Have you entered the treasury of snow, or have you seen the treasury of hail, which I have reserved for the time of trouble, for the day of battle and war? By what way is light diffused, or the east wind scattered over the earth?

— Job 38:22-24

By David Tulis

Chattanooga was given an aerial demonstration Sunday morning by aircraft that sprayed a cross-hatch lump of clouds east of the city that was well developed by 10:30 a.m. Dozens, perhaps hundreds of jets, flew over the city laying trails. By mid to late afternoon vast patches of haze blocked the sunlight amid patches of blue.

The patch in the morning is significant because it suggests the emissions are not incidental or hazard, but part of policy. If the tattoos had been mere water vapor contrails, they could not have been segregrated to single blue patch. The persistent trails were laid in an isolated area, indicating deliberate emissions of what I suspect are a mix of aluminum, strontium and barium pesistently recorded in local air but said to be outside the scope of federal regulatory authority.

Observation and a review of the literature about weather modification suggests cities worldwide are subject to climate intervention and sun-dimming activity chipping away at a theoretical sun energy budget whose quotas are met by horizon-to-horizon flights over target regions.

Greens’ deep thoughts about program

Environmentalist groups would not see the day’s demonstration with anxiety. They tend to speak of sky striping as a theoretical program only. Speaking in future tense, they want chemtrailing to be under strong regulation and, presumably, in civilian jurisdiction if the method is developed to deliver reflective particles.

“The billions of tons of climate pollution that we put into our atmosphere every year are causing serious changes to the climate,” says Steven Hamburg, chief scientist for Environmental Defense Fund and an author of the National Academy of Sciences report that proposes a mass chemtrailing program by the U.S. government. “The way to address the problem is cut the pollution. But given the urgency of this challenge, some are also exploring geoengineering. We come to this issue very concerned about the danger of unintended consequences, but agree that further discussion makes sense. And also believe it is critically important to have strong rules in place to govern the exploration of this topic.”

The Environmental Defense Fund describes the proposed sky striping program as “the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the Earth’s climate system to counteract anthropogenic climate change. Geoengineering covers a wide range of ideas, including technologies such as ‘albedo modification,’ also known as ‘solar radiation management.’” Mr. Hamburg says the proposed sky dome is, as yet, but a “controversial set of theoretical proposals for cooling the Earth by reflecting a small amount of inbound solar energy back into space.”

The NAS study on a mass chemtrailing program was one of two books the group published simultaneously. The second is a book proposing “about transitioning our economy to clean, renewable energy.”

On its website, the group in 2013 wonders if solar radiation management might not be worse than the problem it supposedly would counteract. The skies could be glommed “by spraying certain sulphur-rich aerosols into the upper atmosphere,” says Ilissa Ocko, a scientist. “Unfortunately, the implications of SRM, as with all geoengineering schemes, is poorly understood.” She cites a National Center for Atmospheric Research study that “SRM may have significant negative consequences.”

Sun ‘management’ a belligerent act?

The environmental lobby warns that chemtrailing is fraught with danger for the people of the world and their national governments because intervening with the weather will cause bliss in one land and agony in a neighbor. Albedo modification’s “potentially cheap deployment and quick effect on global temperatures could lead to the rapid and unilateral development of AM research programs, which could engender international tension and conflict. Furthermore, deployment of AM would not benefit all populations equally.” Even low-risk climate engineering research “presents controversy.”

The group proposes “transnational cooperation and information exchange on climate engineering research governance.”

Negative emissions

Greens such as the EDF are worried about the billions of tons of pollution that “are causing dangerous changes to our climate” and urges cuts in pollution. But already millions of tons of reflective aerosols are already being laid across landscapes, industrial districts, cities, oceans and farmland worldwide in what Berlin geoengineering conferees called “negative emissions.”

Another writer with the group, Gernot Wagner, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and an adjunct faculty at Columbia, agrees that creating the sort of haze that covered Chattanooga today is a “scary prospect.”

“That artificial sunscreen may well cool the earth. But what else might it do? Floods somewhere, droughts in other places, and a host of unknown and largely unknowable effects in between. That’s the scary prospect. And we’d be experimenting on a planetary scale, in warp speed. That all leads to the second key point: We ought to do research in geoengineering, and do so guided by sensible governance principles adhered to be all” (italics added).

Remarkable about these environmentalists is their abstract, obtuse and bureaucratic-institutional writing style and their way of not considering any actual human beings in the afflatus of their online compositions:

➤ Their texts do not touch on human health downwind from the proposed chemtrail program they are considering. Would anybody breathe or ingest these unidentified official pollutants?

➤ Their scope of interest in planetary and abstractly humanitarian, and not of any individual who may suffer neurological damage from a proposed (or actual) of aerosolized positive pollution from the proposed jet fleet.

➤ Self-styled greens do not complain about the sort of pollution poured out across the Environmental City all Lord’s Day, March 8, 2015. Maybe Democrats will sound the klaxon. Maybe Republicans. Maybe —

Sources: Steven Hamburg, “A Significant Milestone for Opening Up the Discussion About Geoengineering,” edf.org, Environmental Defense Fund, Feb. 10, 2015. http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2015/02/10/a-significant-milestone-for-opening-up-the-discussion-about-geoengineering/?_ga=1.180410215.1951750596.1425853202

Ilissa Ocko, “Geoengineering: A cure worse than the disease?” edf.org, Environmental Defense Fund, Dec. 11, 2013. http://www.edf.org/blog/2013/12/11/geoengineering-cure-worse-disease

Gernot Wagner, “Geoengineering: Ignore Economics and Governance at Your Peril,” edf.org, Environmental Defense Fund, Oct. 31, 2012. http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2012/10/31/geoengineering-ignore-economics-and-governance-at-your-peril/?_ga=1.79287252.1951750596.1425853202