By David Tulis
Critics of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering are taking it on the chin in a Washington Post oped, but are celebrating their being recognized in the establishment press.
A column in the District of Columbia-based Post suggests that writers such as Dane Wigington of Geoengineeringwatch.org “could derail debate” over climate policy with their “emotional” and “passionate” arguments that climate control by “chemtrails” is old news — and bad news. But it also admits that their objections to “deadly air pollution” and damage to the ozone layer by toxic plumes have merit as part of the debate over what is a futurististic weather-control technology still on the drawing board. (Continued below.)
The essay by science journalist Puneet Kollipara should be credited for recognizing that SRM, or solar radiation management, is uniting “left-wingers worried about the environment to right-wingers concerned about abuses of government power.” While the Post tries to slip enough snake oil onto the tarmac to prevent anyone from gaining steady legs, the text’s concessions grant a toe-hold to momentarily see the sky above your head in its true blue.
Researchers such as Mr. Wigington says that climate geoengineering is “already under way” by means of jet aircraft emissions. The Post saddles his perspective with reference to shrill Facebook and Internet hangers-on who insist chemtrailing serves eugenic, human culling and mind-control purposes. Still, Mr. Wigington and other writers have “a small but passionate following” from people “across the ideological spectrum” who “generally point to seeming irregularities in aircraft contrails as indisputable proof that illicit weather or climate modification is already happening, right now, and being used to control people and nations, especially poor ones.”
Authorities such as Mr. Wigington, an environmentalist who has dedicated a decade of his life to exposing SRM as manifest and inescapable, make “farfetched” and “baseless” claims for the global program’s long being in existence serving governmental and deep state interests.
But they can’t be dismissed because
insights they may offer about a future debate over geoengineering. It might be many years, after all, before any geoengineering proposal seriously enters the policy realm. Still, writes science and technology policy researcher Rose Cairns of the University of Sussex in The Geographical Journal, “Ignoring or dismissing these discourses out of hand as pathological or paranoid is to ignore potentially revealing insights about the emerging politics of geoengineering.”
The Posts suggests Mr. Wigington and others be studied sociologically, as phenomena in the field of mass psychology because how they make the argument AGAINST solar radiation management and chemtrailing presages. Their opposition has little value now, but suggests how FUTURE opposition will frame its objections in the future when chemtrailing is finally proposed as a possible future program.
“Solar geoengineering — more formally known as solar radiation management (SRM) — is merely an idea right now,” the Post declares, “and many scholars aren’t convinced that it’d actually be worth it. But with the National Research Council set to weigh in on various forms of geoengineering very soon, it — and the conspiracy theories involving it — stands to gain more of the public spotlight.”
Sticking point: Is program actual, or theoretical?
The Post’s concern is that the argument against SRM and weather control “could poison legitimate debate over geoengineering’s merits.” The opposition’s argument against health effects, damage to ecology, damage to hydrological cycles and profiteering by big ag and big business are bad enough by way of opposition. But the poison critics are serving up is their assault on the modern state and its overbearing ways and absolutist impulse, its years of secrecy and experimentation upon the citizenry.
How does Uncle ready the public for massive weather intervention in the weather when it has been doing so for years already? How can it make a show of drawing back a curtain — not for a new presentation, but for a show the audience has already seen and disbelieved? How to go public with a black budget program whose results are visible almost daily over Chattanooga and now declare it dangerous to human health — but a planetary necessity?
If Uncle Sam intends to be honest to say public health might be jeopardized by spraying nanoparticulate aluminum and sulphur by the megatonnage required to turn the sky into a milky white plasma, how does it explain past years of murky skies, diverted storms, aluminum in test samples and accelerated UV rays from a jet-damaged ozone layer?
The U.S. government and its gaggle of nation-state partners around the globe are in a fix, raising now a clamor for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering while having to explain past actions of which today and for 20 years Mr. Wigington has complained. Possibly the existing program has been paid for with the F$8.5 trillion the Pentagon has mislaid since 1996.
The Post essay is like looking at pencil scratching through an opaque glass. Its conception is impermanent and shifting. Still, Mr. Kollipara gives voice to the arguments of Mr. Wigington and geoengineering opponents of the proposed artificial skymaking program. No satisfactory answer exists for the objection to sky striping even though you may be wrong about the timing of its first happy day.
Left ignored, the chemtrails narrative could poison legitimate debate over geoengineering’s merits. Right now the public is still learning what geoengineering is, and people’s opinions about it have yet to fully form, making them vulnerable to misinformation. But how, exactly, geoengineering researchers should address the chemtrails narrative without outright ignoring it isn’t clear. In short, chemtrails itself is a conspiracy theory. But the environmental and political concerns underlying the theory can’t be ignored, as they certainly would arise in any mainstream debate over whether to proceed with geoengineering. And chemtrails believers themselves could become a thorn in geoengineering researchers’ and proponents’ sides for many years to come.
Just as those Christians who say the prophecies of the book of Revelation have already been fulfilled in history are called preterists or partial preterists, the brightest opponents of sky striping are preterists as well. They are not prophesying about cloud management and jet plumes as a prospective danger, as future events. The great woe isn’t ahead; the colossal events of judgment and redemption aren’t 10 years out or tomorrow. They have already occurred, are in the past.
— David Tulis hosts Nooganomics.com 1 to 3 p.m. weekdays at Hot News Talk Radio 1240 910 1190 AM, covering local economy and free markets in Chattanooga and beyond. Online at hotnewstalkradio.com and via smartphone and the TuneIn radio app.
Source: Puneet Kollipara, “How a group of conspiracy theorists could derail the debate over climate policy,” Washington Post, Jan. 22, 2015 . This post has several valuable outbound links if you wish to explore sky striping on your own.
“Pentagon forged financial documents amid failure to manage budget — investigation,” Russia Today, Nov. 18, 2013. http://rt.com/usa/pentagon-numbers-doctored-treasury-922/