GeoEngineering -The Congressional Research Service

The Congressional Research Service has released its new report on Geoengineering for members of the U.S. Congress on August 16, 2010. The U.S. House Science & Technology Committee will release their interim and final reports on their Geoengineering Hearings in September 2010.

From Source-
"One of the ideas is "The U.S. House Science & Technology Committee and the UK Parliament have engaged in an agreement to participate in geoengineering discussions and the possible implementation of global geoengineering governance proposed by the Royal Society and several climate scientists."
Scary huh?
Many proposed chemicals or particles used in these geoengineering schemes (i.e., U.S. Navy/NASA C.A.R.E. experiment deployed September 19, 2009), are likely to be toxic to humans, marine mammals, oceans, fish, wildlife, food pollinators, and birds. Many of these toxic chemicals, like sulfur, have the potential to contaminate drinking water, soil, cause acid rain or air pollution, and may impair human health, from lack of Vitamin D, by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth.

3) NASA research studies show that increasingly persistent jet contrails may turn into “man-made clouds” (or white haze), and are “…trapping warmth in the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming…Any change in global cloud cover may contribute to long-term changes in the Earth’s climate…” No current U.S. legislation addresses water vapor and aviation impacts on the global atmosphere. In addition, our scientists do not appear to be funding or working toward reducing or eliminating this problem. What happens when additional programs are put in place to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth when we already have man-made clouds dimming the sun and exacerbating global warming?"


Source-

agriculturedefensecoalition.org...

Is this part of the Chemtrail conspiracy? Do you agree or disagree with GeoEngineering?

To understand anything like this, you need to "follow the money". These folks are never on a humanitarian effort no matter how much they justify. Pick up the rocks and look under them and you will find they are seeking a pot of gold at the end of their self engineered rainbows. With GW for instance we see leaders like Gore who stand to make billions and researchers protecting huge amounts of funding. No mun, no fun.

Science is so bastardized now that it has become entirely about politics and money; while any idea of noble purpose left long ago. It's about which lie will get me the most funding or which lie will enrich me personally through my investments.

For all it's advancements, science cannot predict the weather 30 days or even 15 days out. They know it. We know it. That means its all about inventing facts to back up the theories which lead to the most money. What we do know is that whenever science or the government take actions to supposedly help the environment or the wildlife, it always has unintended consequences and we always find out a few years down the road the science was wrong.

It's pure conceit whenever science believes it is advanced enough to tackle these topics, because they are still in their infancy of understanding these complex systems. No computers yet exist that could even model the scenarios they claim to understand. They know this. So, follow the money.

First, there is no "chemtrail" conspiracy, except to those proponents who cannot read or understand the sciences involved. Or that is how they make their living.

That being said, the site of the source is a part of that same conspiracy. They believe and posit that "chemtrails" are real, and causing all manner of ill. The page opens onto a report by Rosalind Peterson, a known lobbyist who believes in "chemtrails". She also believes that the lines and grids formed by planes flying in more than one direction are a way to paint a target from space, or some other silliness. She is a Ph.D, but not in meteorology. She also has a "chemtrail" internet site. Not an unbiased source.

I have carefully selected a reference on the "source" page, called "US GAO 200s Report Aviation Effects on Global Atmosphere".
GAO report Aviation Effects on Global Atmosphere

From page 11 of that report, is this statistic:

In the United States, aviation’s contribution to increases in human-generated greenhouse gases is about 3 percent and can be compared with the contributions of other U.S industrial sources. .

Further:

. Global aviation’s carbon dioxide emissions (measured in million metric tons of carbon) are a small percentage of carbon emissions worldwide

See how a biased source can exaggerate a claim? That a contribution of 3%, comparable with other sources, is proof of anything seems silly. What are the other 97% sources and how can they be managed? Who knows? It's not "relevent" to "chemtrails" so is not discussed.

Other references from the OP source seemed picked based on their title alone. For example, there are numerous reports concerning the release of pyrophoric chemicals from low-alt rockets to create both auroras and noculient clouds. These chemicals released are very reactive, burning completely upon contact with air or water. The amount released is very, very small. The scope of the experiment was very limited, and the reaction lasts just seconds to minutes. What do these have to do with "chemtrail"? It's an admitted reason for science to put some barium into the atmosphere. Does this somehow translate to "chemtrails contain barium"? Not if you read and understand the studies invovlved. Similarly, there are references to an Israeli/US collaboration of using radio waves in the atmosphere to perhaps predict earthquakes. Noises and lights before earthquakes is a phenomena known and written about since Pliny. It's is the reverse of the supposed by "chemtrail theorists" tacked-on comspiracy of HAARP being used to cause earthquakes. Why would this be included in such a list? It has nothing to do with aeronautics, meteorology, or geo-engineering.

Geo-engineering is the new buzzword for "chemtrail" (although the field of "chemtrails" have many myths about the who, what, and why). It is not a conspiracy, it is being opening discussed and studied by many different disciplines from many nations for many entities. There is no consensus if it would work, how it would work, or if it is a benefit or detriment. It happens everyday that man has ever burned a fire, or produced smoke or dust from industry.
It is not new, it is not being implemented purposely on any scale, and is NOT part of any "chemtrail conspiracy".
Because there is no conspiracy outside the inner workings of overactive imaginations.