George Monbiot in the Guardian on "Chemtrails" & Look-up.org.uk

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
Environmental activist George Monbiot has weighed in on "Chemtrails", claiming that the conspiracy theory is diverting from genuine environmental concerns about the aircraft industry. He holds up Look-Up/Ian Simpson as an example.

The contrails conspiracy is not just garbage, it's letting aviation off the hook


You spend years trying to get people to take an interest in aircraft emissions. Then at last the issue gets picked up – but in the most perverse way possible.

The pollutants spread by planes are a major issue. They make a significant contribution to global warming, yet they are excluded from international negotiations, such as the conference taking place in Paris. As a result, aviation’s expansion is unchecked by concerns about climate change.

This exclusion is ridiculous, not least because aircraft emissions have a particular role in heating the planet, due to the height at which they are released, and the multiplying impacts of the water vapour and other gases the planes produce. Gases that sometimes form contrails in the sky.

You might expect me to be delighted by the fact that thousands of people are taking an interest in contrails and their effects, and campaigning against the airlines producing them. Far from it.
Content from External Source
*apologies if this topic is more suited to somewhere like chitchat/discussion*

Ray Von
 
interesting you have posted this today Ray Von

there is a thread regarding the "reach" of the chemtrail theory on the forum at the moment

I was going to comment on that thread something along the lines of "this particular CT has not got much traction in the UK"

to the point where I would be embarrassed to bring it up in any form of conversation with friend or work colleagues

although happy to concede this is based purely on my anecdotal evidence (Ian Simpson aside)

Monbiot does suggest otherwise

and interstestingly his article links to a UK government fact sheet on Contrails to dispel some common myths

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/454040/contrails-faqs.pdf

so maybe it will become more mainstream in the UK (which is a bit depressing)
 
interesting you have posted this today Ray Von

there is a thread regarding the "reach" of the chemtrail theory on the forum at the moment

I was going to comment on that thread something along the lines of "this particular CT has not got much traction in the UK"

to the point where I would be embarrassed to bring it up in any form of conversation with friend or work colleagues

although happy to concede this is based purely on my anecdotal evidence (Ian Simpson aside)

Monbiot does suggest otherwise

and interstestingly his article links to a UK government fact sheet on Contrails to dispel some common myths

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/454040/contrails-faqs.pdf

so maybe it will become more mainstream in the UK (which is a bit depressing)
I still think you're right about limited traction. I think people like Monbiot are bound to run across it more than the general population, not least because so many Chemtrail conspiracy believers are vocal climate change deniers.

Something like a chemtrail petition is probably a more realistic benchmark, that one has been stalled at around 1600 signatures for a while, and IIRC the first one got to about 2000 when it expired.

Ray Von
 
I think people like Monbiot are bound to run across it more than the general population, not least because so many Chemtrail conspiracy believers are vocal climate change deniers.

It's partly because of where he lives, which is somewhere near Ian Simpson and his graffiti.
In my home town, the streets are now littered with graffiti advertising the website www.look-up.org.uk. So I looked it up. You might imagine, in reading what follows, that I’m picking an extreme example, but I’m sorry to say this is typical of the hundreds of sites promoting this nonsense. I keep meeting otherwise-intelligent people who seem prepared to believe it.
Content from External Source
This type of thing:

(The colorful figures are artwork put up on a temporary construction siding, defaced by the graffiti).
 
It's partly because of where he lives, which is somewhere near Ian Simpson and his graffiti.
In my home town, the streets are now littered with graffiti advertising the website www.look-up.org.uk. So I looked it up. You might imagine, in reading what follows, that I’m picking an extreme example, but I’m sorry to say this is typical of the hundreds of sites promoting this nonsense. I keep meeting otherwise-intelligent people who seem prepared to believe it.
Content from External Source
This type of thing:

(The colorful figures are artwork put up on a temporary construction siding, defaced by the graffiti).

Ah, I wondered if Monbiot and Ian lived around the same area.

I saw Ian posted a "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" picture recently, again a construction barrier that "someone" had coincidentally defaced at the same time he was there doing an "awareness day".

Ray Von
 
It's partly because of where he lives, which is somewhere near Ian Simpson and his graffiti.
In my home town, the streets are now littered with graffiti advertising the website www.look-up.org.uk. So I looked it up. You might imagine, in reading what follows, that I’m picking an extreme example, but I’m sorry to say this is typical of the hundreds of sites promoting this nonsense. I keep meeting otherwise-intelligent people who seem prepared to believe it.
Content from External Source
This type of thing:

(The colorful figures are artwork put up on a temporary construction siding, defaced by the graffiti).

Yes, I have seen several of Ian's slogans near my office in central London (including the one pictured above). Ian also posted a couple of examples that miraculously appeared during his visit in Brighton (in matching handwriting, too!)

http://www.look-up.org.uk/campaigning/


upload_2015-12-4_15-7-33.png

upload_2015-12-4_15-7-48.png

upload_2015-12-4_15-8-47.png

Whoever could it have been? :rolleyes:
 
I saw a piece of graffiti in my area in Manchester. It simply said "Chemtrails" with an arrow pointing upwards. It is saying something when a believer can't be arsed to even tell us to look up.
 
Yes, I have seen several of Ian's slogans near my office in central London (including the one pictured above). Ian also posted a couple of examples that miraculously appeared during his visit in Brighton (in matching handwriting, too!)

http://www.look-up.org.uk/campaigning/


upload_2015-12-4_15-7-33.png

upload_2015-12-4_15-7-48.png

upload_2015-12-4_15-8-47.png

Whoever could it have been? :rolleyes:
Aye, that's the one, "nudge-nudge". I'm pretty sure I remember him saying the same thing about some graffiti that appeared on a bridge in another an area he was visiting.

Ray Von
 
Monbiot does raise an interesting point that the belief does detract from real issues. I have tried to get believers to contact organisations like Plane Stupid or Airport Watch so as to share their concerns. Both organistions are slightly militant in their actions and if there were something sinister they would know about it.
 
Environmental activist George Monbiot has weighed in on "Chemtrails", claiming that the conspiracy theory is diverting from genuine environmental concerns about the aircraft industry. He holds up Look-Up/Ian Simpson as an example.

The contrails conspiracy is not just garbage, it's letting aviation off the hook

That article is really well-written. I would pass it along to my CT-believer, but she would probably consider it mildly insulting rather than enlightening.
 
That article is really well-written. I would pass it along to my CT-believer, but she would probably consider it mildly insulting rather than enlightening.
OK... doesn't change my mind that it's a well-written article, but I'm for sure not going to pass along that article seeing that Monbiot has written "Manifesto for a New World Order", it won't score me any points with my CT believer!
 
I would propose a conspiracy counter-punch: That the Chemtrail Conspiracy is itself a conspiracy promoted by the oil and airline companies to disguise the legitimate issue of emissions from aircraft, both commercial and military. By promoting a fringe 'chemtrail' theory from one side, and then ridiculing and refuting it from another angle, 'they' are both distracting from the real issue of airline emissions, and making any real investigation into such topics seem ridiculous because all the calls-to-action are from these radical 'chemmies' whose beliefs are outlandish. So the airplanes keep polluting unscathed.

I'm joking, of course. But without the joke, that's the danger the author seems to be concerned with. It just gets easy to make up CTs after reading enough of this stuff.
 
Do airline emissions contribute a lot to global warming? I thought it was at most a few percents, even including the radiative forcing from contrail cirrus.
 
Do airline emissions contribute a lot to global warming? I thought it was at most a few percents, even including the radiative forcing from contrail cirrus.
Monboit has written about it before, its a pet topic of his.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/21/travelsenvironmentalimpact.ethicalliving (2006)
Aviation has been growing faster than any other source of greenhouse gases. Between 1990 and 2004, the number of people using airports in the UK rose by 120%, and the energy the planes consumed increased by 79%. Their carbon dioxide emissions almost doubled in that period - from 20.1 to 39.5m tonnes, or 5.5% of all the emissions this country produces. Unless something is done to stop this growth, flying will soon overwhelm all the cuts we manage to make
Content from External Source
More recent studies suggest that the effect of radiative forcing from contrails is greater than the effect of aviation CO2 emissions. There is much uncertainty.
 
Do airline emissions contribute a lot to global warming? I thought it was at most a few percents, even including the radiative forcing from contrail cirrus.
If I did my math right (9% of 34%), based on these charts (from http://www.c2es.org) air traffic accounts for about 3% of green house gas emissions in the US. Would be nice to see what it is WW.


But, to Mick's point above, the effect of the cirrus doesn't seem very well understood. There is not a lot published that I could find. For example if you search Nature Climate Change for cirrus + contrail, there are only five hits, and the most recent is from March of 2011, Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus, which pretty much concludes that the topic needs to be studied more.


Abstract
Aviation makes a significant contribution to anthropogenic climate forcing. The impacts arise from emissions of greenhouse gases, aerosols and nitrogen oxides, and from changes in cloudiness in the upper troposphere. An important but poorly understood component of this forcing is caused by ‘contrail cirrus’—a type of cloud that consist of young line-shaped contrails and the older irregularly shaped contrails that arise from them. Here we use a global climate model that captures the whole life cycle of these man-made clouds to simulate their global coverage, as well as the changes in natural cloudiness that they induce. We show that the radiative forcing associated with contrail cirrus as a whole is about nine times larger than that from line-shaped contrails alone. We also find that contrail cirrus cause a significant decrease in natural cloudiness, which partly offsets their warming effect. Nevertheless, net radiative forcing due to contrail cirrus remains the largest single radiative-forcing component associated with aviation. Our findings regarding global radiative forcing by contrail cirrus will allow their effects to be included in studies assessing the impacts of aviation on climate and appropriate mitigation options.

Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
Do airline emissions contribute a lot to global warming? I thought it was at most a few percents, even including the radiative forcing from contrail cirrus.

That same 2011 issue of Nature Climate Change I referred to above has another article, Atmospheric science: Seeing through contrails. If global warming is the same as "anthropogenic climate forcing" (is it?), then according to this article, aviation contributes to an estimated 2-14%.

Aviation is at present responsible for about 3% of all fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions, but an estimated 2–14% of anthropogenic climate forcing1. Furthermore, its contribution to climate forcing could triple by 2050, according to some scenarios1. As such, mitigating the impact of aviation on climate has become a subject of considerable public and political interest. The debate is complicated, however, by the fact that aviation's climate impact results from a number of different factors, as well as by the large uncertainty in the effect that some of these factors have on climate.
Content from External Source
 
For example if you search Nature Climate Change for cirrus + contrail, there are only five hits, and the most recent is from March of 2011, Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus, which pretty much concludes that the topic needs to be studied more.

But they say:
Nevertheless, net radiative forcing due to contrail cirrus remains the largest single radiative-forcing component associated with aviation.
Content from External Source
Which was the thing reported in the press at the time. Contrails (according to this study) are worse than the CO2 emissions from aviation. With lots of uncertainty.
 
George [Monboit]'s done the chemtrailers one better here, actually: he bashes air travel in general, and this hasn't been the first time he's done it (as if traveling by car or by ship more would help the environment).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That same 2011 issue of Nature Climate Change I referred to above has another article, Atmospheric science: Seeing through contrails. If global warming is the same as "anthropogenic climate forcing" (is it?), then according to this article, aviation contributes to an estimated 2-14%.

Aviation is at present responsible for about 3% of all fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions, but an estimated 2–14% of anthropogenic climate forcing1. Furthermore, its contribution to climate forcing could triple by 2050, according to some scenarios1. As such, mitigating the impact of aviation on climate has become a subject of considerable public and political interest. The debate is complicated, however, by the fact that aviation's climate impact results from a number of different factors, as well as by the large uncertainty in the effect that some of these factors have on climate.
Content from External Source

"2 to 14 percent" is a pretty huge margin of error in anyone's book!
 
"2 to 14 percent" is a pretty huge margin of error in anyone's book!
Yes, and for good reason, weather is complicated. There are so many variables, if aircraft never left a contrail, but still emitted CO2 & H2O, then the factor would be much easier to calculate. It's the expanding contrails that makes the calculated effect on global warming soooo much more difficult to answer. Just a guess, but if the sea surface temps are rising, then there will be more moisture in the air, and thus more contrails, and more spreading contrails. But does that mean a higher albedo from the resulting cirrus clouds and a net negative effect on sun warming the earth, or does that mean the nights stay warmer due to the blanket effect of the cirrus, and the day starts warmer. Of course, both things happen. Really, the only way to tell for sure would be to ground all jet travel for at least one year and see what happens, but of course that would never happen. What may happen in the future though is aircraft that are powered by high efficiency electric motors in place of the turbofans now in use. That requires some pretty sophisticated battery technology that is probably 30-50 years away. Then there would be no contrails! No CO2 & H2O.
I wonder what the chemtrail movement will be like in 30 years?
 
if aircraft never left a contrail, but still emitted CO2 & H2O, then the factor would be much easier to calculate.

Minor point, but I don't think the emitted H2O is a factor if it does not leave a contrail. The atmosphere has billiions of tons of water vapor in in already in a constant cycle.
 
Yes, and for good reason, weather is complicated. There are so many variables, if aircraft never left a contrail, but still emitted CO2 & H2O, then the factor would be much easier to calculate. It's the expanding contrails that makes the calculated effect on global warming soooo much more difficult to answer. Just a guess, but if the sea surface temps are rising, then there will be more moisture in the air, and thus more contrails, and more spreading contrails. But does that mean a higher albedo from the resulting cirrus clouds and a net negative effect on sun warming the earth, or does that mean the nights stay warmer due to the blanket effect of the cirrus, and the day starts warmer. Of course, both things happen. Really, the only way to tell for sure would be to ground all jet travel for at least one year and see what happens, but of course that would never happen. What may happen in the future though is aircraft that are powered by high efficiency electric motors in place of the turbofans now in use. That requires some pretty sophisticated battery technology that is probably 30-50 years away. Then there would be no contrails! No CO2 & H2O.
I wonder what the chemtrail movement will be like in 30 years?

I think climate scientist did some calculations in the aftermath of 911 when the U.S. was largely contrail free

And (from memory) there was a small positve feedback when they measured surface temperatures

But the result were negligible either way

What is certain is the role of clouds need much more study

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_feedback
 
What may happen in the future though is aircraft that are powered by high efficiency electric motors in place of the turbofans now in use. That requires some pretty sophisticated battery technology that is probably 30-50 years away. Then there would be no contrails! No CO2 & H2O.
I wonder what the chemtrail movement will be like in 30 years?

You'd still get aerodynamic contrails, wouldn't you? Both from the wing surfaces and from the engines, if they had rotating blades.

Russ Tanner at the age of 95: "Battery-powered electric engines can't create contrails!!!" :)
 
The comments following that Monbiot article (warning, there's a lot of them) are very entertaining. The Brits (and some Aussies there) manage a much higher proportion of gentle mockery of the chemmies who are posting the usual 'look up' nonsense, than you see in US comments sections.
 
Back
Top