Source: The Disinformation Directory

Original story by George Monbiot in The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2015/dec/04/the-contrails-conspiracy-is-not-just-garbage-its-letting-aviation-off-the-hook

Response written by Marla Stair-Wood

George Monbiot is concerned about airplane emissions. He is so concerned about aviation emissions, he penned numerous essays on the subject since 1996, when he became a columnist for The Guardian. One would think the armies of geoengineering planes flying the last few decades contributing even more to CO2 levels while dispersing tons of aerosols into the atmosphere would also greatly concern Monbiot; however, according to him, he totally dismissed and ignored the issue of ongoing climate engineering until lately, when his friends and an editor of a highly visible environmental magazine urged him to investigate and report. In his area of the U.K., the look-up.org.uk site appeared to be very vocal on the anti-Geoengineering front, so he chose (exclusively, so it appears) this site as his research source.

The result of Monbiot's investigation (loosely applied) is a December 4, 2015 essay entitled: “The contrails conspiracy is not only garbage, it’s letting aviation off the hook too”. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2015/dec/04/the-contrails-conspiracy-is-not-just-garbage-its-letting-aviation-off-the-hook

What? Yes, he believes anti-geoengineering activists are protesting airplane emissions and makes the preposterous claim of climate engineering "nonsense" and "conspiracy theories" as the hinge pin responsible for the exclusion of plane pollutants from international negotiations on climate change, like the recent COP21 in Paris.

Readers of this essay should remember George Monbiot is obviously an intelligent, articulate, person. He holds a degree in Zoology from Brasenose College, Oxford. His professed dream job was once "to make investigative environmental programmes for the BBC" and for a time, he did attempt this role. He is now a prolific author whose work has a global reach of environmental/political, social/economic issues evidencing intricate knowledge of the inner workings of a power hungry matrix within world governments. His books have become rallying cries convincing thousands of readers of their power to resist globalization and new world order, to collectively free democracy from its current choke hold, and rewild the Earth. Monbiot loathes climate change deniers and weighs in heavily, not just for carbon emission reduction, but for radical personal carbon restrictions for all citizens; yet, despite all this, he refuses to acknowledge a main contributor of climate disruption – geoengineering.

For someone with Mr. Monbiot’s intellect and experience, it is more than a wee stretch to assume a little known group of activists, desperately attempting to expose climate engineering, who are met with denial and obfuscation from officials at all levels of government, have more power than the entire global aviation and fossil fuel industries combined in determining what will and will not be included in world climate agreements. The aviation industry has an 18 year history of procrastinating any substantial action to curtail emissions. In 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol negotiations pursued limitations or reduction of aviation emissions, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) said, and still holds to the idea, it was "too hard" to assign responsibility of emissions across international boundaries and bragged about the ICAO's recognition as "the global instrument for developed countries to pursue the limitation or reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greenhouse_gas_emissions_from_the_international_aviation_industry#Kyoto_Protocol_Provisions

Fast forward to the 2015 Paris COP21 agreement from which this small bit was removed: “pursue the limitation or reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, working through ICAO, with a view to agreeing concrete measures addressing these emissions”. The ICAO was delighted with the exclusion and thinks it is “a vote of confidence in the progress ICAO and the aviation community have achieved thus far."
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/12/icao-welcomes-the-cop21-agreement-which-excludes-any-measures-to-regulate-aviation-co2/

No, Mr. Monbiot, as you must know, it was not a group of anti-geoengineering activists who let aviation “off the hook”: it is simply the slippery nature of the fossil fueled aviation beast.

Still, even a shallow, one-sourced investigation usually reveals more than the conclusion reached by Monbiot. It is surprising his investigation did not uncover the existence of two entirely different animals from the same mother (facetiously appealing to his zoology background). Pollutants from jet fuel emissions and deliberate spraying of nano-particulates of heavy metals in the atmosphere are two extremely different issues connected to aviation. The first has existed since the dawn of aviation, and the second explored controlling the weather since at least the 50's and has greatly accelerated the last decade into the covert programs of today. One is a consequence of burning fossil fuel for aviation and reportedly responsible for 2% of the overall human-induced CO2 production. The other is a very arrogant and power hungry, documented effort to own and weaponize the weather/climate by dumping tons of extremely toxic substances into the atmosphere of the only planet we call home and denying it!

Anti-geoengineering activists do not condone the first (emissions) by condemning the second (toxic aerosol deployment). This is not an either/or situation. It is simply a matter recognizing the contamination from climate engineering as far worse than the comparatively small percent of Co2 contribution tagged on emissions. Because climate engineering is causal to the most dire environmental situation facing Earth today, short of nuclear catastrophe, it rates higher than emission concerns in the bigger picture.

Fact: Despite the aviation industry's attempts to confuse an already "cloudy" subject, there have been advances in technology to support reduction of emissions. High bypass turbo-fan jet engines in most planes today reduce emissions and are incapable of producing persistent trails except in the most rare and extreme conditions.

https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/high-bypass-turbofan-jet-engines-geoengineering-and-the-contrail-lie/

Knowing this should greatly increase curiosity of exactly what does cause the unnatural display of expanding trails covering our skies on any given day and in a variety of conditions. Even without this technology, the ice crystal condensation theory does not explain why we see persisting trails in dry, arid regions or why we see persistent trails one day and not the next in a sky with same conditions on both days.

Grids and other phenomenal, irregular flight patterns of the jets dispersing the expanding trails, or how they, more often than not, escape registering on flight tracking systems should at least make one wonder. If this isn't enough, voluminous video footage of planes with trails starting and stopping – spray on, spray off, on, off – should cause one to question how "vapor" trails could possibly behave in such a manner.

No, Mr. Monbiot, it is not simple plane emissions contributing to CO2 anti-geoengineers oppose. This is a fight to expose a deliberate program to manipulate the climate with supporting documents traced back to the 1940's.

As a matter of fact, several documents surfaced from the mid 1960's. Under the U.S. administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson, a special commission on weather modification from the National Science Foundation reported $7.2 million dollars was marked for weather and climate modification in 1966 with a recommendation to increase the amount by $20-30 million by 1970 and a $40-50 million increase each year thereafter. The report also stated any weather/climate modification attempts in potential conflict with federal programs were to be halted, federal agents and contractors were to be immunized from state and local interference, and protected from any liability of public dangers from the federal programs. Another document from the same commission in the same year clearly describes “management” of international impacts, legal and social ramifications, species disruptions, biological consequences and names The Department of Defense involvement. This is real and these operations were/are still not openly privy to the public or any body of oversight. The following links should help dispel Mr. Monbiot's "garbage" theory:

https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/Weather%20Modification%20-%20Programs,%20Problems,%20Policy,%20And%20Potential%20%28May%201978,%20784%20pages%29.pdf

https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/19680002906_1968002906.pdf

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822011730025;view=2up;seq=6;skin=mobile

The extensive (long as my arm) list of U.S. Patents for weather/climate modification dating back to 1920 through modern day should also be an enlightening discovery.

https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/an-extensive-list-of-patents/#more-3828

As you can see, the "fact sheets" Monbiot mentions in his essay, which supposedly debunk claims of ongoing geoengineering, are contradicted by the same governments producing them with their own revealing documents.

Patents list ingredients in the aerosol trails Monbiot refers to as "contrails" as nano-particulates of aluminum, barium, strontium, along with many others. These are heavy metals known to cause neurodegenerative diseases in humans and other species. The same substances are now detected in high quantities from blood, hair and urine analysis and are registering high in results of soil and water analysis from certified labs around the globe. Shouldn't one wonder why Monsanto is developing seeds resistant to the very substances these patents list? Even bees, one of our main pollinators, are testing positive for high levels of aluminum causing them to forget how to do what they do and contributing to colony collapse. Surely Monbiot's interest in zoology arms him with enough knowledge to know this is not normal. Yes these metals are naturally found in our atmosphere, but in bound sources, not free-form falling from the atmosphere and blowing around.

The Guardian, Monbiot's own publishing platform, posts countless articles weighing potential side effects of climate engineering which match current observable and documented events. Surely the list of consequences hasn't escaped him. We already have ozone depletion with dangerous levels of UVB radiation; disruption of natural hydrological systems causing extreme drought, floods, severe storms; interruption of photosynthesis via "global dimming" (20-25% of the sun's rays no longer reach the earth's surface) causing disruption of growing patterns and contributing to droughts. Yet, these events are dismissed siting climate change as the only culprit.

There are other indications of ongoing geoengineering which should garner attention. With global warming we should expect 7-8% more rain around the planet; however, we have increasingly severe droughts across the globe. We also have forest devastation from weakened immunity caused by heavy metal uptake and exposure to these wildfire promoting desiccants. These persistent trails Monbiot calls "contrail emissions" do not dissipate, but create a dangerous fallout. They create artificial cloud coverage fitting the Solar Radiation Management description and trap heat within the atmosphere which would naturally have an opportunity to escape. How does this help offset green house gas-induced warming? More to the point of this review, how can Monbiot return to ignorance of this issue if he truly cares about the current state of the climate? Any real investigation generally brings one to understand discussion of climate change without the inclusion of ongoing geoengineering is moot.

The site used for Mr. Monbiot's research of the geoengineering issue mentions how many people experience the Kubler-Ross stages of grief after realizing the truth of climate/weather manipulation and weaponization. I'm going out on a limb to suggest you, Mr. Monbiot, sir, may be stuck in the stage of "denial". Yes, climate engineering is shocking when first encountering the truth and even so after years of working to expose these programs; but, we have no time to coddle your denial or any other stage of grief or fear you may be experiencing as we have reached the tipping point, the sixth great mass extinction, the irrefutable evidence of life on Earth as we know it now changed detrimentally forever.

Perhaps there is still hope for you, George, to redeem yourself and encourage your readers to explore the issue of Geoengineering as a viable contributor to climate change, because as you state in your own bio: "Here are some of the things I try to fight: undemocratic power, corruption, deception of the public, environmental destruction, injustice, inequality and the misallocation of resources, waste, denial, the libertarianism which grants freedom to the powerful at the expense of the powerless, undisclosed interests, complacency. Here is what I fear: other people’s cowardice." http://www.monbiot.com/about/

Such altruistic goals are these. Please understand, everything you try to fight, everything you name as factors detrimental to the success of human society fall exactly at the root of the ongoing, globally covert geoengineering programs and explain how it all remains hidden in plain sight. While you are to be commended for the environmental attention of your work thus far, Mr. Monbiot, your condemnation of anti-geoengineering activists says you jumped on the proverbial band wagon of The Powers That Be, erroneously thinking that discrediting activists will safely keep the issue sealed from the public. Or, considering you may fear for your reputation, perhaps your essay is a lame attempt to bring back door attention to the issue? More likely, your essay suggests you ignored your own instincts and denied your own very capable investigative ability in order to arrive at a more comfortable position.

Calling activists (and apparently your own friends and the editor who encouraged you to open to the issue) "unhappy…conspiracy theorists creating unrealities…" when there is undeniable evidence to the contrary, should be beneath you. These activists courageously fight against the same things you claim to, but, in this case, you missed the mark. Sometimes it is not other people's cowardice we should fear, but, indeed, one's own.

-Marla Stair-Wood

• Contact George Monbiot here – http://www.monbiot.com/contact/
• George on Twitter – http://twitter.com/georgemonbiot