still carry articles in the newspaper about Ustica (1980; a passenger plane possibly shot down by a US missile), the “strage” (massacres) of Bologna (1980) and Piazza di Fontana (1969), various shipping explosions from the 1990s… on a weekly or monthly basis, as though they had happened the previous week. They probably still do. These events are evergreen.

    Italy, during the mid-1970s through mid-1980s especially, was subject to an enormous spate of unsolved disasters, political bombings and assassinations. A good number of these are likely to have been False Flag opeations carried out by the right to tarnish the left. Operation Gladio has been a real CIA operation which stopped at little to make leftists and communists look bad (not that they needed help with that), and quite a number of people died as a result of it.. paling, of course, in comparison to the shenanigans the sons and daughters of these fascists and neo-cons are now up to in the Middle East, Ukraine and elsewhere. The foul dregs of the Gladio crowd, like Michael Ledeen, were responsible for the forged Niger/uranium letter that became part of the “evidence” justifying Iraqi “regime change”. What a clean-sounding process, yeah? Like changing your spark plugs. The far-left Red Brigades, though, were also quite real and engaged in a great number of killings, especially targeting police and government officials.

    During the WTO and other anti-globalization protests world-wide, there’s often been a “Black Block” of violent provocateurs. Are they true zealots, or government plants? It behooves no-one, really, to know the truth of it. The ambiguity actually suits both sides, when you think about it. Wheels within wheels.

    My point being: obscuring the facts and creating confusion is often the purview of paid provocateurs. Create doubt, said the tobacco/asbestos/fossil-fuel execs.



    I think I’ve mentioned this before: psychologically, we’d actually probably feel a whole lot better doing something objectively dumb or ineffective (like a rain dance, or nailing a milagro to the wall of a church) if we were all to actually collectively believe in its efficacy. I often envy the people who do pointless things that they believe will make a difference. They are the moronically-empowered: convinced of their own agency and the agency of their gods on their behalf—what a comfortable fiction! At least they have “programming” that tells them what to do, even if “what to do” is worthless or counter-productive. As the Easter Island inhabitants went into overdrive erecting statues, the more the statue-erecting impulse doomed them (the largest statue being one that hadn’t been detached from its quarrying site). I can’t see any important way in which we moderns are going to be different.

    It must be soothing to all kinds of folks of this era to read the writings of Paul Krugman or Milton Friedman or this or that politician representing the secular “Church” of standard economic policy. Taking out a loan to get an MBA isn’t that far off from building a moai. They are both absurd culturally-encouraged resource sinks.


    @Artleads, thanks very much for the bacteria video. That’s exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Funnily (correct me if I am wrong), I think the woo-folk (trying to use this term kindly) will elevate the bacteria and en-soul them as individual actors, while I see this only as confirmation that humans behave pretty much exactly like one-celled bacteria: spurred on by chemical sensations rather than being geniuses of creativity defined by individual “thought”. I believe we humans are always reactive, always subject to events, playing catch-up, our “vision”— such as it is—effectively restricted to the rear-view mirror.

  • @tvt (sorry for the extra post but just gotta add) I agree with you whole-heartedly on the assisted-suicide front, even though I mostly think of the assistence as involving breaking down whatever barriers there might be with regard to means. Someone could be of assistance in that fashion while not being physically present: eg., a doctor who prescribes a pill.

  • Ron Lampi Says:
    August 16th, 2015 at 3:30 pm
    “With all due respect to Guy, I was shocked by the tone of this essay. In the broad truth-seeking community the last thing we need is more divisiveness. I felt a punch to my gut starting into the essay, though I know it was not directed at me personally. In addition, instead of offering more clarity to this complex issue of geoengineering, it actually produced more confusion (for me), though the factual information as it was presented was straightforward enough. I remain open to and consider what all serious researchers in various fields are working on.”

    Guy is simply calling bullshit bullshit.” You are saying little more than that you ind facts confusing, and intend to remain open to what you admit has been exposed as crap in a very straightforward way because …. because that crap fits into your poetry?

  • I’m curious is this video worthy of being called at least interesting? What do you believe is being emitted? Guy, For those of us that you call ignorant simply help us with the answer. The common-folk may call that a chemtrail. Is it simply water-vapor in your mind, or is it at least worthy of investigation?

    https://www.facebook.com/StellarNexus/videos/1548869828716701/

  • Lidia,

    You’re welcome. I don’t take much credit for my own agency (although that varies). When I think about it, I see “my agency” as the result of one thing leading to the next thing, on and on, going back as far as I can imagine. Of late, I’ve taken to saying that “life” made so and so happen, It’s quite pleasant to see it that way. :-) But, for me, it only gets stranger from there.

  • Guy McPherson, when i initially started to listen to you, you had a lot of credibility in my eyes. but then when you fanatically and agressively denied climate engineering is going on (which 10 year old can see it is going on), you completely lost any credibility whatsoever. how can anybody denying reality, call oneself not only scientist, but just even conscious human being? well, why wait till 2030, you might as well finish yourself now instead of lying to people under false guise of science! you are the joke!

  • Daniel wrote:

    “It’s the unprecedented acceptance of mass death that I believe has the power to completely change how we approach dying.”

    I’d say that depends on the “we” you are referring to; and when this mass death (or mass extinction of earth’s existing species) finds its way into our individual and/or collective consciousness.

    As it is, apart from those of us who care to ‘see’ the erasure events happening to the mass of species now, most humans seem to harbor no recognition of this; hence there is no “unprecedented acceptance” to speak of… yet.

    Even then, when the web of life deaths and mass species extinctions becomes so obvious as to lead us to an unprecedented acceptance, humans are such a peculiar lot when it comes to dealing with ‘realities’, I suspect that under such circumstances how individuals change their approach to dying — as opposed to their approach to trying to eke out an extended existence — may well “completely” change their approach. But for most it will still be an occasion fraught with anxiety; especially because as Lidia noted: “the process and its concomitant pain and fear is what we dread most and are preoccupied with “.

    Never the less, I’m going to suppose you may rather be referring to those of us (the “we” here) who tend to understand and recognize our present living arrangements are doomed.

    It’s an interesting conundrum, for sure. Despite our predicament I’m still too busy living to have given more than some passing thoughts about how I will approach my dying. I suppose much will also depend on the circumstances I find myself in at the time. Whether I have some semblance in the choice of the matter or not will also be pertinent. Still, even without the threat of NTE, when one is about to turn 60 how one approaches dying is an ever present undercurrent.

    Frankly, I’m approaching my inevitable dying by trying to live as fully as I can now. Somewhat paradoxically, as Lidia just expressed, I too fantasize about seeking some refuge from my “normal” life and all the “superfluous possessions and contacts/contracts” I’m responsible for. If anything, the reality of NTE has heightened my inherent loner sensibilities. It’s not that I don’t like companionship, but NTE sensibility isn’t a widely accepted one in my circle — in fact it doesn’t register as far as our daily bread and circuses goes.

    So, I go about my business as best I can, and do so mostly in isolation, figuring that our ongoing ecocide will eventually become an undeniable reality. Until then, I appreciate my blessings, like the Baltimore Oriole with its juvenile that this morning stopped at our trumpet vine flowers to sip some nectar on their long journey south; and then not long after our summer resident hummingbird partaking at the same flowers before it too will not long from now depart for the winter. Later in the afternoon I took a refreshing swim in the Atlantic ocean and spent time rereading Desert Solitaire beneath my beach umbrella, where I will return to today as an enjoyable way to bide my time from the heat and humidity. And last but not least, I heard a woodcock off in the woods this evening, which is unusual this time of the year, but much appreciated to know it still wanders about to mesmerize me.

    Ultimately, I’m not much interested in recititations about all the bad news. I’m most interested in personal tales we have to share. How we may end up dying is, and will be, in the final analysis a personal and private affair. But how we are coping and living today is what counts in my opinion.

    Anyway, given the lunacy of chemtrails that have dominated this thread, I doubt any excess posts of yours, Lidia’s, or mine or others who have had something worthwhile to offer will bother Guy in the least.

  • DrEpiphany: I am so RSVPing to your invitation RIGHT NOW. Just give me the heads up and I’ll make the trip to Hawaii! Can’t wait!

    Also, I saw this on the Arctic News website but didn’t know if it was remotely viable as a solution to the methane problem. I’m assuming not since it’s already been discussed that there really is no solution, and I’m no scientician so I can’t really evaluate:

    “The United States and Russia must immediately develop a net of powerful radio beat frequency transmission stations around the Arctic using the critical 13.56 MHZ beat frequency to break down the methane in the stratosphere and troposphere to nanodiamonds and hydrogen.”

  • Hi, I haven’t read the links yet disputing chem trails but I will. First of all I’d like to say that our whole global society is based on illusion and making the population think that what they see and feel is not real but to listen to the people in charge that tell you through media, tv, internet, politics, corporations, the medical community, the pharmaceutical community and all the structures that govern us. We can see that some of the world is being abused in horrific ways and we are trained to turn our heads and close off our minds to what is happening by blaming it on the victims. For example the wars in different countries are mostly about controlling the population for the benefit of the western societies and the new upcoming “first” world countries, but we are told it’s because they are bad people. We watch on the news things happening but are offered reasons as to why it’s happening and not to be alarmed because apparently we are safe in our cocoon. GMO foods have been almost slipped past the population and to a degree they are still, expect for some of the enraged population that won’t stand for it. Some don’t buy the bullshit. The so called “food” for the population is sprayed with toxic chemicals but we are told it’s not harmful. We live in an oil economy and live under the illusion that fracking is safe and that we will never run out of oil, but if we admit it, we know that fracking is destroying the environment, ecosystems and habitat but again we are told that it’s safe and really not harmful, plus don’t complain it’s good for the economy, which sends fear to many as without the economy, most people would lose everything. So you see, humans have and are being trained to discount what they see, feel, hear, taste and smell if it doesn’t fit into the system. Even if substances aren’t being sprayed and even if it’s because of exponential travel, really, they are still chem trails, because the fallout is falling on us. But what the hell, how about that next vacation that you need because your job is killing you and you need timeout to destress only to come back and work long days at a job you hate to pay for things made overseas that break down so you can work some more to retain your status. It’s all a made up reality and just because you don’t agree with some people trying to figure out what the hell is going on, because they are aware that something is, don’t discount them. Maybe you have the facts and maybe you don’t, nothing is absolutely certain except what your human instincts tell you is. However, humans have lost their natural animal instincts in trying to be the dominant species and look where we are…

  • Forget geoengineering, biogeoengineering is where it’s at!

    Dead people don’t know they’re dead, just like stupid people don’t know they’re stupid.

    Melting glaciers lead to volcanos.
    http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0816/Cotopaxi-eruption-What-s-with-all-the-volcanoes-these-days-video

    The earth’s spin is slowing down and changing the shape of our planet.
    https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-186829,00.html

    It is the difference between the magnetic and geographic poles that causes earth’s rotational spin, so how does magnetic pole flip play into this?
    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141110-earths-magnetic-field-flips-more

    El Niño are strong enough that their effect is observed in the Earth’s rotation signal.
    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0210rotation.html

    Being as how I’m just a guy who cuts grass in a trailer park, and not a biogeophysicist, I don’t know anything except that when 3 or more forces act upon a body in confluence, the results can be more than the sum of their parts.

    1+1+1=5

  • Thanks for all the advice, but I’ll not be committing suicide merely because many readers here are irrational. Those few interested in reason might be interested in my latest post. It’s here.

  • I will introduce some logic into this debate, using the IF THEN logic statement of computer programming.

    IF (Dane Wigington’s evidence) is not (Satisfactory) THEN

    What evidence are people looking for EXACTLY?

    END IF

  • As a recap, Dane’s evidence is

    a) government documents which describe SRM
    b) patents describing the chemicals used for SRM
    c) lab results of ground water samples indicating the presence of those chemicals

  • tea for two, is better than one, I say…and then again, I might drink twice instead.

  • Paul Ehrlich . Thanks David

  • I’ll go through this again, Cindy Lane, for you and the other muddled “thinkers.” Citing authority is not citing evidence, as I’ve pointed out already. Dane’s so-called evidence has huge holes, as pointed out within the two links to which I already pointed.

    And you ignored, because the evidence doesn’t match your belief.

    I’ll go the quick and easy route this time, because I’m tired of your fuzzy brains. Let’s cut straight to “c) lab results of ground water samples indicating the presence of those chemicals.”

    This is the very definition of ignorance. Assuming “those chemicals” came from those planes, instead of from other industrial activity, is unfounded. Those very chemicals are a product of what is conventionally termed “normal” industrial activity.

    You and others here are my targets from about eight years ago, when I wrote: “As S. Jonathan Singer concludes in his 2001 book, The Splendid Feast of Reason, it appears unlikely that more than ten percent of people are capable of employing reason as a basis for how they live. Singer likely did not know he was echoing Schopenhauer, although Schopenhauer’s use of dialogue in his essay clearly indicates he knew he was echoing Plato in reaching the same conclusion.”

    I’ve no doubt you and others reading this brief comment will continue to ignore the evidence while relying on a deluded authority figure to sustain your beliefs. I suspect many people here would appreciate you keeping your incoherent ramblings to yourself.

  • Hi, we don’t absolutely know how everything works because we only can measure certain things to our current limits and give a hypothesis on what is happening. To say the water vapour from jet engines is not harmful because it dissipates is only a hypothesis, made from humans limited abilities. Fukushima happened and we are told that the radiation is harmless because it’s been diluted…That’s only one example…

  • This website is facing the invasion of the brain snatchers.:-)

  • ‘When I think about it, I see “my agency” as the result of one thing leading to the next thing, on and on, going back as far as I can imagine’ -artleads

    exactly. every moment is indelibly connected to the past, an unbreakable chain. every moment, every ‘choice’, is pre-determined. can’t change the past, can’t change the present, or the future. surreality is strange, indeed. makes existence seem kind of pointless, but hey, if u disagree, more power to u!

  • TVT,

    My opinion is that reality is far too strange to figure out. I’m not convinced that free will and predetermination aren’t two sides of the same coin, so I don’t take sides on the matter. And I find existence the very opposite of pointless! :-)

  • Anthony,

    “Seriously–What’s up with all the odd videos. If I wanted to see videoes instead of having a serious discussion I would go to MTV.
    So in 2030 according to your data we will likely be dead– what should we tell the kids?”

    Well, to defend the few I put up just before your post, I suppose I should point out it isn’t just about you, and what you want. We are all here, and some music may be an answer to the last part of your question.

    ‘The Carpenters LIVE – “We’ve Only Just Begun”‘

    Music can assist healing.

    Hope that helps.

  • Lidia, you said:

    “…Frankly, if I were not married, I (truly) might seek out a convent of some sort. Not at all to find any sort of salvation, but just to be left “alone”, decisively and officially out of the mainstream, to have an excuse to strip away superfluous possessions and contacts/contracts that, as a part of “normal” society, I’m required to maintain. The price to pay would be pretending that there’s a Sky God or some other sort of supernatural accounting process. Not sure why there’s always that Catch, but there always is”

    Yes, I can identify with that!
    I often used to think what I might have done if I had been born into an earlier age, when women had no real choice but motherhood. Joining a convent (or, in a later age for me, the protestant equivalent) just to get away from “the mainstream” would have appealed a lot.
    Not being an aristocrat, I imagined myself a lay nun working in the gardens and kitchen. The good thing about that, being one of the “worker bees”, you were excused from too much praying, but for the rest of the time, yes, like you, I would have just pretended to believe.
    It seems obvious to me that many nuns and monks did just that. Why should you and I be the only ones to whom this has occurred? I think people tend assume that everybody was genuinely pious in earlier ages because generally, we think of ourselves as more educated and informed. Education and information is meaningless, you know this so well too, unless you use it to think for yourself. The “mainstream” illustrates this over and over again.

    For women, convent life also provided comparative safety, another good reason for pretending to believe in a sky god.

    Yes, if I were not married…. getting away from the mainstream like that sounds good to me.

    Thanks for mentioning this here.