Despite undeniable and abundant photographic and video evidence of chemtrails shared online, Wikipedia portrays it as a “conspiracy theory.” If Wikipedia is to be believed, then the UK government are “conspiracy theorists” who are propagating the “theory” and may be among its originators.
One could argue what the substances are in chemtrails and their purpose is speculative but that does not make the claims untrue. We ignore chemtrails at our peril as almost anything sprayed in the skies will have a negative impact on life in the area below and, possibly, further afield.
To prove Wikipedia is not being truthful there is a simple test you can do for yourself. When you are outdoors, look up at the sky above. Are there persistent streaks in the sky left by aircraft? Do the clouds appear naturally formed? Then do some research to identify what it is you have seen.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
What Are Chemtrails?
Chemtrail is widely used to describe unusual persistent jet emissions. Chemtrails are visible trails left in the sky by an aircraft and are believed to consist of chemical or biological agents being released. These are different to contrails which are the condensed water of a vapour trail and dissipate fairly rapidly. The video below shows an example of a chemtrail.
Chemtrails are highly toxic trails of sub-micron particulates including ionising salts left by planes that make man-made toxic cloud cover. Chemtrails were defined in a 2001 Ohio Bill, HR-2977 s. 7, as an “exotic weapons system” – not a method to counteract anthropogenic (man-made) climate change. Unfortunately, in 2002 the Bill was changed with most of the critical wording in HR 2977 that showed promise in protecting citizens of the world being removed, wrote Carnicom Institute.
UK Government Does Not Deny Chemtrails
In 2014, in response to a request made under the Freedom of Information Act, The UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (“DECC”) wrote:
“The Royal Society published a report in 2009 which explains SRM [solar radiation modification] methods. No SRM which could include spraying to reflect sunlight or modifying clouds, is being performed by HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] and, to the best of our knowledge, is not being performed in or above the UK. While SRM is discussed in the Royal Society report, it does not recommend implementing a program of SRM … DECC has funded projects at the Met Office Hadley Centre into the effects of SRM …The Government is not undertaking geoengineering activities and as far as we are aware nobody is in the UK.”
There was no denial by the UK government that SRM or chemtrails exist, simply a denial that “as far as [they] are aware” they are not happening in UK skies.
The 2009 Royal Society report stated: “Solar Radiation Management (SRM) [are] techniques which reflect a small percentage of the sun’s light and heat back into space”
To claim that the motives of the geoengineering practitioners are beneficial and well-intended (i.e., ‘solar radiation management’ and the curtailment of ‘global warming’) but to know that the operations cause harm because of a net heating effect is equally misguided, wrote Carnicom Institute. “The operations as they are practised are not an experiment of beneficent intent; the developers understand the physics and the applications quite well (within their sphere of interest). Rest assured that the web of deployment is not centred on, or confined to, the principles of ‘Solar Radiation Management’.”
The Royal Society reiterated its stance against the use of chemtrails in 2011:
“Interest in SRM technologies has increased rapidly in recent years, as their potential to be both useful and/or harmful to the planet has been recognised. SRM methods may be able to reduce temperatures quickly and relatively cheaply. However, these technologies could also have significant unanticipated side effects. Moreover, they would not affect the cause of climate change.”
In May 2020 the UK government published a policy paper, ‘UK government’s view on greenhouse gas removal technologies and solar radiation management’. The UK government stated:
“Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) and Solar Radiation Management (SRM) are terms describing a range of technologies that aim to counteract human-caused climate change by deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems. They are sometimes referred to as ‘geoengineering’ or ‘climate engineering’.
“Our priority is to tackle the root cause of climate change by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities, and adapting to those impacts that are unavoidable.”
Humans, greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide are not causing climate change. What are the causes of climate change? Read more about “climate change” and the “climate change” agenda HERE.
The Government’s policy paper continued:
“SRM technologies reflect some of the Sun’s energy that reaches Earth back into space. Examples include the brightening of marine clouds and injection of aerosols into the stratosphere.
“The government is not deploying SRM, and has no plans to do so. The UK government has commissioned research into the effects of SRM on climate, and monitors research in this area.”
Again, no denial that chemtrails are being used, just a denial that the Government is using them – at least while they “monitor research in this area.”
Instead of SRM, the UK government is focusing on Greenhouse Gas Removal (“GGR”) to “actively remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.” The Government’s independent advisors, the Committee on Climate Change (“CCC”), made it clear that GGRs will be essential to realising the Paris Agreement’s “net-zero emissions” target.
Committee on Climate Change
The CCC is headed by Lord Deben, who has held several high-level ministerial posts. He also founded and chairs Sancroft, a corporate responsibility consultancy working with blue-chip companies around the world to help them improve their environmental, social and ethical impact. It seems a conflict of interests assessment needs to be conducted in Lord Deben’s case.
Other members of “independent” CCC include:
- Chris Stark, whose previous role was Director of Energy and Climate Change in the Scottish Government. He has wide experience in economic policy-making, in the Scottish Government, HM Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
- Professor Keith Bell, was appointed to the Scottish Power Chair in Smart Grids in 2013 and has been involved in energy system research.
- Nick Chater is a Professor of Behavioural Science.
- Piers Forster, has played a significant role in authoring Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) reports and is a coordinating lead author role for the IPCC’s sixth assessment report. It’s worth remembering that absolutely nothing in IPPC’s sixth assessment report is true.
- Paul Johnson, who has widely published on the economics of public policy and is a columnist for the Times. He previously held roles as Director of public spending at HM Treasury and Chief Economist at the Department for Education.
Published in June 2021, the latest CCC report regarding progress on reducing emissions and adapting to climate change offers more than 200 policy recommendations covering every part of the Government.
Despite the Government “focusing” on GGR technologies, the report only mentions “GGR” 8 times All of which are in one section, taking up barely half of page 13 of the 32-page report.
For comparison’s sake: “tax” is mentioned 20 times, “tariff” 8 times, “finance” 16 times and “market” 10 times. The number of times terms are mentioned in a report indicates a report’s true purpose. And the focus of the CCC’s report can be summed up by one of their recommendations to No. 10 and the Cabinet office, and repeated as a recommendation to the COP Unit, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department for International Trade (Pg. 3,4):
“Work towards securing more climate finance commitments from developed countries to get back on track for mobilising $100 billion a year in climate finance as soon as possible.”
Greenhouse Gas Removal
In July 2019, the Government passed legislation to introduce a more ambitious greenhouse gas emissions target, committing the UK to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Achieving this would require the deployment of new infrastructure, including technologies to take greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and store them permanently underground.
It’s important to remind ourselves that greenhouse gases are not the cause of climate change despite an entire industry being created out of the ideology of “combating” greenhouse gases and “net-zero.”
The Government requested the National Infrastructure Commission to examine greenhouse gas removal technologies. The final report of the study – Engineered greenhouse gas removals – was published on 29 July 2021. It recommended that the Government commit to the wide-scale deployment of new GGR technologies by 2030, twenty years earlier than legislated in 2019.
“Removing carbon dioxide from the air is expensive. This new sector could have revenues of £2 billion by 2030, and in the tens of billions by 2050. In the long term, polluting industries, not taxpayers, should bear these costs, paying for the engineered removals,” National Infrastructure Commission recommended.
“Climate change” is not good for the climate, it is big business. It’s best to keep that in mind because the UK Government and its advisors certainly do.
Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
such as Google, Facebook, Twitter & PayPal
are trying to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuse to…
We’re not funded by the Government
to publish lies & propaganda on their
behalf like the mainstream media.
Instead, we rely solely on our support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring you
honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy…