This brief but telling essay -- which some of you may have seen -- was submitted in answer to a call for papers on  "Solar Radiation Management" by the British Royal Society in November 2010.  -- REC

"Solar Radiation Management":  A Sunblock on the Light of Truth

The mission of science should be to discover the truth of nature; the mission of philosophy is to discover the nature of truth.  It is only when the nature of truth is respected that the truth of nature can be discovered.  Respect for the nature of truth is called intellectual and moral honesty, and it is intellecual and moral honesty that would seem to be lacking in this call for papers on the feasibility and desirability of what is here being euphemistically termed "solar radiation management".  This is because what is being benignly portrayed here as being merely proposed has, for at least the past fifteen years, been clandestinely practiced, against the very ethics by which authentic, ethical science is supposedly to be governed.
 
Among the ethical and legal principles of science which "solar radiation management" aka "geoengineering" aka "persistent airborne aerosol spraying" aka "chemtrails" violates are the Precautionary Principle, the Principle of Informed Consent, the Disclosure of Initiating Parties, the Nuremberg Principles Concerning Experimentation on Civilian Populations, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutional rights of the peoples of various nations over which such aerial "solar radiation management" is presently being practiced without either public approval or credible explanation.
 
If, as this request for papers implies, the purpose of "solar radiation management" is benignly to prevent global warming, why is it even now being done in secret, since many of the now environmentally conscious public would accept this explanation if it were publicly given?  Why is its genesis, technology and those responsible for what we see as persistent airborne aerosol spraying in our skies throughout the world always kept unknown to us?  Why is this institute, like so many academic, military and government institutions, and major environmental organizations engaging in the deception that they have no prior knowledge of that which can be so readily observed by all who simply choose to look up and without preconception behold the sky?
 
Empirical observation is the first step of the scientific method.  It is the empirical observation of many throughout the earth that our skies are being filled by aircraft-delivered manmade clouds that wash out their color and blot out the sun. Further, it is the observation of many independent -- as opposed to government, corporate and academic-affiliated -- researchers that these lingering web-like manmade clouds are composed of toxic heavy metals, known pathogenic organisms and unknown nanoparticulate and cellular configurations, the latter capable of passing the human blood/brain barrier into the human brain and nervous system with heretofore unforeseen consequences.
 
It is also a fact that a certain transnational agricorporation has filed for a patent for heavy metal-resistant genetically modified seeds.  This includes the very toxic heavy metals that have been determined by independent scientific researchers as being present in persistent toxic airborne aerosol spraying that your organization implies does not yet exist in a call for papers to comment on a present practice as if it were a future theoretical possibility.
 
It would seem that, even as sunblock deflects sunlight from the human body, and allegedly still-potential geoengineered persistent aerosol spraying deflects sunlight from the earth, such specious calls for academic papers as this one deflect the light of truth from authentic scientific and journalistic investigation.   It purloins time better spent in identifying and holding accountable those who covertly conduct such dangerous
experiments as these on civilian populations and their environment; those clandestine practitioners who officially and fraudulently claim to have only abstractly considered "solar radiation management" which, as practiced, violates fundamental scientific ethics, human and natural rights, and universal law.
 
--  Rebecca Em Campbell