By David Tulis

Chattanooga was sky scratched May 19, 21, 22, 24 (heavily), 26, 27, 30, June 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14. Two days within this time frame, May 28 and 29, I marked for strongly visible haze that appears to be the goal of Chattanooga flyovers. Haze is the product of American geoengineering, a mist that theoretically will save the planet by deflecting sunlight from the rooftops, streets, parking lots and highways in and around Chattanooga.

Bob Colby, the director of the Chattanooga/Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau tells me (unedited video is online a few days) there is nothing in the air in Chattanooga or Hamilton county that substantiates my fears that aluminium, strontium and barium are being sprayed into the skies of the city and falling in some fashion into your windpipe and lung. A transcript of the interview is in the works. I ask about three metals that are said to be active ingredients in the federal spraying program. Aluminum is of special interest because at nanoparticle size it is light enough to float — potentially for months or years. The tinier the size of the reflective particulate, the more power it has to reflect sunlight brightly, over a greater span of time.

I stressed Mr. Colby give me only official answers in the discussion, not speculation or personal opinion. He says alleged chemtrails are contrails, harmless emissions of jet engine vapor, citing as his authority an EPA fact sheet. Chemtrails, if they exist, are outside his jurisdiction. My review of material generated by an open records request is incomplete. Mr. Colby says the data he gives me is no cause for alarm, and suggests my arguments about geoengineering are in error.

Global warming deniers

Undeterred for now by Mr. Colby’s dissent, I want to give full breadth of opinion from “global warming deniers.” The epithet describes those of a free market and libertarian bent who understand that the standard theory of global warming is a work to impose a global political and economic tyranny upon Chattanooga under guise of saving the planet. But I apply it to another group, those who deny that solar radiation management programs are an intervention very possibly exacerbating the problem it is intended to solve. As geoengineering to manage the sun’s solar output increases, the planet’s temperature and bizarre weather conditions increase.

The chemtrailing program is old school, though its operations have increased markedly in past months. Old school, but largely outside the public consciousness of it as a political and public policy controversy. It is no controversy, it is no hazard. Your eyes aren’t telling you anything imporant when you look up to 20 smokey trails over Chattanooga in any given 30-minute period. Your eyes aren’t telling you anything when you see a halo around the sun, or when a white shimmer surrounds the sun, as if it were peering through a haze upon your upturned face. Your eyes indicate nothing of significance when one day in Chattanooga in shirt-sleeve weather, heavily chemtrailed, is followed by another hit by a freak snowstorm.

Don’t question what you see; it’s nothing. Yes, your Chattanooga, the environmental city, may once again have a 1960s-style smog almost daily — it’s nothing. Just natural clouds — the Tennessee River is simply perspiring into the air and it forms a cloud.

Of course no one says these things. You are to ignore it because everyone of importance ignores it, from Paul Barys to the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

Debunking chemtrail conspiracy

That geoengineering is a chimera in the overheated imaginations of Facebook patrons is a standard line. A Mississippi TV station May 12, 2014, airs a “Mystery Monday” program that exposes the bogus fears about chemtrailing, often expressed by frantic emails to the station’s weather forecaster. “The notion of it is silly on so many levels,” Dr. Andrew Mercer, Assistant Professor in the Department of Geo-Science at Mississippi State University, says. His credentials are impressive: statistical climatology, statistical meteorology, synoptic scale/large scale meteorology, and severe weather meteorology. “It’s not mentioned anywhere in the peer-review literature. It’s not ever taught in a weather or climate course. It never even existed prior to the ’90s. Nobody had even ever mentioned the term prior to the ’90s.”

The chemtrail conspiracy theory, the story says, may be a sign of the times in which the official word of government is dirt. It cites Gallup to say 81% of Americans say they distrust government information, and 55 percent are skeptical of media. Skepticism feeds conspiracy theories, in other words, says Dr. Mercer, whom is quoted at length as describing contrails.

“There’s no real evidence of any type of a chemical release. The logic behind such a release doesn’t really even make a whole lot of sense. It doesn’t make sense financially. It doesn’t make sense why the government would even want to do something like this,” Dr. Mercer said.

A pretense of futurity

A government accountability office report in 2010 makes clear that geoengineering is serious business. The 2010 report says “experts identified only one SRM (solar radiation management) field experiment with published results — a 2009 Russian experiment that injected aerosols into the middle troposphere to measure their reflectivity.” This statement simply says that only one test has a published result. That’s not saying anything about government practice in the skies over my city or yours. “GAO found that nine activities, totaling about $1.9 million, directly investigated SRM,” with much more being spent on carbon dioxide removal. Carbon dioxide is what you emit when you exhale, sir.

The report says “policymakers and scientific organizations have begun to raise questions” about geoengineering as a “risk management” strategy to cool the planet. At Page 49 the current program is proposed. “Injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect incoming solar radiation” and “Injecting other reflective aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect incoming solar radiation.” A graphic on Page 11 suggests perhaps balloons drop chemicals in “stratospheric aerosol injection.”

Realize that this report is very honest as far as it goes, and it suggests the GAO inquiry is looking into chemtrailing as a prospective — but untested — program. “Two of the most frequently discussed SRM approaches are stratospheric aerosol injection and cloud-brightening, according to many of the scientific experts we spoke with. For stratospheric aerosol injection, some of the experts said that research to date consisted primarily of a few modeling analyses. They also said that more work would need to be done to assess whether this approach could reduce incoming solar radiation without serious consequences” (Page 15).

It might be entirely true that in 2006 NASA “funded atmospheric modeling studies, which were used by independent researchers, in part, to assess the potential impact of stratospheric aerosols on the ozone layer.”

The word pollution appears nine times in the 70-page “GAO-10-903 Climate Change” report, but none with any reference to particulates being themselves a form of toxicity hazardous to people. Of course the popular idiom, chemtrail, is not used once.

Reading between the policy lines

Another contribution to the droning of policy wonks is “Geoengineering: A national strategic plan for research on the potential effectiveness, feasibility, and consequences of climate remediation technologies,” a report by the Bipartisan Policy Center that avoids the term geoengineering in favor of the moniker “climate remediation.” Its only use of the word health is in reference to the ecosystem. The report asks, at least, a good question:

What are the risks and side effects of various SRM techniques? For example, would stratospheric aerosols accelerate the catalytic destruction of ozone? How would ecosystems be affected by the rain-out of injected substances? Aerosol injection will diffuse the light reaching the Earth and alter the visible appearance of the sky. How will this affect plant growth and ecosystem health as well as humans?

The report argues that the White House’s office of science and technology policy should “assume the lead role” in “coordinating” the government’s “climate remediation research.” It argues that research is needed. The existing mass chemtrailing program is not mentioned in the report. The report works on two levels — one in the real world, in which the mass chemtrailing program is the baseline, the other which pretends that there is currently no existing program to control the climate and stop global warming. In other words, the report contains no smoking gun declaring, “Hey, we’ve been pumping aerosolized particulates in the atmosphere for 10 years (or whatever).”

If you read the report one way, you can see in it an alarm at the current chemtrail projecct. If you read it the other way, you are someone who realizes that we need an urgent remedy to global warming, with chemtrailing one of the options that, as yet, are not researched.

Interest in climate remediation is motivated, in part, by concern that global climate change could unfold in ways that would be very difficult to manage. This difficulty could occur if, for example, feedbacks in the climate system amplify the rate of warming in a nonlinear or unexpected manner, thus causing very rapid changes and triggering potentially severe adverse impacts.

Michio Kaku, a physics professor at City College in New York, tells how trillion-watt lasers are used to create weather. The interviewer and he are coy in not allowing any notion of an existing climate control program. The reporter insists on the word “alleged” in Vietnam warmaking to wash out North Vietnamese supply trails. The duo make clear no weather control program exists today.

Official air pollution over Chattanooga

Morristown, Tenn., heavily dosed, too