At Exposing The Truth, we have routinely shared our debunking of mainstream chemtrail theories with self-described “chemtrail activists” in an effort to explain that geoengineering efforts are not being seriously applied anywhere. Despite this, we receive a never-ending stream of accusations for not “covering” the “poison in the skies” and for failing to take unqualified “whistleblowers” seriously. Now, these debates might get more interesting following the release of a CIA funded NAS study.

clouds

The National Academy of Sciences report funded by the CIA gives some of these “activists” a leg to stand on: there really are plans on the table to modify the atmosphere in an effort to reduce runaway climate change. The problem, climate change and indeed biosphere instability, is a serious one despite the irresponsible and ignorant writings published and going viral from The Telegraph.

The new report is very similar the 2009 study by John Shepard into the potential use of geoengineering to combat climate change. Instead of saying “chemtrails,” which is a very vague and certainly polarizing title, especially considering the fact no one appears to be spraying anything to combat climate change, the report refers instead to “solar radiation management,” which includes everything that works to reflect solar radiation back into space.

Despite the claims of many, none of these reports have even suggested spraying aluminum particles into the air, and finding aluminum in your soil is not a sign of aircraft spraying it but instead a verification that aluminum makes up approximately 7 to 8% of the earth’s crust. Increasing levels of aluminum in plants is actually a sign of increasing acidity, because aluminum becomes increasingly bioavailable in acidic soil. That said, it is likely that aerosol based strategies have been discussed, but so far there is no evidence of their use.

Even the chair of this new CIA funded study doesn’t think geoengineering is the best solution. In line with the 2009 study, the chair of the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) geoengineering panel, Marcia McNutt, lamented that geoengineering should not be our primary effort. She explained this using a football analogy:

“To use football analogy, [geoengineering] would be similar to a Hail Mary with only 2 seconds on the clock. We hope our quarterback and coaches never put us in that place… What’s sad is that there isn’t even an opposing team. We can walk into the end zone right now with mitigation and adaptation.”

Even the experts encouraging further research into geoengineering are ardently in favor of using other less risky technology and efforts to get the situation under control. Everyone is calling for us to stop tossing the ball backwards between players and instead is encouraging us to huddle up and execute a thought-through plan.

Right now, we could seriously still take efforts to decrease heat build-up by growing plants on our roofs, by moving away from fossil fuel based energies, by decreasing the number of expensive and unnecessary projects draining both financial and energy resources. A good example of the last is the continued development of US naval warships armed with lasers, which completels ignores the fact that lasers lose power based on humidity and distance, vulernable to any type of EM weapon, which makes them completely unsuited for use at sea.

Instead of shelving clearly ineffective and expensive ideas, they are frequently being funded long past the point where their ineffectiveness becomes clear. We are putting all of our collective energy into throwing the ball back and forth on the 10 yard line in ever increasingly flashy ways, which unfortunately doesn’t bring us one meter closer to scoring. Scoring is, within this metaphor, a complete switch to more sustainable energy generation and lifestyle habits leading to a relative stabilization of global temperatures and biosphere state.

The scariest fact in this is not the discussion of geoengineering as a solution, but the fact that even some scientists are buying into a last-minute fantasy involving technology that has not become much more advanced since the end of World War 2. We are no closer to being able to control the climate, and global temperatures, than we were half a century ago. The irony is that while conspiracy theorists complain about the dangerous use of these fantasy technologies, their lack of effectiveness and high logistical costs has prevented them from pretty much ever being used.

So if you are a “chemtrail activist,” you should really be concentrating on making it unnecessary for anyone to ever consider spraying reflective particles into the stratosphere. This can be done far more effectively by campaigning for political and social change than by promoting unscientific fear-porn. So although increasingly common policy level discussions about geoengineering are taking place, giving chemtrail people a single leg to stand on, it still doesn’t support any of their further claims. It should be of no surprise to anyone that having a single leg in no way guarantees being able to run, jump, or keep your balance, but instead it just means that you don’t necessarily fall completely on your face.

There are real things to worry about, and even a few reasons still left to hope, but none of these involve chemtrails.