|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In December 2024, a petition to the UK Parliament was started requesting that all geo-engineering in the UK be outlawed. The petition was debated in the House of Commons on 23 June.
As expected, the debate, led by Liberal Democrat MPs, was used as an opportunity to push the climate change scam and deny that solar radiation management techniques, which include chemtrails, were being deployed in the UK.
One important thing to come out of the debate, as indicated by Roz Savage MP, is that there really is a cult belief that underpins the “climate change crisis” narrative.
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…
On 23 June, the UK House of Commons debated an e-petition relating to geoengineering (also stylised as geo-engineering) and the environment.
Anthony Webber provided some personal insight in an article published by Unity News Network, read HERE. The debate was a result of a petition started by Antoinette Taylor on 23 December 2024, which requested that all forms of geo-engineering affecting the environment be made illegal.
As the petition reached the required 100,000 signatures, the Petitions Committee considered it for a debate in the House of Commons. Roz Savage, the Liberal Democratic MP for South Cotswolds, “volunteered to take on this responsibility,” Webber said, and introduced the petition to parliament for debate on 23 June 2023.
“This was the first time there had been a Parliamentary debate on this subject, and it was a historic moment,” he said.
Related: MPs will debate a petition relating to geo-engineering and the environment, UK Parliament Petitions Committee, 18 June 2025
Table of Contents
Parliamentary Research Briefing
The summary of a research briefing published for Parliament ahead of the debate stated:
Atmospheric geoengineering is the deliberate modification of the climate system to reduce or offset the effects of climate change.
It can include deployment of greenhouse gas removal technologies (GGRs) … It can also include solar radiation modification (SRM).
There is no SRM currently being practised in, or above, the UK. In 2020, the government published its view on greenhouse gas removal technologies and solar radiation management, which set out support for GGRs and emphasised that “the government is not deploying SRM, and has no plans to do so.” In response to a PQ [Parliamentary Question or MP’s written question] in January 2025, Minister for Climate Kerry McCarthy reiterated this, adding that the government “funds modelling research to understand the potential impacts of SRM deployment.”
The Met Office has also set out its position on geoengineering research (2025), concluding that “much more research is needed to understand all the potential benefits and drawbacks associated with these different techniques to ensure any debate in this area is based on robust evidence.”
Research Briefing: Debate on an e-petition relating to geo-engineering and the environment, House of Commons Library, UK Parliament, 20 June 2025
You can read the full 25-page research briefing, which includes 11 pages listing further reading, as well as other resources such as Parliamentary coverage and PQs, HERE.
The briefing noted that the UK Government has expressed support for GGRs, which can help the UK meet its target of delivering net zero emissions by 2050. Delivering net zero emissions is the first flaw in the Government’s policy. As we have written numerous times over the years, the ideology that human activities are causing global warming is a myth and carbon dioxide (CO2), for example, is the gas of life. The demonisation of CO2 as harmful is an attack on life itself.
The briefing then notes that the independent Climate Change Committee (“CCC”) advises the government on meeting the net zero target and has stated that GGRs will be essential to meeting the 2050 target, particularly in offsetting residual emissions in hard-to-decarbonise sectors such as aviation. Taking advice from the CCC is the second major flaw in the Government’s strategy.
We noted in an article last year that the CCC is unaccountable, riddled with conflicts of interest, incompetent, opaque, defensive and hypocritical. And that the cost of the CCC’s catastrophic modelling “errors” and misleading advice could run into trillions of pounds.
Read more: Corrupt and incompetent UK Climate Change Committee should be disbanded
Survey of 77 “Experts”
The Parliament research briefing goes on to explain contrails and chemtrails. The term “chemtrails,” the briefing informs us, refers to unsupported theories that contrails are produced by the deliberate spraying of chemicals into the atmosphere, but a panel of 77 international atmospheric scientists and geochemists found no evidence to support this theory in 2016. For this, the research briefing references a 2016 article in the Smithsonian Magazine titled ‘Science Officially Debunks Chemtrails, But the Conspiracy Will Likely Live’. The article states:
In the study, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the scientists were asked if they had ever uncovered possible evidence of a government chemtrail programme in their research. Of the 77 scientists, 76 said no.
Science Officially Debunks Chemtrails, But the Conspiracy Will Likely Live On, Smithsonian Magazine, 22 August 2016
The article was based on a letter published in Environmental Research Letters. The letter’s authors surveyed “two groups of experts – atmospheric chemists with expertise in condensation trails [“contrails”] and geochemists working on atmospheric deposition of dust and pollution – to scientifically evaluate for the first time the claims of [secret large-scale atmospheric programme] SLAP theorists.”
The surveys were run by researchers at the University of California, Irvine, and Carnegie Institution for Science, with support from the California-based non-profit Near Zero. Near Zero are “experts” who “provide credible, impartial and actionable assessment with the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to near zero.”
“Near Zero’s only agenda is helping to identify ways to quickly cut greenhouse gas emissions to near zero,” its website states. There is no information on Near Zero’s website as to who funds it or who the “experts” are. But one thing is for certain: if their sole focus is on “near zero,” they are not impartial and so, possibly, also not credible.
There are obvious problems with using this letter as evidence. Firstly, there is the potential bias in the selection of the “experts” surveyed, which begins to become evident in the letter itself:
Expert participants were selected by using the ISI Web of Science to identify the authors of the most-cited peer-reviewed publications covering these topics that have been published in the past 20 years (1994–2014). In the first case, we searched for papers with the topic ‘contrail’. For experts on atmospheric deposition, we used the search terms ‘atmospheric deposition’ AND (‘aluminium’ OR ‘barium’ OR ‘strontium’), which narrowed the results to experts working on the elements most frequently pointed to as evidence of spraying by the analyses of SLAP proponents, and excluded other types of deposition events such as acid rain and nitrogen run-off. For the purposes of this study, we define ‘contrail expert’ and ‘atmospheric deposition expert’ to be a person who has co-authored one or more of the 100 most-cited papers in each search.
Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying programme, Environmental Research Letters, 10 August 2016
During the covid era, we learnt that science papers that do not follow the prevailing narrative experience problems in being published by a science journal, to the extent that many are not published at all. We also learnt that research that supports a narrative is well-funded, while research that challenges it is not.
Secondly, there is the survey itself:
The surveys asked the two groups of experts to assess data that have been presented on websites as evidence of SLAP. In both surveys, the first question asked was: ‘Have you, in your work or personal life, ever come across evidence that you think indicates the existence of a secret large-scale atmospheric spraying programme?’
Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying programme, Environmental Research Letters, 10 August 2016
Using the word “secret” is a set-up; it is subjective. What is secret to one is not secret to another. It also implants the idea of “conspiracy theory,” which most “experts” would not want to be seen to be associated with if they wish to maintain or advance their position or reputation within academia.
The “data” that the “experts were asked to comment on is also questionable. Further into the letter, the authors admit that the “data” on websites was restricted to pre-selected and limited photographs or laboratory results, and then the “experts were asked for their “simplest explanation”:
Figure 2 shows the four photos assessed by contrail experts. In each case, 100% of the experts indicated that the simplest explanation of the trails in the photo was not a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying programme.
Figure 3 shows the responses to photocopies of three different laboratory analyses that SLAP proponents argue show high and abnormal concentrations indicative of chemical spraying. For each analysis, experts were first asked if the simplest explanation of the trails in the photo was a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying programme.
Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying programme, Environmental Research Letters, 10 August 2016
This survey of 77 “experts,” whose names are published at the end of the letter, is hardly a scientific evaluation of the evidence as the letter’s authors claim; it is more like a school project conducted at a village fête.
Aside from the amateurish approach to these particular surveys, whenever we see a survey or questionnaire, we should consider whether the Delphi method is being deployed. Essentially, the Delphi method is used to rig surveys; the questions are designed so that the person taking the survey will agree with the basic premises of those setting the questions.
You can judge for yourself whether the Near Zero supported survey questions were loaded by reading the two surveys HERE and HERE.
Read more: UK government uses Delphi method to manipulate outcome of public consultations
What Was Said During The Debate?
You can watch the petition debate held in Westminster Hall on 23 June 2025 below and read a transcript in Hansard HERE.
Savage introduced the debate by saying that she has no problem with carbon dioxide removal, thus endorsing the manufactured “climate change crisis” narrative. She does, however, object to SRM because “SRM does not remove carbon. It does not stop ocean acidification. It does not reduce fossil fuel use. It masks the symptoms while the root cause, our fossil fuel carbon emissions, goes unchecked.”
Although she has cosied up to the climate change alarmism agenda, Savage did make a good point about scientific control. “We cannot conduct a controlled experiment with SRM. We do not have two planets, one on which we conduct SRM and one on which we do not. There is no planet B to test it on. Once SRM is deployed, we are in effect launching a planetary experiment, with no ability to reverse it if things go wrong,” she said.
Savage denies SRM has already been occurring for decades by saying, “As for the chemicals used in SRM, the aerosols under consideration include sulphates and even aluminium.”
She then went on to describe why she thinks we need to mitigate climate change and reinforce the climate alarmist narrative. “Globally, we are still emitting about 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. If we continue on our current path – as an environmental campaigner for more than two decades, I very much hope we do not – we are headed for about 2.7° of warming by the end of the century,” she said. “It is increasingly clear that we have to transition away from fossil fuels.”
She then used the Rockefeller line about the scarcity of “fossil fuels,” saying. “Fossil fuels are finite, and the cost of extraction is rising, so given that we know we will have to make the transition at some point, sooner or later, why not do it sooner?”
Related:
- L. Fletcher Prouty: Oil is not a fossil fuel; it is the second most prevalent liquid on Earth
- The Great Oil Conspiracy: It has been known since the end of WWII that oil is not a fossil fuel; it is abiotic
- Not all “fossil fuels” are from fossils, so where do they come from?
Savage’s speech in Parliament is what controlled opposition looks like. Is this why she “volunteered to take on this responsibility”? To ensure the nefarious climate change narrative stayed on track?
Pippa Heylings, Liberal Democrat MP for South Cambridgeshire, was Savage’s support act and followed Savage spouting the same false climate change narrative that is dictated by the United Nations.
Nick Timothy, Conservative MP for West Suffolk, injected some much-needed common sense to counteract the Liberal Democrats’ climate ideology. “[Heylings] used the opportunity to speak about climate change. Although she and I probably disagree profoundly about the wisdom of the net zero target and the plan to decarbonise the whole grid by 2030, I am sure she opposes, as I do, the giant solar and battery farms that the Government want to impose on both our constituencies and most of the east of England,” he said.
“My party’s position on SRM is clear. We oppose any attempts to seed the sky, and every effort must be made to be respectful of nature and our planet. Chasing such hare-brained scientific schemes to interfere with the climate and the atmosphere will not give us answers to any live public policy dilemmas,” he added.
Timothy noted that public concern was prompted by the Advanced Research and Innovation Agency (“ARIA”) offering £56.8 million of public money to examine climate cooling theory. “Having been very clear about the Conservative position, I invite the Minister to provide a clear statement that the Government will not support SRM,” he said.
Related:
- ARIA: The UK government’s secretive agency masquerading as a beacon of scientific progress
- UK government plans to mandate new homes have solar panels and also plans to block sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface; the two do not go together
Kerry McCarthy, Labour’s Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, harped on about the manufactured climate change crisis and the need to mitigate its fictional effects by using “greenhouse gas removal technologies.”
“We are acting on nature-based approaches … However, we know that nature-based approaches need to be complemented by engineered solutions to remove carbon dioxide at the speed and scale necessary for us to meet our targets,” he said.
Adding, “I make it clear for the record that the Government are not deploying solar radiation modification and have no plans to do so. There will be no spraying of chemicals in the skies over the UK for SRM, geo-engineering or climate remediation. Our priority is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from human activities and to adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change.”
“There is no substitute for decarbonisation, which is why we are pressing on with our missions for clean power and net zero,” he said. “The science is clear that, without rapid action, we risk irreversible damage to the planet’s biosphere. To halt global warming, the world needs to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions, which includes the UK’s emissions.”
It’s difficult to know with any particular politician whether they believe the drivel they spout about climate change or whether they are knowingly lying to satisfy their bosses, or line their pockets.
Savage ended the debate with the remark, “This debate seems to be one of those rare occasions where we find multi-party consensus.”
The public who are concerned about all geo-engineering projects have once again been gaslit by politicians. There was no real debate; it was simply a group of politicians abusing the democratic process and the Commons to promote a global agenda.
Savage’s Pagan Cult Belief
“During my years of rowing solo across oceans to raise awareness of our climate and nature issues, I learned the hard way that we cannot fight mother nature. We cannot flout her laws and expect to win,” Savage said in her remarks concluding the Commons debate on geo-engineering.
Savage’s use of the term “mother nature” should tell us all we need to know about the cult she and her co-conspirators are following.
“Mother Nature” is a variation of “Mother Earth” or “Earth Mother”; they are names for Gaia, a Greek goddess. According to Greek mythology, from Gaia’s fertile womb all life sprang, and unto Mother Earth all living things must return after their allotted span of life is over.
As Greek Medicine explains, “Gaia, as Mother Nature, personifies the entire ecosystem of Planet Earth. Mother Nature is always working to achieve and maintain harmony, wholeness and balance within the environment. Mother Nature heals, nurtures and supports all life on this planet, and ultimately all life and health depend on her. In time, Nature heals all ills.”
“In the 1960s, James Lovelock formulated the Gaia hypothesis. It states that all life, and all living things on this planet, are part of a single, all-encompassing global entity or consciousness which he named Gaia. It is this global consciousness, Mother Gaia, that makes our planet capable of supporting life, while our near neighbours in the solar system are barren and lifeless,” Greek Medicine adds.
Conservapedia sums up “Mother Nature,” describing it as a modernised pagan view of “Nature” native to pantheism, evolutionism and modern cosmic religion.
The pagan cult that Savage, knowingly or unknowingly, is subscribing to has been pushed for years under the banner of “climate change” and “conservation.” To understand how the climate change cult has been indoctrinating people in Gaia worship, listen to Julia Roberts below speaking as if she is “Mother Nature.”
As a Christian nation, a nation built on Christian values, customs and laws, we should strongly oppose Gaia worship, and we should not fall into the trap of using cult terminology to promote or oppose an agenda.
Read more: Globalists are aiming for a one-world religion: Education is one of their key tools to implement it
US EPA Reveals Weather Modification Programmes
If Savage thinks public concerns about SRM are merely “conspiracy theories,” we point her to recent events, namely the recent devastating floods in central Texas, USA.
“After the Guadalupe River flooded in central Texas [ ] took over 100 lives, Americans were looking for answers as to how such a tragedy could happen so quickly,” Blaze Media reported yesterday. “The extreme rainfall had some pointing to possible weather modification.”
On Thursday, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Lee Zeldin, said in a video that the EPA had published reports on both contrails and geoengineering in an attempt to reach full “transparency.”
The EPA’s documents explained that nine US states have active weather modification programmes. California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming have cloud seeding programmes. New Mexico and North Dakota have cloud modification programmes, while Texas boasts weather modification in general, as well as cloud seeding.
Cloud seeding is a weather modification technique used to increase precipitation by introducing substances into clouds to encourage rainfall or snowfall. Common materials used include silver iodide, salt or dry ice.
Related:
- Are Gulf states’ floods due to weather modification or global warming? Corporate media can’t decide
- Does Cloud Seeding Happen in the UK? Houses and Properties, 6 September 2024 (Note the comments posted under the article as well)
A whistle-blower has recently come forward and pointed to federal grants to organisations like the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (“UCAR”), which leads geo-engineering research in fields like stratospheric aerosol geo-engineering, which many refer to as the formal term for the colloquial word “chemtrails.”
The whistle-blower’s account in conjunction with BlazeTV host Nicole Shanahan’s research (see PDF below), “lends to the idea that while some government officials may brush off weather modification or geoengineering as a myth or wild conspiracy theory, government programmes and government funding have been and continue to be used to conduct small and large-scale operations,” Blaze Media said.
Featured image: Roz Savage smiling with the sea behind her (chemtrails and aeroplanes added). Adapted from ‘Rower turned MP backs call for sewage crackdown’, BBC, 21 September 2024
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, UK News, US News
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/7Yg8FBnGXIk
Hi Rhoda,
So even after the RAF caused 35 deaths in Devon in 1952, the government say it cannot happen.
Even after 129 people have been killed by a company call Rainmaker in Texas, they still deny it can happen.
Chemtrailing will be the Death of us all if it is not stopped.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/11/us/video/cloud-seeding-texas-floods-fact-check-augustus-doricko-digvid#:~:text=CNN's%20Kaitlan%20Collins%20interviews%20Augustus,devastating%20floods%20in%20central%20Texas.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug/30/sillyseason.physicalsciences
Sometimes the media exposes the truth by debunking it at the same time. Thus diffusing
interest in that subject. A lot like Area 51.
https://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=256961
https://rumble.com/v6w80bm-rfk-vows-to-arrest-bill-gates-for-orchestrating-devastating-u.s.-floods-via.html
Zero empirical evidence for your claims. So dismissed.
geoengineeringwatch.org All the evidence one needs.
The Dimming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf78rEAJvhY
https://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=256961
Nope. Bunch of grifters. Bloke said cuts no ice.
Hi Glen,
Thank you for that comment.
Monkey Werx, has a lot of tracking information well worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/c/MonkeyWerxUS/videos
It looks to me like you’re living with your
eyes closed on many levels. You are most
likely here just to cause trouble. I believe
you were sent here. And if you just want to
argue and not listen I suggest your be silent.
Looks to me like your listening to Bloke said. Go join a flat earth group. You’ll love them
Who’s “bloke”? I don’t believe
the earth is flat. However I do
go by evidence. And yet you
still have not provided any proof
of why you come here. You’re
sent by the elites. Be blocked.
Where is your evidence. I see you are paranoid and favour censorship. Sounds like you are the one sent by the elite. Hydrogen and Carbon, jet fuel, reacted in Oxygen and Nitrogen, the atmosphere, equals power plus CO2 WATER VAPOUR, in fact seven tons of WATER per hour from a single 747 engine, and Nitrates. Funny how you chemtardz put up pictures of trails coming from the ENGINES of jets ….do you think they are adding something to the fuel? I’ll tell you what, put some aluminium powder in the fuel tank of your car… see what happens. My background is MoD chemist, senior in National Aur traffic Services and worked with the MET Office, so CHEMISTRY AVIATION AND WEATHER. What’s yours?
I’ve been on this flat enclosed realm for over 50 years and have never seen contrails go from this….
….To this in a few hours!
Hi
A Yousleh Zeeter,Thank you for that.
A picture can say a thousand words.
Well done.
He’s no useless eater-his eyes are wide open! The skies up here in Stornoway look no different. Also, he’s a flerfer!
You got my username Islander! Most people just think I’m Middle Eastern 😂
Yes I’m a ‘flat earther’ I was a civil and architectural engineer for years. I worked on some of the tallest buildings in England and have been up some of the tallest buildings in the world. One thing you notice, is the higher up you go, the horizon line rises with you, it can’t happen on a sphere! I worked off datum’s, which were measured from ‘sea level’ and that’s a big clue, as no body of water curves, it always finds a surface level.
I had a photograph from Crosby beach to Blackpool, which is 22 miles as the seagulls fly (no crows on the coast). According to the mathematical equation for the alleged circumference of Earth ‘miles squared times 8 inches, gives us 3,872 inches over 22 miles, or 322 feet. The Big One at Blackpool pleasure beach is 213 feet high. With the supposed curvature of the Earth, none of the structure would be visible but I could see the shop fronts, that surround the pleasure beach at ground level. Not possible on a ball!
Real eyes, realise, real lies.
You’re an educated man-I assume you went to university? Most (through pride) just cannot buy into the geocentric Earth fact, especially astrophysicists and the like, it is one conspiracy theory too far! Besides which, they’ll be disowned by their peers, out of a job and the rest. As for me, having no scientific credentials, leaving school at 15 with a few abysmal O levels-not even one grade A, I had nothing to lose.
I came to be a flerfer in 2016, helped by my Bible study (God’s Word knows nothing of a spinning ball Earth!) and my extensive, uninterrupted, panoramic sea view from my house-it just came together…
Correction! It used to be extensive, uninterrupted, and panoramic until May last year-since then there has been a hazy indistinct horizon-the mountains in the distance can’t be discerned with my telescope anymore…I wonder why???
I was good at mathematics and art, the rest of the subjects just felt wrong! His story for example, it’s not my story and the more I studied, the more you realise the lies we’ve been told. So I’m not educated as such. Education is just a way of proving your cognitive dissonance. Listen, remember, then write down the crap you’ve been told in a test!
I lost my mum to cancer in 2015 and along with my wife, who knows more than I ever could by the way, we started going down all the rabbit holes. Globe earth is something that’s subliminally fed to us from an early age. But the career I was in and the study I’ve done, let alone trusting our own senses, proves to me that we’re not a a spinning globe! No matter what people have called me, I stick to what I believe!
Thanks Dave. Did you know that Reverend Scott, the self proclaimed clergyman, was also in military aviation, was also a chemist and also a meteorologist? But he doesn’t know his R’s from his elbow! There’s an old saying that “bullsh1t baffles brains” and Reverend Scott writes plenty of it. Unfortunately I’m not clever enough to be baffled, I’m just A Useless Eater!
Hi A Yousleh Zeeter, re the way you summed up “Reverend Scott” … it sounds like you’ve just described a chemtrail pilot, or perhaps someone who manages a chemtrail operation. But then again, I’m a conspiracy theorist and maybe its just a coincidence …
He possibly could be Rhoda…. But we can all be anything we want behind the anonymity of a keyboard!
I loved that old saying! I used to buy and sell old bangers-codged them up with plastic padding and aerosols! Oh for my sins!
Hi Reverend Scott,
Are you any particular religion, or just a Numpty.
You have collected more red marks than last time.
Try again later.
Just a simple question Reverend Scott. For someone with you’re vast wealth of knowledge.
Would condensation trails evaporate over time, or would they expand into a Sun blocking, smog?
This was over farmland near me in the early afternoon….
And this was early evening….
Have a sense of scaler ffs. No such thing as chemtrails. What’s your chemistry background? What’s your aviation background? What’s your meteorological background hmmmm….the most and easily debunked conspiracy theory ever. All you do is make pilots laugh while you deny clouds like the chemtardz you are.
The same gibberish was said by ‘Doctors’ and ‘experts’ while pushing the Death jabs. If you’re not ‘’qualified’’ then Stfu
Doesnt work.
Nice Strawman. On fire running down the street. Zero empirical evidence for chemtrails, actual science for contrails. Even the USAAF researchec them in WW2 because they gave away the position of aircraft. I didn’t take the death jabs either in case you are wondering. Irrelevant here.
Hi Noj,
Thank you for holding the fort.
Did you read my comment to my MP.
Asking if the Chemtrail pilots had been given the C19 fluid.
Several pilots had died whilst in control of large aircraft.
Please find a quiet corner and expire asap
No comeback then bozo. In the word of Nature , foxtrot Oscar
THIS COMMENT IS FLAGGED FOR EXPOSE WEB STAFF TO REMOVE
Censorship is only promoted by those who can’t debate. Go back to your echo chamber if you feel uncomfortable around facts.
THIS COMMENTATOR IS FLAGGED AS A COWARD WHO HATES FACTS.
Hi Colin,
Try not to be too hard on Scotty,
He tries his best.
Refer to my comment on here – and if
you are not here just to be a mouth piece
for the agenda, maybe you will listen. It is
easy to live in a fish bowl and deny everything.
One of many reasons why handheld devices
we’re created is so man looks – down. So man
doesn’t look – up. You can be rude to people
all you wish. It won’t stop those who know the
agenda and the truth from speaking.
What is YOUR background?
My background is Chemistry Aviation and Meteorology. What’s yours? Bloke said? Chemtardery? Wuck fitters?
My back background is from what
you don’t see. I have evidence and
proof. But folks like you don’t want
to know. It’s all about your mouth.
Be blocked.
THIS COMMENT IS FLAGGED FOR EXPOSE WEB STAFF TO REMOVE
THIS COMMENT IS FLAGGED FOR EXPOSE WEB STAFF TO REMOVE
There are no chemtrails. Learn some basic chemistry of jet fuel. Weather modification is pure hubris. Nature laughs at our feeble efforts. 60 billion cubic miles of atmosphere over 197 million square miles of earth surface….worse than flat earth.
Baffoon
Buffoon*
Nice of you to introduce yourself Mr Buffoon.
Any government that thinks CO2 is bad on a zarking plant planet (99.64% of the biomass is plants..) can be safely ignored even by the flat earthers and grifters on this page. Want to deny clouds wuck fits?
Bigger buffoon
Go on a diet then Mr Big Buffoon. Or learn chemistry. Hydrocarbons. Hydrogen and Carbon, reacted in Oxygen and Nitrogen gives power plus WATER VAPOUR, CO2 and Nitrates, 7 tons of water per hour from a single 747 engine actually, given the right conditions this water shows up as contrails, so nice try but you lose Mr Big Buffoon
THIS COMMENT IS FLAGGED FOR EXPOSE WEB STAFF TO REMOVE
They are lying to you and pushing the one world religion of Mother Earth through the climate change scam. The elites want a one world everything where only they are in charge. Total top down control even over the air we breathe. In June our wonderful governor Ron DeSantis in Florida made it illegal with steep fines and possible prison time for spraying in the form of chemtrails. These chemtrails are comprised of mostly aluminum, followed by barium and strontium–all harmful to all life on earth. The eugenist Bill Gates is heavily involved in producing aluminum resistant beans at this moment. Tennessee and one more state have done the same with other states considering it. DeSantis saved Florida during COVID and is again with this law.
This is true. Sadly De Santis allowed the heavy trailing at night. I have spoken to Floridians who show me evidence of the trails at night and the morning “green dust” on their cars. Please pop along to my video where I go into this
– https://youtu.be/s0gonpaTcJg?si=3sS3JkNUuTBuY7Sr
Speaking as someone from a military family.
A father who was in the RAF and a grandfather
in the RAF in WW2 and hearing from pilots in
the US Air Force and secret service; I can say
that Chemtrails are happening. And it’s getting
worse.
OH dear. Someone who has no sense of scale. No such thing as chemtrails.
Get a life
THIS COMMENT IS FLAGGED FOR EXPOSE WEB STAFF TO REMOVE
Look ar this hand shandy expert. Loves censorship. Hypocrite.
THIS COMMENT IS FLAGGED FOR EXPOSE WEB STAFF TO REMOVE
Hi Nicholas Ricketts,
Nice to know you are from a RAF family.
Our family go on regular trips to old WW2 airfields, mainly to take flowers and water the plants at Memorials.
Keep up your comments, we need people like you.
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE REMOVE “reverend scott” FROM THE COMMENTS.
Oh a hypocrite who doesn’t like debate. Duly noted wuck fit
You’re not debating.
You a loser who has
no life just grandstanding
and thinking you’re better
than everyone else. You
do not know me. THE LORD
REBUKE YOU.
THIS COMMENT IS FLAGGED FOR EXPOSE WEB STAFF TO REMOVE
Can someone remove Ricketts from the comments, clearly an offcom stooge who loves censorship…..
You’re the one trying to shut people down
THIS COMMENT IS FLAGGED FOR EXPOSE WEB STAFF TO REMOVE
Reverend Scott, it is obvious to anyone reading your comments what your aim is – you are a troll, a low level agent employed to disseminate a certain narrative – I emphasise the “low level” because you have sold your soul, the most important part of your life on Earth, for a measly few pieces of silver. You came cheap as far as your masters are concerned.
How do we know you are a low level agent/troll? Because high level agents don’t waste their time on petty/childish arguments, they use people like you to do it for them. And if you had a sensible argument to make, you would make it. But in the absence of anything sensible to say you post comments designed to aggravate others – which reflects poorly on you and brings the same shame on those you hold dear (may God protect your children, and their children, from your bad reputation).
Those are some of the Natural Law (God’s Law) punishments for you and your loved ones to endure. From our point of view, please stop leaving comments intended to denigrate or harass users of this site. If you have something useful to say that will add value to a discussion/debate, we’re happy for you to post it under our articles. If you are simply coming onto this site to harass others we will delete your comments.
Hi Nicholas Ricketts, “Reverend Scott” is obviously a troll who is paid/employed to maintain the narrative that chemtrails do not exist. Try no to allow him/her to get under your skin.
If trolls such as these are removed they simply come back under another user name. So it is a case of the better the devil you know.
Ok. Well if he’s not removed then I’ll not come
Back to this website.
Hi Nicholas Rickets, if you are a Christian I encourage you to put on the Armour of God and stand tall, because Reverend Scott’s comments are just a taste of what is to come.
If you are not a Christian, then I encourage you to ignore “Reverend Scott” because he/she/it is enjoying winding you up and ruining your day. Why do I say “it”? Because “Reverend Scott” could be a computer program, a chatbot or AI. (Although we have been managing to successfully block bots as “spam” so the profile is unlikely to be a bot). If “Reverend Scott” is human, then he or she will soon be replaced by AI.
When they start to use AI en masse to do their dirty work (I mean leaving comments under articles as they already do this en masse on social media), no amount of deleting comments left under our articles that are designed to confuse and aggravate you will help you.
Already have. Amen.
Hi Nicholas Ricketts, Yay! May God go with you and keep you.
Remember though the Lord gives not
empty threats. When He says He will
act He will act. Us servants of the Lord
should maintain such attributes. Which
is why I am wondering why this individual
is still attacking me. Why is he not gone.
This will be my last message. I won’t use
this platform any longer. I run an online
ministry. This individual would be gone
as soon as he used profanity and accused
others.
God bless you.
Hi Nicholas Ricketts, hopefully you will visit one last time to read my response.
“Reverend Scott” has worked out what irks you and is pulling those strings to do just that, irk you. Do not fall into the trap he has set for you.
At it’s core, there are only two sides to this war: God and anti-God. How do we recognise who/what is on which side? The Bible tells us:
1. On the anti-God side: “Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like” Ephesians 5:19-21
2. On God’s side: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” Ephesians 5:22-23. As you will know, it is not “fruits” of the Spirit, there is only ONE fruit of the Spirit.
“Reverend Scott” is displaying characteristics from the anti-God side, so now you know what you are fighting against.
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.” Ephesians 5:1
“Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh” Ephesians 5:16-17
https://biblehub.com/nkjv/galatians/5.htm
We do not have to fight against anti-God forces using our own power, strength or knowledge. We can rely on God – we can put on God’s armor so that we are able to stand firm against all strategies of the devil. Ephesians 6:10
https://biblehub.com/nkjv/ephesians/6.htm
We can also ask God to “lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”
https://biblehub.com/library/kinkead/baltimore_catechism_no_4/the_lords_prayer.htm
Bye.
At least your hypocrisy goes only so far. I’m just providing facts. Too bad you don’t understand them.
Paid by whom? Want to provide proof of your LIBEL.
From 300 miles up you can see the horizon 1224 miles away in all directions. Now if you think of this as a round pool 244 feet in diameter and 30 feet deep then a contrail from horizon to horizon at 35000 feet would be represented by a 45 foot long streak half a centimeter wide EIGHT INCHES from the bottom of the pool. Now imagine if the pool was at 25 degrees and the contrail was at zero degrees, do you think the pool would be affected by a noticeable amount? This pool represents a tiny tiny fraction of the earths atmosphere….are you getting a sense of scale yet chentards?
THIS COMMENT IS FLAGGED FOR EXPOSE WEB STAFF TO REMOVE
THIS COMMENTATOR IS FLAGGED AS A PRO CENSORSHIP STOOGE.
THE LORD REBUKE YOU
Under the title Prince of the Power of the Air, F.S. Leahy in his book SATAN CAST OUT (A Study in Biblical Demonology-Banner of Truth Trust1975) writes:
The reference to Satan in Ephesians 2:2 as ‘the prince of the power of the air’ has been construed by some Bible students to refer to a certain spatial domain of the Evil One and his forces. There was a time when some good people objected to aviation on the basis of this text! (Italics mine for emphasis).
Leahy’s inference is that commercial airplanes are harmless, but is this so? When a tourist purchases an airline ticket, he or she is contributing to their own demise!
Hi Islander,
I see you have the situation under control.
Keep it up.
Dave,
Its not that I can “control” anything, A man’s goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way? Proverbs 20:24.
How The UK’s Terrifying Criminal Justice “Reforms” are spreading, including the elimination of jurys, a right guaranteed in British law for over 800 years.
https://off-guardian.org/2025/07/11/explained-the-uks-potentially-terrifying-criminal-justice-reforms/
[…] What Was Said During The Debate? […]
“We’re not doing it” is no response to the goal of the debate, to make SRM illegal. If they’re not doing it and have no intention to do it, then why not make it illegal? So make it illegal then.
There are ways of discovering exactly which chemicals are used in these spraying sytems. The most obvious, laboratory analysis. However, firstly how can you prove you have been given the correct information, it will be difficult in the UK as there are bans on laboratories doing private analysis. The most often used chemicals in these chemical sprays are;
Sulphur, Barium, Strontium, Manganese, polymer Fibers, Surfactants, Aluminium and Flyash. This list was provided by geoengineering watch May 18th ,2024 #458 as most likely. Any decent scientist will tell you what damage each of these individual chemicals will cause to the flora and fauna in this country. As their spraying programs have been going on over the past four years or so, there should be a sufficient supply for analytical analysis anywhere on these Islands.
Hi Rhoda,
Just had time to read the comments, you have done well.
I did write to my MP Ed Miliband, asking if the Chemtrail pilots had been given the C19 fluid.
This seemed important, as pilots had been dying in the air, suddenly.
Never did get a reply, never do.
Hi Dave, Mad Ed is a Net Zero aficionado. He hasn’t been programmed to answer or speak about anything that is not Net Zero related. Have you tried putting a Net Zero twist to your emails? This might trigger his program and you might get a reply.
For example, start with something along the lines, “Is geo-engineering part of your plan to reach Net Zero?” On seeing “Net Zero” in the first line, his program might be activated .. you can but try…
The British public, based on a mass of information that is available if properly researched, must inevitably arrive to the conclusion that the entire body of Parliament is nothing more than a diversion created to give the impression that Prime Ministers and MP’s actually have power when they obviously do not. They are controlled like puppets that dance to whatever tune those that really control are playing at any given moment. Our political system is a very deliberate construct that has been designed and implemented over an incredibly long period of time. Democracy, in the true sense of its meaning does not and never has existed. We are encouraged to believe it does and somehow the people of this once great nation have been brainwashed to think that because they vote it makes a difference. It does not! All decisions have been made and implemented before a single public vote has been cast. Parliament and all of its actors are nothing more than a movie. Unecessary and irrelevant, but the show goes on and on and on. Whatever petitions are put forward to government they will continue to do whatever they want or more accurately, whaatever they are told to do!
[…] Encuesta a 77 «expertos» […]
i see freemasons
Just spent 2 weeks in Spain and they dont have this shit over there. Its sunny clear skies almost every day and when its cloudy its fluffy clouds how i remember them.
Its also 30 to 33 degrees nearly every day. So why do they not try and ‘cool’ this country down? Why do they need to cool down a country that is cold 80% of the time?