Debunked: UK Government admits Chemtrails (Legislation HC221)

BenC

New Member
Hi,

I have just joined this forum as a general avid skeptic, but I am open to reasoning. Can someone please 'debunk' why the UK Government have published regulation on Geo-Engineering, in particular Stratospheric Aerosols, without either the intention or act - namely House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee, The Regulation of Geoengineering, HC221: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/221.pdf?

There is also You Tube footage of the debate in the House of Commons with satelite link to USA.

I have seen a lot of picture, videos and other footage on geo-engineering and can argue against the 'lines' in the sky, passenger jets turning in the sky, BBC diagrams and rain water tests, but am really struggling trying to disprove a government regulation on geo-engineering regulation if they didn't have plans to implement such a practice.

Can anyone disprove or debunk this UK regulation?

Thanks,
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's not a regulation.

It's a discussion document about how to lay the groundwork for possible future regulation. See the document, page 3

 

BenC

New Member
Ok, I appreciate the technicalties of the wording being 'groundwork' to regulation, but it doesn't explain why there is a clear need to consider regulating geoengineering, now or in the future/near future, if there was no intention to enact geoengineering.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok, I appreciate the technicalties of the wording being 'groundwork' to regulation, but it doesn't explain why there is a clear need to consider regulating geoengineering, now or in the future/near future, if there was no intention to enact geoengineering.

Because there might be in the future.
 

BenC

New Member
Sorry Mike, I completely missed your copied in comment:
****'Second, some—albeit very small scale—geoengineering testing is already underway.'***I suppose this line sums it up really - they are testing!
 

BenC

New Member
If it looks like a chemtrail, leaves toxins in the rain like a chemtrail and the government regulates or intends to regulate the chemtrail (and states that some countries are testing chemtrails), then it must be a chemtrail!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sorry Mike, I completely missed your copied in comment:
****'Second, some—albeit very small scale—geoengineering testing is already underway.'***I suppose this line sums it up really - they are testing!

Nobody is testing SRM though. I recommend you read the entire report.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If it looks like a chemtrail, leaves toxins in the rain like a chemtrail and the government regulates or intends to regulate the chemtrail (and states that some countries are testing chemtrails), then it must be a chemtrail!

What do chemtrails look like, apart from contrails?

What toxins have been found?

What does the discussion of future regulation have to do it?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Without regulation anyone can do it at any time - cf the chap off the coast of Canada dumping 100 tons of iron to "fertilize" to ocean.

If you want to ban geoengineering then you will do it by regulation. If you want there to be rules in place about who can do it, when, and how, using what materials, you need regulation.

The only thing you would not need regulation for is an open slather situation where anyone can do whatever they want, whenever they want.

"Believers" should be ecstatic about the prospect of "regulation", since it will establish rules they can contest if they want to, and a bureaucracy they can check on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BenC

New Member
Nobody is testing SRM though. I recommend you read the entire report.

Mick,

I have now read the report, albeit I skim read the minutes at the end and parts beyond the minutes.

I am sorry to have to inform you that the report does state clearly that Russia are carrying out subscale testing. So you are technically incorrect in your statement, 'Nobody is testing SRM though'.100 Q 27; see also Ev 3 [Dr Blackstock], para 15

At point 95, after deliberating on whether to implement an out-right ban on SRM (Solar Radiation Management - stratospheric aerosols being one) and concluding not to ban, it was approved that small tests of SRM should be allowed. In point 96, the report later states 'As tests increase in scale and impact they need to be regulated'. Now with these statements and the seemingly persuasive comments from Professor David Keith and Dr Jason Blackstock on the urgency to carry out field tests, I find it remarkable that in the four years since the committee meeting that testing hasn't been conducted in some shape or form.

Whilst I did get an impression that the UK Government are at least realising the importance of prerparing regulation on geoengineering, I did get more of an impression that a lot of the regulation will be outside the control of the UK (e.g. for transboundary air pollution) and in the hands of international regulation of which the UK public (and others) may not get any access to the information and test results. I also got a distinct impression that any regulation wouldn't and should't stop progress on geoengineering and some geoengineering techniques would not even fall within the definitions of geoengineering (e.g. cloud seeding) - therefore be outside the regulation.

During the week I will write a freedom of information request to see if any testing has been carried out.


 
Last edited by a moderator:

BenC

New Member
MikeC,

I can't comment on Canada and the 100 tons of iron.

I completely agree with "Believers" should be ecstatic about the prospect of "regulation. However, I doubt very much, given what I have just read in HC221 document, that any one country will have the power of the regulation and thus the people probably won't be informed. From what I read, a lot of regulation will be international and even 'outer space'!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick,

I have now read the report, albeit I skim read the minutes at the end and parts beyond the minutes.

I am sorry to have to inform you that the report does state clearly that Russia are carrying out subscale testing. So you are technically incorrect in your statement, 'Nobody is testing SRM though'.100 Q 27; see also Ev 3 [Dr Blackstock], para 15

That's the test by Yuri Israel, described by David Keith as "a trivial stupid thing" which "didn't test anything, and it was silly".

See here, watch from 12:44 for full context, he's asked about testing at 13:40

During the week I will write a freedom of information request to see if any testing has been carried out.

There are none, yet. Any tests would be public, because you can't hide them. See SPICE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_Particle_Injection_for_Climate_Engin eering
 
Last edited:

BenC

New Member
That's the test by Yuri Israel, described by David Keith as "a trivial stupid thing" which "didn't test anything, and it was silly".

A test is still a test - we can argue for a long time about the semantics as well as David Keith's subjective intepretation of the words trivial and silly.

As regards to SPICE, as a skeptic I take what is written on Wikipedia with a pinch of salt. I would rather hear it from the horses mouth.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
As regards to SPICE, as a skeptic I take what is written on Wikipedia with a pinch of salt. I would rather hear it from the horses mouth.

You can get that here. Although I notice that they link to the Wiki article at the top of their own page.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
A test is still a test - we can argue for a long time about the semantics as well as David Keith's subjective intepretation of the words trivial and silly.

As regards to SPICE, as a skeptic I take what is written on Wikipedia with a pinch of salt. I would rather hear it from the horses mouth.

SPICE was cancelled, Google will tell you that.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
That's the test by Yuri Israel, described by David Keith as "a trivial stupid thing" which "didn't test anything, and it was silly".
I'm unable to find any details about these supposed tests. It would enhance debunking if we knew more about the claim. No chemtrails sites have it either, so we all seem to be citing others rather than going to the source.

Anyone?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm unable to find any details about these supposed tests. It would enhance debunking if we knew more about the claim. No chemtrails sites have it either, so we all seem to be citing others rather than going to the source.

Anyone?

His name is tranliterated oficially as Yury A. Izrael (not Yuri), which turns up more results, but no details on the test so far.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here you go:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.3103/S106837390905001X

http://media.cigionline.org/geoeng/2009 - Izrael et al - Field Experiment on Studying Solar Radiation Passing through Aerosol Layers.pdf

 

Attachments

  • 2009 - Izrael et al - Field Experiment on Studying Solar Radiation.pdf
    657.3 KB · Views: 463
Last edited:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
So, they made some smoke from a helicopter and it blocked the sun.Yes, rather embarrassing.

A test is still a test - we can argue for a long time about the semantics as well as David Keith's subjective intepretation of the words trivial and silly.

No need to argue about this for a long time. Thanks for digging this up, Mick. No wonder the folks thought it might have been significant, but is not. You don't know what you don't know. Yes it actually was trivial and silly.
 

BenC

New Member
I don't understand why there has been so much effort trying to show the Russian tests. A test is still a test.

Would time be better spent deliberating the comments on 'small tests of SRM should be allowed' and the regulation being 'outside' local or national remit, which suggests to me that only International bodies, specifically in this matter the UN, will know the full story. on geoengineering.

I have to apologise - I haven't managed to write the freedom of information request. I suppose it isn't high on my agenda...

On another note, I have read a few other posts and flick through the Metabunk history - fair play, you have covered a lot of ground.
 

lotek

Active Member
So we are not aloud to perform science on a small scale to study the world and universe in which we live?

did you not look at that was posted? its not some insidious thing, a helo made a smoke screen. its a joke of a test. not even valid enough to apply to my first sentence.

this is to formalize any steps forward to prevent private companies/individuals(the canadian thing was not a government) from doing really, REALLY stupid things outside of a public structure.

nothing about this sounds bad to me :rolleyes:
 

BenC

New Member
So we are not aloud to perform science on a small scale to study the world and universe in which we live?

It depends on the science, the size and the risks involved. I still remember the small scale tests using Sarin gas and LSD on individuals at Porton Down by the Ministry of Defence.

Besides, you are again focusing on the Russian tests. I would rather you concentrate on the two points:

1. Small tests of SRM should be allowed.
In particular, who determines what is small, where these tests are and what the tests involved? And, whether anyone has started these tests.

2. Regulations outside National government control
If the control is in the hands of international bodies, how can the public by reliably informed or be involved in any decision making and who is held accountable?
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Do you think the UK government would ratify an international agreement without basing that decision on sound science, or even public support. The recent record seems to show they would not especially given the public consultation over the SPICE project by Bristol University? Don't forget that geoengineering is not just spraying stuff in the sky, and from what I understand is the least favoured method within academia, especially when considered against the Oxford Principles.

http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/oxford-principles/principles/
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
I don't understand why there has been so much effort trying to show the Russian tests. A test is still a test.

If it looks like a chemtrail, leaves toxins in the rain like a chemtrail and the government regulates or intends to regulate the chemtrail (and states that some countries are testing chemtrails), then it must be a chemtrail!

...because incredibly small scale operations involving dropping smoke from a helicopter or on from a car chassis don't look like the things those watching chemtrails videos on the internet call chemtrails.

The demonstration of bias in action and conflation in this thread is astounding.

The government doesn't state that some countries are testing 'chemtrails'. Show proof that these tests 'leave toxins in the rain'. The government only INTENDS to regulate, there's no 'regulates' about it, and it isn't 'chemtrails' they're talking about regulating.

You want to believe this supports chemtrail theory. Perspective required.
 

lotek

Active Member
So basically you are pissed because the UN is doing something?

answer:
1)because it is part of an international body
2)the international body.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
As a whole the document can only be taken in one context and that is one of the UK wanting to take a lead in setting a legislative framework for investigation into geoengineering, and any possible deployment. The key theme throughout is public participation and transparency. I would suggest that rather than commit to Freedom the Information requests the OP spends some time looking at what is actually out in the public domain. There is a wealth of information out there yet many seem oblivious.

The report takes statements and recommendations from the Oxford Geoengineering Programme. They seem to be trying to make themselves the go to guys in the UK, and there are shedloads of papers and reports on their site. Many of these will give a context to what is in the Parliamentary report.

http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/
 

BenC

New Member
The demonstration of bias in action and conflation in this thread is astounding

Where is the bias in action and conflation? I think I have been consistent in trying to work through the HC221 document and nothing else.

I started the topic to try and pull out arguments against the 'intended' regulation, which to me was fuel for the Chemtrail argument. I was asked to read the report, which I did. It then highlighted the 'approval' for small scale testing and regulation outisde the UK - therefore suggesting that testing could be well underway in the 4 years since the report and outside the UK regulation so no one would even know the tests were being carried out. Therefore by playing devil's advocate and asking laymen questions you think I am biased.

My 'if it looks like a chemtrail' comment was merely tounge in cheek using a bit of sarcasm. As a fellow Brit I would have thought you would have seen that...
 

BenC

New Member
Do you think the UK government would ratify an international agreement without basing that decision on sound science, or even public support. /

I absolutely believe the UK government would ratify an international agreement without basing that decision on sound science or public support. I believe somewhere between 74 - 85% of UK regulation and laws come from un-elected bureaucrats in Brussels. In terms of public support, just look at UK's involvment in the Iraq war, public opinion was hugely against the war - a million protestors in London. Labour was also rumoured to be ready to join the Euro at one point without a referendum. It goes to show what little politicians really think of public support.
 

BenC

New Member
So basically you are pissed because the UN is doing something?

answer:
1)because it is part of an international body
2)the international body.

I am not pissed. I am trying to put the point across that 'intended' regulation and other like reports hidden in plain view sometimes fuel the discussion on whether something exists. There was clear plans to test SRM and that was 4 years ago. So the average Joe may make the assumption that the tests are currently being carried out. I am trying to find out (by being very lazy and asking anyone on this forum) whether they know of these small scale test (not Russian helicopter ones) and how much they are testing? I gather I won't get the answer on here and probably not from my governemnt either (if as in my point 2, they will say sorry we don't know as it is international).
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
What gas going to war got to do with environmental policy? The Uk has a record of caving into public pressure. Just look at GMO. Again I mention the public participation for the SPICE experiment where it was recognised there was poor public support and that lead to a rethink. Even when the government granted a licence for the sinking of the Brent Spar it was public pressure that caused them to ask Shell to rethink, even though it was based on sound science. Don't forget the UK involvement with the IPCC and Kyoto and have been leaders in environmental legislation.

Have you actually taken in all the detail of the report? Especially the need for transparency and public support?
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I am not pissed. I am trying to put the point across that 'intended' regulation and other like reports hidden in plain view sometimes fuel the discussion on whether something exists. There was clear plans to test SRM and that was 4 years ago. So the average Joe may make the assumption that the tests are currently being carried out. I am trying to find out (by being very lazy and asking anyone on this forum) whether they know of these small scale test (not Russian helicopter ones) and how much they are testing? I gather I won't get the answer on here and probably not from my governemnt either (if as in my point 2, they will say sorry we don't know as it is international).

Have you looked at the Oxford site?
 

BenC

New Member
What gas going to war got to do with environmental policy? The Uk has a record of caving into public pressure. Just look at GMO. Again I mention the public participation for the SPICE experiment where it was recognised there was poor public support and that lead to a rethink. Even when the government granted a licence for the sinking of the Brent Spar it was public pressure that caused them to ask Shell to rethink, even though it was based on sound science. Don't forget the UK involvement with the IPCC and Kyoto and have been leaders in environmental legislation.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on UK caving in to public pressure. I think it all depends on how much pressure (whether there is strong awareness and public passion) and what the stakes are. If I remember correctly it was Greenpeace and their blockades that finally turned the tide on Brent Spar. GMO was EC regulation again and if I remembering correctly was only labelling. In the news only yesterday was a temporary ban on certain pesticides that are apparently killing bees. The public pressure was there but the big pharmaceuticals was against a ban, but the stakes were too high. No bees, no food.

I have read the report, it says 'wherever possible'. No, I am pleased with the rhetoric on public perception. I just hope it is followed through.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Ben, if you seem to suspect that geoengineering may be currently taking place, think again.

There is a worldwide network of geoengineering detectors out there on land and in space. They monitor day after day, year after year looking for the exact changes in the atmosphere that would occur if geoengineering were taking place. These instruments detect no geoengineering underway at this time. Perhaps this news might give you some peace of mind. You will likely never become acquainted with these facts except here at metabunk or after long and detailed research. Would you like to know more?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
While I agree the detection of a sudden or significant increase in optical density above background levels would be detected in most aerosols categories. . . I believe SO2 could be injected into the stratosphere through gradual small increases over months and would not be identified as to source or method . . . there is no detection method that can fingerprint the source of SO2 . . .


Conventional wisdom indicates SO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels. . . . aircraft is felt to contribute around 1% I believe. . . .the movement of the ground source SO2 into the Stratosphere is slow and consistent over time. . . sudden increases are only experienced through massive volcanic eruptions . . .




 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I see what you are talking about, George. BenC, here is some data you might find interesting. If you'd like details, just ask.

mauna loa3.jpg
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
...therefore suggesting that testing could be well underway in the 4 years since the report and outside the UK regulation so no one would even know the tests were being carried out.

Or it COULD not be suggesting this at all. The small scale tests are known to have been carried out in the source material, why would more of the same or more expansive tests not be known about? Biased conclusion.

A test is still a test.

...but not a smoking gun for a conflation of chemtrail / geoengineering theories. Suggesting you're assigning more weight than necessary to SMALL SCALE tests not indicative of the worldwide geoengineering people are regularly extrapolating from this, and about which they're concerned. Biased interpretation.

It's simpler to just ask. Do you believe that there is an on-going campaign of geoengineering testing, and if so is this related to the chemtrail theories this forum is often concerned with? I know you said you can 'argue against lines in the sky', does that mean you do?

It's difficult to pick up sarcasm in online comms, especially in the context of this forum which receives entirely serious comments just like that regularly.

Finally, I didn't check your location, I agree it may have helped if I had of done.
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
I want to bring this up for discussion again because something has been brought to my attention.

See paragraph 48 in the section titled Urgency
48. Nor is geoengineering confined to modelling and the distant future. Professor Keith told us that the Russians were already carrying out testing, though Dr Blackstock added that the Russian tests were “extremely subscale”. Professor Keith also explained that it was becoming urgent to undertake tests into stratospheric geoengineering as it had become clear that the main method that had been considered did not work. He explained that if sulphur was put in the stratosphere the way scientists have been assuming, it did not do what they expected. Tests were necessary and these would have “no detectable climate effect, but they would be subscale tests, and if we want to actually understand whether this technology works or it does not, we need to do those tests relatively soon”.
(the emphasis is mine)

I have underlined two phrases that could mean, it has been suggested to me, that testing had already been done.

It is my view that this is a transcription error, because the tense changes, especially in the bold face sentence. I think it should read ".... if sulphur was put in the stratosphere the way scientists have been assuming, it would not do what they expected."

Thoughts?

I put this (transcription error?) to David Keith in an email and he simply responded, "There have not been any tests of sulfates in the stratosphere.", which is not the answer to the question I asked. I suppose he is fed up with pedantic questions like this.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
It's a fair point Ross. I wonder if it is worth tracking down the author of the report. I will look later as they may still have their notes and an FOI request could clarify things.

As for David Keith I bet the poor sod is fed up with all the emails he gets. His inbox must be interesting having to sift through emails to answer his actual students, requests by governments for info, whether he wants to extend his penis by 10 inches and the standard "die die die" from chemtrailers.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
skephu Debunked: Dutch Government Admit Chemtrails Exist Contrails and Chemtrails 7
MikeG Debunked: Government to Nationalize Food Supply Conspiracy Theories 0
Mathias Olsen Partially Debunked: List of Monsanto Employees in Government Conspiracy Theories 30
Critical Thinker Debunked: "Government Labels those who Grow Their Own Food ‘Extremists’" Conspiracy Theories 12
Mick West Debunked: Government Stockpiling Unusual Amounts of Ammo [by Tom Coburn's GAO Report] Conspiracy Theories 63
Cairenn Debunked: Government Buying Iodine in Response to Fukushima Fallout. Conspiracy Theories 31
Mick West Debunked: Debunkers Trust the Government and Think Everything is Fine Practical Debunking 89
BlueCollarCritic Debunked Conspiracies Update - The Government Is Not Confiscating Guns General Discussion 18
AluminumTheory Debunked: Infowars Study: Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile General Discussion 25
Cairenn Debunked: Government buys 30,000 guillotines Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Debunked: ‘White Guilt’ Bracelets - Government wants you to wear them? Conspiracy Theories 223
Spongebob Has this Government paper been debunked yet? Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 35
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top