Chemtrails / SAI / Geoengineering: Conspiracy or Reality?
Chemtrails / SAI / Geoengineering: Conspiracy or Reality?
SAI = Stratospheric Aerosol Injection
Written by Efrat Fenigson for Bereshit Newspaper | Translated by Deborah Garber
In recent years, many people in Israel and around the world have been wondering why they have been witnessing a phenomenon not widely seen in the past that has received little or no satisfying explanation from the authorities. Eyewitnesses everywhere report planes leaving white trails that thicken in the sky and within minutes simulate the effect of fog that blankets the heavens creating an eerie greyness that obscures the sun. The flight path of the planes is sometimes circular, spiralling around the sun, or in a criss- cross formation. Social networks are full of reports about the flight trails, and the health hazards associated with those "aerosoles". In response, the mainstream media provides simplistic and illogical explanations, claiming that the trails are the condensation streaks of commercial flights and nothing more. The people who report such phenomena are accused of being conspiracy theorists. Move along, they say, there's nothing to see here. On my quest to disprove another conspiracy, I followed the phenomenon a little more closely, here are my findings.
In February 2023, a report by the UN Climate Committee entitled "One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Research and Deployment of Solar Radiation Modification" was published. It was puzzling to note that a report that pertains to the management of the climate crisis, received relatively meagre coverage in mainstream media around the world, and as we have come to expect, no coverage at all in Israel. I became suspicious. Why would a UN report on the climate issue not get headlines in the mainstream media? Some of the voices who shout the loudest about the climate crisis have either ignored the report or downright resent it because, in their eyes, it serves as a distraction from the “lofty” goal of carbon emission reduction. Additional possible reasons for the scant coverage will be discussed below.
Watch an interview with me about this article:
The UN report, drawn up by nine scientists, looked at earth cooling alternatives, such as injecting large amounts of particles into the upper atmosphere (stratosphere), painting the roofs of urban buildings white, planting solar-reflective crops, covering deserts with solar-reflective materials, and launching mirrors into space that can reflect more sunlight away from earth. Most of the projects will cost billions of dollars, take years to complete and even then, it is hard to know how effective they will be.
Earth cooling methods are listed under the concept of "Solar Radiation Modification" which represents methods and technologies aimed at simulating the natural phenomenon that occurs during a volcanic eruption, such as that of the great eruption at Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, in which about 15 million tons of sulphur dioxide were emitted into the atmosphere and the average global temperature was lowered by about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the next 15 months, according to NASA estimates.
By imitating this natural phenomenon, it will be possible to cool the earth and fight the threat of global warming, according to the authors of the report who are unanimous in their basic assumptions that the earth is warming, carbon dioxide is a dangerous greenhouse gas, and without lowering the temperature major disasters are expected. Also, in this report on SRM technologies, the experts assume that it is necessary to cool the earth and all means justify this end. Notwithstanding their enthusiasm, the report does enumerate the dangers of these cooling methods.
"SRM is a complex, controversial and understudied bunch of technologies," writes Ms. Inger Andersen, Director of the UN Climate Committee, in the introduction. "However, some scientists and companies are accelerating its deployment: research and empirical experiments are ongoing, and technologies and programs are being discussed at the highest levels, without a full understanding of the implications. This is contrary to the precautionary principle, which must be applied in the case of technology that will change the atmosphere.''
The most prominent of the solar radiation modification methods is a technology called SAI - Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, which aims to cool the earth by deflecting sunlight back into space. The UN report focuses mainly on this approach, since "it is the most researched and some argue that it is the most actionable in terms of efficiency, cost and timeliness".
What particles are injected into the stratosphere in the spraying process? The report mentions sulfuric acid, sulphates, calcium carbonate, carbonyl sulphide, and titanium oxide.
The Head of the CIA, John Brennan, spoke excitedly about climate engineering technology in a speech at the 2016 Council on Foreign Relations Conference, and in particular he mentioned SAI, the impressive technology for injecting particles into the stratosphere that blocks solar radiation in order to cool the earth, allowing "more time" for the world economy to switch from fossil fuelled to green energy, "a relatively inexpensive plan" says Brennan, "which will cost only 10 billion dollars a year".
In 2007, at the UN Council meeting, Rosalind Peterson, a former senior official at the US Department of Agriculture, raised the issue with concern, and warned of the worldwide dangers of climate engineering programs, spraying dangerous chemicals into the air. These programs, created in the name of the climate crisis, are not monitored and do not heed damage to ecosystems, soil, crops or pollination, Peterson said.
The UN report on SAI discusses the concerns of deploying such programs. This is a new and deliberate intervention in the climate system with side effects and risks that may be dangerous to all living things. This damage can be the result of negative biophysical effects, or disruption of social and political dynamics. The damage will probably be felt more severely in some countries than in others. It is not known to what extent these negative consequences may manifest, and whether they can be prevented or reduced.'
Confidence in these programs is low, the authors note. "Comprehensive assessments of the effects of their deployment on human health (e.g. radiation exposure, disease transmission, acid rain and air pollution) are also lacking."
"Comprehensive assessments of the effects of their deployment on human health (e.g. radiation exposure, disease transmission, acid rain and air pollution) are also lacking."
'Critically, combined assessments of multiple effects, positive and negative, are limited in the scientific literature; For example, mortality and morbidity from heat stress, water resources, flood risk, storm damage, vector-borne diseases, biodiversity, food security, ocean ecosystems and fisheries. At the same time, recent human health research suggests that cooling the tropics by deploying radiation management programs may redistribute the risk of malaria in developing countries and may increase the number of people at risk of malaria compared to scenarios without the programs."
The report even details the effects of the deployment of SAI programs on the climate, and lists examples of severe and even destructive effects of deployments that are not well planned, such as "devastating floods in parts of northern Europe and severe drought in the Mediterranean region."
"In order for SAI programs to be effective, they need to be run for decades or more," according to the report. "Sustained large-scale SAI deployment could greatly disturb the lower and middle stratosphere with unknown climate consequences on and near earth's surface. When SAI deployment uses sulphate particles, rather than alternatives, acid rain can form.'
Another danger detailed in the report is "a decrease in stratospheric ozone that will cause an increase in UV radiation on the surface and a decrease in tropospheric ozone, with consequences for human health and ecosystems."
Apparently, it is not easy to stop programs that have been running for years, and we are on a slippery slope, according to the authors. "If SAI deployment were to stop suddenly, the previously contained warming would erupt within a few years. If the deployment is on a large scale, this could cause serious negative effects on ecosystems and biodiversity and increase the extinction risks of thousands of species.' The programs deployed all over the world are defined in the report as experimental, but the authors warn that these experiments may easily become routine operational deployments leading to geopolitical risks, beyond the ones already mentioned. Since the cost of the deployment is relatively low and is estimated at about 20 billion dollars per year for every 1°C of cooling, many countries and perhaps also non-state actors, some of whom may be malicious and dangerous, can afford them. The issues of the type of technology or the number of deployments may also create political or military conflict. It is likely that there will never be a universal consensus on SRM deployments, and therefore communities and countries that oppose the deployments will be exposed to their effects against their will - due to the natural movement of the chemicals injected into the air from region to region, a point that raises ethical and legal concerns.
The authors point out that there is not enough information to perform a proper risk assessment of the climate crisis against the risk of what might happen in the absence of the use of these technologies. The report calls for more extensive scientific research on the subject, and for regulation of climate engineering methods. David Fahey, director of NOAA's (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Chemical Sciences Laboratory, said in an interview with E&E magazine that ahead of the next UN General Assembly debate, "we need to have a more reliable 'what if' assessment." The UN's next move will be to appoint a panel to discuss the issue, since as of today, the evidence needed to make informed decisions about widespread deployment of climate engineering methods is "simply not there."
Although the UN report explicitly mentions the names of only three countries - the USA, Australia and Sweden - in which experimental programs are run, the diagrams and content in it refer to all regions of the planet. The reasons for hiding the use of SRM technologies - whether experimentally or routinely - become clear at the end of reading the report; why would a country want to reveal plans that present so many risks, potential damages and the undermining of ecological, social, health and geopolitical systems, which will undoubtedly lead to opposition from home and abroad?
🇮🇱 What is Happening in the Skies of Israel?
Prof. Daniel Rosenfeld, an Israeli meteorologist, an expert in atmospheric sciences and climate engineering from the Institute of Earth Sciences at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, was interviewed in March 2019 for the TV show "The World Today" on Kan 11 and called this technology "a spray against global warming. The idea is to return as much of the sun's radiation to space as possible...we will seed the clouds with small particles," says Rosenfeld, "their essence does not matter so much... and we will cool the earth as an antidote to global warming." Prof. Rosenfeld admits that we do not know what the side effects of using this technology are, but it is necessary to continue promoting the field of climate engineering, in order to gain valuable time in the race towards a climate disaster, while concurrently switching to renewable energies.
Some remember the "silver iodide" experiments in Israel. According to Wikipedia, these experiments were stopped in 2021. If this is true, the phenomenon we have been witnessing in the skies of Israel lately is not part of the cloud seeding experiments.
So, what is actually going on here? Why the obfuscation around the machinations in the skies of Israel? We don't need to be scientists to look at the heavens and realize that the SAI plan is being carried out above our heads. Common sense would suggest that commercial planes do not fly in formation, nor do they leave long trails that turn into blankets of clouds causing untoward health effects.
But do we have the unequivocal "proof" that the State of Israel has been implementing the SAI program? No. No government office or authority, no pilot and certainly no MK or politician has admitted as much to us, mere citizens. All we need do is look up at the sky, read this article and the UN document, and cross check data. This trend of concealment and rule by force must end. If the State of Israel is foisting SAI programs on its citizens as a matter of course, we have the right to know, respond, and have our say.
In Nitzan Sadan's article in Calcalist magazine from December 2022 "Cloud Seeding: Climate Engineering or Brainwashing?" those who question these strange phenomena are slandered; according to Sadan "the natural tendency is to roll one's eyes and denigrate the members of this community." He concludes the article by saying that “divine power is the stuff of fairy-tales and people cannot control the weather at will, white streaks in the sky are just white streaks in the sky, and governments shape consciousness through propaganda, government mouthpieces, and fake news - things they manage to do even without planes or chemicals.”
I think it's time we stop playing God whether by believing that we have a stronghold on the truth and that we are the wisest of all creatures or by playing dangerous games of hubris by engineering Gaia and the forces of nature.
🇺🇸 Surprise Surprise: White House Backs Plan to Block the Sun
Politico reported on July 1st, 2023, that “the White House report released late Friday indicates that the Biden administration is open to studying the possibility that altering sunlight might quickly cool the planet. But it added a degree of skepticism by noting that Congress has ordered the review, and the administration said it does not signal any new policy decisions related to a process that is sometimes referred to — or derided as — geoengineering.”
“A program of research into the scientific and societal implications of solar radiation modification (SRM) would enable better-informed decisions about the potential risks and benefits of SRM as a component of climate policy, alongside the foundational elements of greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and adaptation,” the White House report said. “SRM offers the possibility of cooling the planet significantly on a timescale of a few years.”
Still, the White House said in a statement accompanying the report, “there are no plans underway to establish a comprehensive research program focused on solar radiation modification.”
Sure, let’s see where this goes.
Want to support my work?
Since I’m based in Israel and SubStack doesn’t have a payment service for Israel,
you can “buy me a coffee” to support me, or use Bitcoin here.
Thank you!
Efrat Shalom, I read with interest your comprehensive, well research article about Chemtrails and Climate Engineering and here are my comments below:
1. Regarding existence of Chemtrails, they are as real as it gets, one could notice them in the skies over Petach Tikva, Holon, Ancaster where I am now in Canada, Toronto, London England, or Melbourne, Australia. The lack of transparency on Chemtrails by world governments, bodes similarities to the lack of candor regarding the Corona PLAN-DEMIC.
2. The hoax of global warming is the greatest hoax perpetrated on humanity. In second place stands the hoax of the Corona PLAN-DEMIC. The so called UN scientists, are engaging in pseudo-science, ie tampering with the satellite data, to try and correspond with their flawed models. So are NASA and NOAA so called "scientists". Many wait until retirement to come out of the closet and expose the criminality of data tampering for the sake of obtaining budgets from Congress. Please refer to the video of Senate hearing from 2014 in which Senator Ted Cruz lambasted the head of the Sierra Club for not admitting that since 1998 there is NOT warming whatsoever, that's why the warm mongers, changed the terminology from global warming to climate change. They invented a new term the PAUSE, because internally they all know their models are flawed and do not reflect reality. In Israel, there is Professor Nir Shaviv from the Hebrew University, who in the past discussed openly the hoax of anthropogenic warming, but lately he took some pause, probably does not want to jeopardize his career.
3. If there was some warming, it would be a good thing, not a bad thing. At about 0.04% CO2 (400ppm-parts per million) in the atmosphere, we are slightly above starvation limit. Below 300ppm, humanity will experience mass starvation. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is extremely beneficial, it helps green the planet, rejuvenate the rain forests, increase food yields for a growing population. Amongst the greenhouse gases, concentration of CO2 is also negligible, at less than 2% it does not have any significant effect on warming. 95% of greenhouse gases are water vapours. CO2 is beneficial to humanity and should not be tampered with. Only the enemies of humanity would want to tamper with the gas of life, which without it life on our planet would not exist. They are willing to spend tens of billions of $$ to solve a problem which does not exist. It exist only in their malevolent imagination.
4. Climate does not lend itself to mathematical modelling, because there are too many unknown parameters. All models created by IPCC, NASA, NOAA are flawed and never corresponded with reality. Instead of discarding them as pseudo science, they double down with their lies and deception. Real scientists know that CO2 does not cause warming. The Al Gore movie Inconvenient Truth is filled with falsehoods, especially the graph by which he shows that throughout history increase or decrease of CO2 caused warming or cooling. It is categorically false. He put the wagon before the horse. Warming or cooling throughout history was caused by the Sun as proven by the Millankovski cycles. About 50-70 years following a long warming period, the oceans which form about 2/3 of the earth surface, release trapped CO2 to the atmosphere. Following cooling periods, also determined by the intensity of the SUN, excess CO2 will be trapped back in the depths of the oceans. Therefore, the cycle is complete opposite to what Al Gore explained in his fake movie. CO2 trails warming, CO2 categorically does not cause warming.
5. Currently according to the Millankovski cycles we are in a period of GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM, the solar activity is low, so many REAL scientists (including my daughter who has a PhD in Environmental Engineering) opine that we are in a mini ice age.
97% of the pseudo "scientists" concur with whoever is funding them. Global Warming ain't science, its the new religion of the radical left.