November 28, 2018 By Joseph P. Farrell

This story from RT was sent by Mr. B., and Mr. K.H. (who echoed almost exactly my own high octane speculations about the article). It's one of those things that just leaves one somewhere in between shock, awe, and dismay, that the hubris of scientismists knows almost no bounds, especially when it comes to "solutions" for "climate change", or "global warming", or whatever the politically correct term for month is. But beyond my personal reaction to the story, there is something that shot my Suspicion Meter right into the red zone for some daily high octane speculation.

Scientismists, according to the article, are at least now openly talking about spraying particulates into the atmosphere to "dim the sun" and avert the dreaded environmental catastrophe. Of course, for most of the regular readership of this and other  alternative research websites, the spraying has been known about, observed, and commented upon for years. But we'll get back to that. Here's RT's version of the story:


Before I get into what sent my (and Mr. K.H.'s) Suspicion Meter into the red zone, I  cannot help but make an initial observation about the irony of the story. Ever since chemtrails and spraying became a topic of discussion within the alternative media, being first advanced on the late Art Bell's Coast to Coast AM radio talk show, the idea was met by the lamestream media as just another wacky kooky conspiracy theory. So I have to wonder, when scientismists advance the idea, does that make them wacky and kooky? Or does the idea suddenly become "acceptable" because scientismists have advanced it?

One has to wonder, too, why now? Is this a way merely of covering an activity that has been going on for some time with an acceptable narrative, one which might not be the case at all? After all, if one believes the alternative researchers who have been covering the story for some time, spraying heavy particulate metals into the atmosphere might indeed be a way of dimming the sun and helping to control climate change (or, conversely, making it much worse), but it could also be a  way to increase the electrical conductivity of the atmosphere for far more nefarious purposes.

Indeed, RT itself seems to wonder at the wisdom of such a proposal, and the scientismist hubris behind it:

With all the excitement over the “hypothetical” and “highly uncertain and ambitious” plan, there are no guarantees that it will not actually make things worse in a catastrophic sort of way. There is a suspicious lack of information about what ‘dimming the sun’ could possibly do to those of us who rely on it for basic things – like growing food, or not freezing to death.

Or perhaps the proposal is merely a subtle way to controvert the whole chemtrail meme that is a major topic within the alternative research field. After all, according to the story, no delivery systems currently exist to carry it out:

Instead, the study published in Environmental Research Letters discusses the potential costs and necessary technology to realize the ambitious, if not hubristic, plan. The researchers discuss a variety of potential ways to accomplish the large-scale ‘geoengineering’ project: planes, balloons, or even just shooting chemicals in the air with large guns.

Even apart from that, there’s a fairly serious problem with the proposal: no aircraft currently exists that could actually deliver the payload. Adapting an existing version of SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket has been ruled out, citing the cost.

The proposal suggests a launch could be accomplished within 15 years, with an initial cost of around $3.5 billion, followed by another 15-year running period costing an additional $2.5 billion – a relatively low price given the scale and significance of the project, they argue.

So there you have the subtle message: such a program could not possibly exist because it simply would cost too much (unless, of course, all that missing money might in part be funding such a scheme). But as for lack of delivery systems, frankly, I'm not buying it, and for one very simple reason: when I and two friends were driving up the San Joquin valley in California on our way to the San Mateo Secret Space program conference in 2014, we all saw, and smelled, the spraying being done.

But none of this is yet the part that caught my, and Mr. K.H.'s, eye. What caught our eye was the penultimate paragraph and RT's ever-so-suggestive interpretation:

Dr Phil Williamson, an Honorary Reader at University of East Anglia, critiqued the proposal, saying that nations which “continued to experience extreme climate events” might then “consider that solar geoengineering had been responsible” and would need to be compensated. In other words, cutting the earth off from the heavens might be a real liability issue. (Emphasis added)

With the strange fires in California, liability indeed becomes a problem, both for any prospective defendant, and, for that matter, for the plaintiff; after all, if there is a secret spraying project (as I believe there to be), then who does one sue? How does one identify the culprit, if it is shrouded in classifications and compartmentalization and is a "national security issue"?

But what caught my eye (and Mr. K.H.'s) was that very strange reference, not to dimming the light from the Sun, but rather, "cutting the earth off from the heavens." While the wording could be taken to mean dimming light from the Sun in a round about way, it leaves the door open for the implication that there is another agenda entirely, and that RT knows, or at least suspects, what it is. What that agenda may be, I do not know, but the language is suggestive of a siege mentality: the drawbridge is raised, the parapets are manned, and we wait... for "something"...

See you on the flip side...