FOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18 in class screening:
FOR THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21 in class screening:
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
Week #13-->Classroom Screenings: GEOENGINEERING - For and Against (ALT ASSESSMENT)
FOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18 in class screening:
FOR THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21 in class screening:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Takeaways Monday November 18th
ReplyDelete1: The theory is increasing the reflectivity of our world will reduce the effects of climate change. The ideas would be to add reflective particles into the atmosphere.
2: Would not eliminate climate change but would slow it. This would mean mitigation in climate change.
3: Not a new idea but had not been heavily discussed out of the fear it would make people think climate change is not as big of a risk as it is. But more recently people have started considering it due to all the issues we are trying to deal with.
4: Does not work as a substitute for cutting emissions so there will not be a need to continue using it forever. It will reduce damage to give us time to reduce emotions.
5: Due to how long greenhouse gases last we will see some change even if we stop using such fuels today. It will take time for the climate too balance.
6: We can never know what will happen until we do it for certain. That is why experimentation is used inorder to find out what will probably happen.
7: the atmosphere has a lot of noise in it so it is impossible to tell perfectly that CO2 is the leading cause of climate change. The world faces many problems and we are making imperfect progress.
8: It is worth considering that people are fallible and make mistakes. This means that if we mess up doing it it could cause a fair amount of damage to the environment.
9: The hard part is managing the system not developing the technology. We practically have the technology to do this process today.
10: Cutting emissions alone does not cause much of an impact so the individual will often not do it if they think others are also not. The issue is getting everyone to think that it is something to act on so we act together.
Question: If the primary issue is potential overuse of it should we come up with how to deal with the effects of over use before we have any use?
1. The temperature has been 1.5 degrees warmer since the industrial revolution. Is this because of the pollution from the industrial revolution? Or is it related to the sulfur and aerosol injections that are being released into the stratosphere?
ReplyDelete2. Injecting aerosol and sulfur would be a minuscule effect on global warming, but would increase tropical storm strength and frequency. Depending on where individuals are located this is potentially NOT worth the chances.
3. Super-intelligent drones controlling the sulfur injections are a possibility for the future. While other countries could release combating drones to scrub the stratosphere of these sulfur injections.
4. He believes that solar climate engineering is NOT an effective way of combating climate change. He does agree that we need to take efforts to alleviate the effects of said warming.
5. To reduce the risk of greenhouse gas warming we must be able to convince people that the weather damages from geoengineering will be much less than those from naturally occurring greenhouse warming. But this is a challenge because it is hard to convince people that we need to conduct trial and error efforts, which is scary.
6. If you don’t like warming, we can reduce sunlight reaching the earth, but by doing so there will be much more precipitation. It can not regionally bring global temps back to normal so the question is are these credible options? Some say these models are no better than the potential outcome of them.
7. Regional scales precipitation is not modeled well, therefore leaving us with a major unknown of what will occur in regions as a result of geoengineering. This may encourage more research, but more research will not help at this point, we need to just try it and see what happens or not implement the models. It is a game of Russian roulette.
8. Whose hand will be on the thermostat? The argument is that it would be the government. When would it start? Who could be trusted to make this decision? Some nations will want to be able to blame sulfur injections for potential environmental harm, which would make this a liability issue.
9. These fears make geoengineering an ethical and social issue before an environmental one because if the people don’t feel the support of the process there will be upset and fears as to what the cause of climate issues is. Different voices need to be heard, consideration must be given to all people who will be affected, therefore everyone!
10. Aerosol and sulfur injections are a flawed idea, seeking a solution to the wrong problem. Climate emergencies are framed to be such and are exactly when we should not try and mess with the weather systems.
Question: Who will be in charge of conducting questions to get all points of view from all people who would be affected by geoengineering in moments of climate emergencies. In order to really get all points of view, there will need to be an organization that can be trusted to collect true information and not manipulate it for their benefit. So who would this be?
1.Sulfuric acid has been added into the stratosphere in order to mimic natural functions and reduce climate risk. It is estimated 1 billion tons of sulfuric acid is annually infused into the atmosphere. This infusion is based in the interest of limiting Earth’s atmospheric levels of CO2.
ReplyDelete2.The taboo surrounding chemical trails and ionization is rooted in fear as discussed by the first speaker. The fear is not only in regards to confronting the looming climate crisis but also due to the fact that it is a drastic project to undergo. However in order to successfully mitigate the upcoming climate crisis we must address the reality of our warming planet.
3. “We can never know for certain how this [ionization] works”, but, “like it or not we are in this situation… and the consequences of that are unpredictable.'' The unpredictability of humans own atmospheric experiments is also voiced concern. Sub-scale tests can test specific risks in order to more accurately make predictions of how ionization and other geoengineering projects will directly affect the environment and Earth’s climate.
4.So the uncertainty of both our own experiments and the changing climate, an unpredictable timescale,and various politics involved in the globally funded atmospheric experiments also contributes to the taboo nature of chemical trails. However if these realities are not addressed further discussion and the diversification of thoughts becomes absent which is even more dangerous in terms of scientific experimentation at this scale.
5. In terms of alternatives to cutting CO2 emissions the second speaker discusses putting a price on carbon. However, he points out the global surety is necessary for successful carbon pricing worldwide. He illuminates the necessity for all sovereign nations to participate in order to make this system a reality. He explains that it is rationale for countries to not volunteer lead the way in carbon pricing because it can not be done alone.
6. As a globe, we have almost achieved zero progress in terms of CO2 reduction since identifying the problem and also having the technology able to mitigate emissions in some fields. This needs to change and these men argue that geoengineering is the answer.
7. Globally funded campaigns have voted on geoengineering projects and in the past members did not exercise veto in regards sulfuric acid injection into Earth’s atmosphere. An example of this mentioned in the discussion is when french military planes released sulfuric acid aerosols into the atmosphere.
8. Today we know that climate loss and damage is due to regionalized and local weather. The hope of these men is that geoengineering will help control these unpredictable and sporadic weather conditions.
9. Through the most uptodate cloud models we are able to generally predict weather with very low accuracy. The hope is that geoengineering will help these models become much more accurate and efficient in regards to predicting and controlling the weather.
10. One of my favorite quotes from this discussion is that the, “climate emergency was not discovered it was made by political actors”. This ideology is important in terms of responsibility. If the climate emergency was heavily influenced/caused by political actors, is it really the best solution to let these same political actors dictate the behavior that they believe is “necessary” for their so-called solution?
Monday November 18
ReplyDelete1. "Geoengineering is not sided by scientists". It's important to debunk those claims right at the beginning - this is the attitude that these speakers start their discussion with. It seems like the people in this group are not open-minded about the causes of climate change.
2. Someone in the audience asked the speakers about the actual science behind the CO2 and SO2 in the atmosphere. The speakers are extremely rude and quiet when asked real questions about science. These people COMPLETELY avoid the questions about ACTUAL science!
3. Earth system models are "not reliable" for things like precipitation for local locations. All models show that geoengineering cannot change climate change. "Are they actually credible?"
4. This speaker believes there are strengths and weaknesses of earth climate models. He does not have great faith in these models to use in the UN and the IPCC. Model reliability does not consider every piece - "we need more research".
5. Local weather needs to be researched and monitored while injecting sulfur into the atmosphere. "Local climate control is implausible". Deploying this technology is just such a big risk that there is no real way to know what will happen.
6. "This technology would be ungovernable". The speaker discusses that the study should be secure, but not through the government. He does not believe the UN has done the job well to keep the research secure.
7. Climate models need to be improved to be reliable for greenhouse gas emission evidence. The speaker mentions that many nations believe that their climate has changed because of sulfur injection, not green house gas emissions. "The UN is not able to provide sustainable government duties" for climate change.
8. Climate engineering needs to be governed - he basically believes it should be handled by the scientific world with more research. The "global thermostat" is not a reliable source to better humanity. Powerful and powerless people/countries
9. Some people argue that sulfur injection would be against human rights. There are surer ways to reduce green house gas emissions. The speaker believes controlling the climate with geoengineering is not always about science. This speaker shows a great deal of risk assessment perspective!
10. "We kill 1 billion people a year from sulfur injection. They are concentrated where they live". This statement seems radical because there is no scientific evidence behind it. They didn't have any charts or data to present to the audience.
Q: How can these men patronize the audience's questions and be so against the scientific evidence when geoengineering IS science?
The case for and against climate engineering
ReplyDelete1. By trying to use climate engineering to combat climate change we may be making it worse. There is no way to see if climate engineering will work unless it is attempted, however, the consequences could be huge.
2. The only way to lessen the amount of carbon in the atmosphere,is to stop emitting carbon into the atmosphere. CO2 bioaccumulates in the world and in our environment therefore there is no quick fix to our current carbon issues.We will have our current footprint of carbon for the next century.
3. The atmosphere has so many varibulities it is hard to say with exact certainty what the effects are on it. Carbon is in the atmosphere but it is hard to understand what it is doing because of all of these variabilities.
4. Technology is not the hard part of this problem. The problem is creating institutions that support and manage these technologies.
5. He believes that most people would vote to put a price on carbon, or limit carbon usage, if they believed that everyone else was also doing it. The most people to sign on the best outcome.
6. The world has known about the climate problems since the 1960s and it became politicized in the 1990s. Nothing really has been done and not because we do not have the capabilities but because there has been no coordination.
7. They are finding how much sulfur and aerosols should be administered into the atmosphere. They want to see how much the initial injection and how much to administer every year after.
8. There is the fear that this will become an international dispute of who is in power will try to control the aerosol injections to best suit their needs. There are countries that benefit from climate change and some that do not. As well there could be civilians or companies that take this on as well.
9. One of the most known side effects currently of aerosol injection is a small increase in natural disasters. However, some countries are affected by natural disasters much more and therefore these sprayings are not fair.
10. Climate engineering may have the potential to lower the global climate temperature.However, they can have major effects on local and regional weather cycles. Precipitation is the most largely affected factor.
Question: Is it smart to test whether or not the climate engineering is effective or safe on the only planet we have?
1. We cannot know all of the climate effects of GE or even carbon dioxide even with testing. Everything is changing so it is impossible to perfectly tell what will happen.
ReplyDelete2. Coal, oil, and gas continue to be burned worldwide. The IPCC’s goal is to give the solutions and goals that countries need to take to reduce further climate warming.
3. Sulphur is being put into the atmosphere to cool the climate. This is championed by militaries of various countries.
4. Altering the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth would cause cooling but it would also cause a lot of other consequences. Rainfall could be highly reduced and many other effects, so altering one thing will alter another.
5. Models are useful to attempt to show simulations and predictions, but models are inherently inaccurate. Technology has to be agreed upon and improved globally in order to be effective.
6. If every country got on board with things like carbon taxing, this would go through much faster and more efficiently. You can compare this to a dog who walks ahead but always continues to look back to make sure its walking buddy is still following.
7. Nations are able to blame the climate problems on greenhouse gases rather than sulphur injections. This technology needs to be better understood.
8. GE is seen differently with everyone which is a big reason why it isn’t catching on. Something like renewable and clean energy are a point of less contention.
9. We have spent the last 25 years trying to mitigate the risks of climate change, but we are being foolish in how we deal with it.
10. There was a big focus on weather control in the 60s and 70s but it didn’t work very well. There are systematic reasons why it would alter the climate though.
Question: what leverage points could we use to bring countries together to meet some sort of universal agreement? I realize there have been things like the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol, but we need to include marginalized voices and consider comprehensive science.
David Kieth
ReplyDeleteKeep emitting CO2 does not end in a good outcome
Our future depends on how much carbon we put in the atmosphere
It's impossible to make CO2 go away immediately
Can't geoengineering at full scale because the atmosphere is full of “noise”
Cutting emissions is hard because of coordination of public support
The country that wants the most will get what they want
Mike
Globally coordinated public campaigns of injection of sulfur
Drones are responsible for delivering sulfur
Aerosol induced cooling increased 4 points of degrees in 2030
NAtives vs oil industry
2034 geopolitical confusion
Local climate does not help reflect global warming
Core Claim - weather damage of solar engineered climate will be less than natural and greenhouse gas only climate - how can you determine which is which
Geoengineering does not scale so people for it say they need bigger and better climate models
People argue against it because it would be a violation of natures integrity
The risks greatly outweigh the benefits, it's about values far more than it is about science
Question: Why did neither address the fact that geoengineering is currently happening? What would happen if it stopped completely
1. It is impossible to know the full impact of geoengineering. This is in part because everything is changing so quickly. Also, because of the secrecy surrounding the issue.
ReplyDelete2. If we altered the sunlight reaching Earth, it would cause cooling. However, there would also be other impacts. These impacts would include reduced rainfall. Every action causes another.
3. Models can be used as a tool, but cannot be fully accurate. We need more research and consensus in order to come to conclusions.
4. There is the question of who exactly would be in control. In this case, it would be the government. Then we have to think of who we trust, and what they would do with the power.
5. Sulfur injections are the wrong solution to the wrong problem. The climate should not be regulated in this way. Since we are already experiencing negative climate impacts, we should not try to alter it any more.
6. Sulfur injection technologies could be a bad idea. It needs to be studied to see how safe or dangerous it is. The problem is, you cannot test sulfur in the same ways that you can test other substances, which makes it difficult to come to a conclusion.
7. There are points made against even testing this technology. This argument states that it is a social issue above anything else. It may even be a breech of democracy and ethics.
8. Could temperature increase be due to sulfur injections? Temps have only gone up throughout history. Is this because of what we think it is?
9. People tend to act together. This means that in a crisis, people tend to band together and act with each other. This is negative when it comes to climate change, because people can also ~not~ act together, and do nothing to mitigate impacts.
10. Greenhouse gasses last a long time. This means they will be in the atmosphere long after we even start to make positive change, if we even do that.
Question: Just because we can, does that mean we should? Where should science stop?
1. The hard part is not the tech or science, it’s how we handle it.
ReplyDelete2. If everyone in the world was sure that everyone else was going to do it, then people and countries would be much more open to carbon tax. If only one country creates a carbon tax, it won’t do much overall. However, if all countries created carbon taxes and limited emissions, everyone would be more inclined to do so because we recognize that we will see the improved benefits of these reduced emissions sooner.
3. The main issue is cooperation of public support. The country that wants to emit the highest emissions will do it and the rest follow.
4. We can only truly reduce emissions with the effort from these large institutions that have control.
5. Speaker asks you to look to 2032 in the midst of extreme climate crisis. The population is around 8 billion, coal, oil, and gas are continued to be burned. There is discussion of aerosols, sulfur, pumped into the atmosphere
6. Speaker doesn’t believe that the models projecting climate with sulfur in the air properly show what the atmosphere will be like, along with the political climate and how that impacts things.
7. Following sulfur injection, nations could blame it on greenhouse gases rather sulfur. We need to better understand tech incase we need to deploy it in the future.
8. Climate emergency is not discovered, it is constructed. People who lack a voice, like small nations and indigenous people need a voice in these issues.
9. Some claim that geoengineering ruins the natural planet. However, the speaker thinks that the biggest problem is the social issues that goes with it. Investment in clean energy is a better way to go. Geoengineering could be looked at by two people and they could get a completely different opinion on it.
10. This technology trades off one set of punitive damages for a different set of damages. It opens the issue of military conflict. It is one wrong idea to the big problem of the climate crisis.
Question: Is geoengineering the direct result of risk assessment created in WWII to take out enemy powers that has since snowballed into the product of risk assessment for the climate crisis and climate control?
Video 2
ReplyDelete1: It is possible that Chemtrails are causing diseases in those in the areas it is sprayed. We are seeing increased amounts of aluminum showing up in people. Increasing about of things like autism and ALS.
2: Pilots noticing grids off the cost that wind would move over towns and cities. Also spotting what looked like other planes spraying chemicals.
3: The auto correct translation made the entire thing feel less serious and almost like a joke. It just does not give credibility to the issue.
4: The talk with the debunker made a lot more sense than many of the other people as he talked about what evidence he has actually found. He said there was no evidence showing that such chemicals and was more if people are paying attention. We should focus on more important things.
5: There is no evidence that contrails have changed since the 1970s only gotten more frequent. Just going from the evidence it is far more likely people are jumping to conclusions with chemtrails.
6: Flight traffic can affect climate change even if there are no chemicals involved due to the effect contrails can have on the air. About 20% of flights from contrails, and 20% of them can last an hour or more.
7: Contrails disappearing depends on atmospheric conditions and most of the time people don’t notice them. People will notice them and think something is suspicious but that is because they have not yet looked into it and take observation without information as truth.
8: It sounds from much of what people were saying when they were talking about the government or to them is putting words into their mouth and saying all the information is lies and cover ups. What is the point of asking questions if you don’t believe the answers? This is just taking what you consider to be answers and discarding everything else.
9: Scientists encouraged to make weapons in order to protect free countries during world war 2. This idea that it is the duty of inventors to create military based inventions.
10: The idea of geoengineering did not take off until the 1990s a decent amount after the issue of contrails being seen. In 2006 the idea of geoengineering was reintroduced and actually considered.
Question: When did the question of chemtrails first come about? I would be interested to learn how the idea was something people thought of.
11/21 video
ReplyDelete1. “To save the climate with pollution” is such a strange notion, but one that is being executed. Chemtrails do exactly this and they lead to chronic diseases like autism.
2. Chemtrails could be a method of distracting people from other problems. This could be dangerous because other crucial issues could be neglected in the wake of chemtrails research.
3. 11,500 liters of jet fuel are consumed each second from planes. This industry is huge and there is a lot of room for secrecy.
4. The public is not receiving the information openly so there is a lot of confusion. This is a deliberate operation and the groups are deliberately secretive about it.
5. We can assume the clouds are manipulated by the particles people put into the atmosphere, which, in turn, alters the climate due to albedo and other factors. Aerosols have a large impact on how the climate functions and we have known this for many many years.
6. In Switzerland, random dispersal of chemicals is forbidden, so this theory is impossible and has no foundation. This statement assumes that no one does anything behind closed doors and that every country is this trustworthy.
7. Aluminum, barium, and strontium are said to be increasing in the atmosphere, but the German Aerospace Center hasn’t tested for the chemicals, because they have no reason to test for these substances which is a bit strange.
8. If flight traffic was the main source, the effects would be felt all over including urban and rural locations alike. These substances would homogeneously spread in the atmosphere.
9. Organizations admit to not having conduction their own research/calculations but still claim that the trails are merely contrails and not chemtrails. They blindly trust scientists instead.
10. It is not absurd for substances like aluminum and barium to be found at such heights, so the excuse that there is no reason to measure for them is not founded on a factual basis. We are being poisoned every day by these substances which is definitely an environmental injustice to everyone, especially those who have no idea that chemtrails are an occuring phenomena.
Question: what organizations ARE recording the levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium, and why can we not focus on including scientists in this conversation? There seems to be a lot of disconnect between different disciplines which should not be the case, so why can’t these disciplines come together to establish a well-rounded arguable theory?
Thursday November 21st
ReplyDelete1. Only 20%-25% of planes create contrails. It really depends on the temperature of the air and the climate where the planes are flying. This can cause contrails to stay in the sky much longer (making them seem like something suspicious)
2. Putting sulfur into the stratosphere is what volcanoes do. Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb, created particles to help cool and warm the earth.
3. Geoengineering is no longer a taboo in science. Paul Crutzen, nobel prize winner, helped this by his research.
4. The Russians had experiments for geoengineering and saw that it "worked". David Keith wrote a book about it.
5. "Chemtrail theory is baseless". It is impossible to do it in secrecy in Europe. There is no foundation, which means there is no need for an investigation.
6. There is no official side of chemtrails, but chemtrails have not been disproven either. There's no probability that the theory even is correct.
7. GreenPeace is not focusing on chemtrails. They don't focus on chemtrails because they have more important situations and issues to put their full focus on. They do not deal with "this might be happening" issues. They use hard scientific evidence.
8. "If it didn't come from the spraying, where did the aluminum come from?" There has not been an alternative answer for this. It has not been proven to be anything specific.
9. Filaments falling from the sky in France. A man tested these filaments. All contained compounds called Phalates.
10. Filaments do not dissolve. France is "covered" with these filaments. Morgellons is a weird disease that has "effected" people. These fibers are little plastic pieces from the particles that have been breathed in. There is no proven disease.
Q: Why aren't the high aluminum and barium levels taken seriously in the scientific world?
- Based off of eye-witness accounts of grid-like/vertical clouds of particulates over parts of California, scientists tested the towns “pristine” water source for particulates connected to the trails observe. Levels of various trace elements were found to be present in the water source.
ReplyDelete- Plant life in the community was also tested. Dangerous amounts of aluminum and barium found in soil. Further, this is reason to believe soil levels will be affected from the atmospheric geoengineering that is occuring today.
-Aluminum oxide forms placed within your arteries shutting down life. Aluminum is an example of a trace element that is currently being used in the ionization of the atmosphere.
-A great analogy used for the importance and delicacy of the atmosphere is: image that the, “Atmosphere as thin as a layer of paint on a basketball”. If this was stressed more within the education system maybe people would slowly start to understand the complexity of this issue.
-Geoengenering is not only currently happening, but it has been happening. These elements have been dissipating and falling on our communities, families, animals, and the environment around us. This is an issue because some elements such as aluminum are accumulaistic.
-Arizona Senator says that, “the concern is off the charts”, and that the increase of diagnosed cases of, “Altimerz has skyrocketed”, further a cause of altimeriz is the accumulation of aluminum in the brain
-Regular aluminum levels are measured naturally at 2ppm, currently atmospheric aluminium levels are at 39000 ppm.
OVERCAST
ReplyDeleteFlight traffic changes the series of cloud cover which has a bigger climate impact
Flight traffic is not regulate nor the CO2 emissions nor the fuel
Policy around flight traffic can help mitigate the climate impact of planes
Pollution in the sky without the public’s consent, deliberate alteration of the planet’s atmosphere
Edward Teller was lobbying for geoengineering
Reflecting sunlight allows for more CO2 emissions
The german aerospace center has not tested for suspected chemicals of aluminum or barium
People refer to these organizations for information and proof about chemtrails
They were looking for aluminum and barium in the past but have since ceased to continue testing
Question: How can we get more policy and regulation in regards to air quality and pollution, especially from planes?
1. Government contractors are hired to spread fake information on chemtrails on facebook and websites. This retired man says that there are no chemtrails and that they are normal contrails. He says to stop focusing on fake information and look at the facts.
ReplyDelete2. Flight traffic has doubled in the last 15 years and over 11,000 liters of jet fuel is consumed her second. Flight travel is only expected to continue to increase.
3. Flight traffic is not regulated globally in any climate treaty on CO2 emissions or flight traffic. Researchers are trying to find better ways to reduce the climate impact of contrails.
4. There are times and places on earth where contrails cool and thus cool the earth. Places where contrails heat, it warms the earth.
5. Not all planes form contrails- only 20-ish% do. It depends on how much ice nuclei form.
6. Independent researcher asks, is it simple to you that chemtrails are polluting the earth, harming your children, with no one knowing.
7. Aerosol expert says the outputs we produce are changing the clouds depending on how much aerosol or other chemicals we spew out.
8. Random dispersal of chemicals is forbidden, so there is no basis for this theory. This was stated by the Swiss who have also mentioned Germany in backing them up.
9. Greenpeace does not believe chemtrails exist. They state they haven’t done the research but discussed with experts.
10. The film states that governments and environmental organizations should not “blindly trusts scientists”.
Question: How exactly does the temperature affect contrails?
No real evidence that there is anything out of the ordinary or that they’ve changed, he is supporting this with old books that say ‘contrails can last for hours’.
ReplyDeleteAnother person says that cloud cover produced by flight traffic is a bigger contributor to global warming in the past year than all the other CO2 produced from the whole history of aviation.
There are places in the sky that if you fly there you cool the earth, and if you don’t fly in spots that warm the earth you are also cooling the earth. This is not geoengineering, it is just taking advantage of what we already know.
Doctors attribute people’s reactions to the fallout of chemtrails as Morgellons disease. Claiming that their sickness is all mental.
There are threats of national interest because of chemtrails. Geoengineering could be used to manipulate weather “the nation that controls the weather controls the world’
Applications of weather warfare started with the Vietnam war. We must acknowledge that these weapons exist and will be used to gain power.
Powerful storms will endanger the population. Major flooding, fires, and wind storms have the potential to be increased or decreased depending on what strategy weather modification is used.
We have to act together to cut emissions we can’t wait for geoengineering to fix the problems. Even though we aren’t sure what the outcome will be, but that’s why we have to keep trying new things.
Green peace doesn’t believe in chemtrails...why is this? They are usually ready to combat the government’s hidden secrets about environmental issues.
Babies are being born with not fully developed brains because of the chemicals in the air from chemtrails.
People are lobbying for geoengineering saying it is the best solution.
Question: How do we get the government to tell the public about the ways in which weather modification is being used currently.