The maker of "What in the World are They Spraying", Michael J. Murphy, is coming out with a sequel. The basic problem with the video is that it assumes the first video is true, and that clear signs of "geoengineering" have been found with chemical tests. Unfortunately that's blatantly false. The WITWATS tests have been show several times to have no scientific basis. See the following for a full debunking (by me): http://contrailscience.com/what-in-the-world-are-they-spraying/ And more detailed debunkings of various aspects of the the film and related theories of the people involved (by me and other contributors). https://www.metabunk.org/threads/247-What-are-the-normal-levels-of-Barium-in-Soil-and-Water https://www.metabunk.org/threads/154-The-Claims-of-Francis-Mangels-a-Factual-Examination https://www.metabunk.org/threads/14...m-Barium-Strontium-Manganese-and-Varium-tests https://www.metabunk.org/threads/24...quot-What-In-The-World-Are-They-Spraying-quot https://www.metabunk.org/threads/128-High-barium-levels-in-blood-(-Mohave-AZ-) Time after time WITWATS has show to use tests that, when examined, actually show perfectly normal level of the various element they claim are being sprayed. So, if the original film was so flawed, then do we even need to debunk this follow up. Probably not - you could just say "sure you could make money by controlling the weather, but there's no evidence of this actually happening". However, one could debunk the weather derivatives claim fairly easily by noting that the cost of controlling the global weather is significantly more than the size of the derivatives market. And the real problem is that the natural variance in the weather is still going to outweigh any little nudges we can give it. The vast majority of the $12 Billion yearly weather derivative market has to be plausible hedges against the negative impacts of the weather in other investments, such as energy. Realistically you are only going to get $1B or so as a possible insider trade on the weather, and the profit is likely to be pretty low. Consider that geoengineering proposals costing tens billions per year only alter the temperature in the range of half a degree, and natural yearly random variation is ten times that, then you'd have to spend tens of billions of dollars a year, for at least 20 year, to have an above average chance of making any money. Plus, if there WAS any effect from geoengineering that pushed the average away from actuarial norms, then they would be statistically visible. The only way you could do it would be to have a sure-fire and cheap method of totally controlling the entire years's weather that you could then use to affect each individual year's weather in a way where the average remain the same, but you make money betting on individual years. Persistent contrails are not that. Natural variations in the weather still vastly outweigh anything come from the back of planes. And of course, there's no evidence that any of this is actually going on.