Carnegie Science Study Finds Contrails Not Part of Covert Climate ManipulationBy Derrick Broze Researchers with Carnegie Science at the University of California Irvine and the nonprofit Near Zero have published a study which claims toconclusively debunkthe possibility of an alleged secret government aerosol spraying program. The study,Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program, waspublished in the journalEnvironmental Research Letters. We find broad scientific consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program. Our goal is not to sway those already convinced that there is a secret, large-scale spraying programwho often reject counter-evidence as further proof of their theoriesbut rather to establish a source of objective, peer-reviewed science that can inform public discourse in the future by seriously addressing the underlying concerns of science, governance, and public trust. We therefore offer the first peer-reviewed expert response on SLAP data, from both atmospheric scientists with expertise in condensation trails and geochemists working on atmospheric deposition of dust and pollution. The authors of the studyconducted a survey of the leading contrail and atmosphere scientists to find out if there was sufficient evidence to support claims of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program (SLAP). The contrail and atmospheric experts overwhelmingly rejected evidence cited by believers of what is sometimes known as the Chemtrails Conspiracy. According to the Chemtrails Conspiracyweather modification programs are actively taking place in our skies, and the normal contrails created by planes are actually geoengineering programs being covertlycarried out. The chemtrails label comes from the portion of the crowd that believes these programs are delivering dangerous chemical additives to the food, water, soil, and humans below for nefarious purposes. According to a 2013 congressional report: In general, geoengineering technologies are categorized as either a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method or a solar radiation management (SRM) (or albedo-modification)method. CDR methods address the warming effects of greenhouse gases by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CDR methods include ocean fertilization, and carbon capture and sequestration. SRM methods address climate change by increasing the reflectivity of the Earths atmosphere or surface. Aerosol injection and space-based reflectors are examples of SRM methods. SRM methods do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but can be deployed faster with relatively immediate global cooling results compared to CDR methods. The researchers at University of California Irvine and Near Zero used the Web of Science database of citations to identify authors of the most-cited peer-reviewed papers concerning contrails and atmospheric conditions between the years of 1994 and 2014.The researchers write: Nearly 17% of people in an international survey said they believed the existence of a secret large-scale atmospheric program (SLAP) to be true or partly true. SLAP is commonly referred to as chemtrails or covert geoengineering, and has led to a number of websites purported to show evidence of widespread chemical spraying linked to negative impacts on human health and the environment. To address these claims, we surveyed two groups of expertsatmospheric chemists with expertize in condensation trails and geochemists working on atmospheric deposition of dust and pollutionto scientifically evaluate for the first time the claims of SLAP theorists. The teamsearched the terms contrails, atmospheric deposition, aluminum, barium, or strontium to narrow down the results to scientists working on those elements. The study defines contrail expert and atmospheric deposition expert as a person who co-authored one or more of the 100 most-cited papers in the search. On average these experts had been professionally active for 26 years and 22 years, respectively. After identifying220 contrail experts and 255 atmospheric deposition experts, the researchers narrowed it down to 49 contrail experts and 65 atmospheric deposition, a total of 77 purported experts. The surveys asked the experts to examine data from websites that promote the narrative that covert geoengineering programs are taking place. These include Geoengineering Watch (geoengineeringwatch.org) and Global Sky Watch (globalskywatch.com). Individuals who assert the existence of such a SLAP assume different purposes of the program, the researchers wrote. Initially, the most commonly inferred goals were control over population, food supply, and/or the weather. The two surveys examined four photographs of trails made by airplanes that are alleged to be active geoengineering, and elemental analyses of water, soil and snow samples that are supposed to contain high levels of toxins. The researchers were asked if they had ever come across evidence that might indicate the existence of SLAP. The results show that 76 0f 77 scientists said they had not encountered evidence of a secret aerosol program. The scientists also said evidence provided by the websites could be explained by typical airplane contrails and poor data sampling. The experts say that none of the pictures showed anything out of the ordinary and that the mechanisms behind the contrails are well documented in the peer-reviewed literature. Three different elemental analyses were looked at, including pond sludge alleged to contain high levels of barium, strontium, and aluminum; a sample of airborne particulates from Phoenix, Arizona; and a snow surface sample taken in July 2008 on Mount Shasta, California. The experts also examined two sets of instructions from the websites on how non-specialists can gather samples for testing. In both examples the experts overwhelmingly disagreed with the instructions (71% and 68%) and stated that the collection methods would contaminate the sample and alter the levels of elements. We wanted to establish a scientific record on the topic of secret atmospheric spraying programs for the benefit of those in the public who havent made up their minds, said Steven Davis of UC Irvine. The experts we surveyed resoundingly rejected contrail photographs and test results as evidence of a large-scale atmospheric conspiracy. Interestingly, the researchers did admit that contrails are indeed lasting longer, a claim that has been made by the chemtrail crowd for some time now. However, the experts in the study were divided in the reasons they provided for the longer lasting trails. Thirty-five percent believe that aircraft are flying higher, 22% say that modern and larger engines are producing more water vapor, 18% said that more plane traffic at higher altitudes creates more contrails, and 10% believe the decreased temperature of aircraft exhaust is behind the longer lasting contrails.Carnegies Ken Caldeira said its possible that the climate is causing contrails to persist for longer periods of time. Thats five different reasons for longer contrails offered by contrail experts. If the experts cannot even agree on what is causing the longer contrails should we readily accept the notion that there is nothing to the chemtrail theory?Despite the knee-jerk dismissal from many casual researchers, the theories might be grounded in reality. In February 2015, while speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Jose, California,Professor Alan Robock discussed the possibility that the CIA is using the weather as a weapon of war.Robock has done research for the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC)in the past.Hisfears mightnot be completely unfounded. In late June, John Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, spoke at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting, calling for more research into geoengineering.There is also the issue of a1996 U.S. Air Force document entitled Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather by 2025 which discusses a number of proposals for using the weather as a weapon. TheEnvironmental Modification Treatywas also signed by the United States and other nations to halt global weather modification.During the Vietnam War the US government operated covert weather modification programs under Operation Popeye. In 2012 it was revealed thatthe US Army sprayed toxic chemicals over the skies of St. Louis without informing the public. These individual pieces of knowledge might not specifically point to the existence of secret spraying program, but theydoindicate that the U.S. government will conduct covert programs for years before admitting it the public. Should we really expect these experts to be fully aware of what the government does behind closed doors? Regardless of where you stand, geoengineering has been a controversial topic in recent years, both as a subject of conspiracy research and environmental concerns. One of the reasons the topic is so controversial is because of the possible risks. At least one previous study has found that geoengineering could cause the white haze and loss of blue skies that Long is observing. According to a report by the New Scientist, Ben Kravitz of the Carnegie Institution for Science has shown that releasing sulphate aerosols high in the atmosphere would scatter sunlight into the atmosphere. He says this could decrease the amount of sunlight that hits the ground by 20%, as well as make the sky appear more hazy. Ironically, the promotion of geoengineering might actually cause more harm than good, including an increase in droughts. In February 2015, an international committee of scientists released a report stating that geoengineering techniques are not a viable alternative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat the effects of climate change. The committee report called for further research and understanding of various geoengineering techniques, including carbon dioxide removal schemes and solar-radiation management before implementation. The scientists found that SRM techniques are likely to present serious known and possible unknown environmental, social, and political risks, including the possibility of being deployed unilaterally. The report was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. intelligence community, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Department of Energy. According to a 2013 study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, if geoengineering programs were started and then suddenly halted, the planet could see an immediate rise in temperatures, particularly over land. The study, titled, The Impact of Abrupt Suspension of Solar Radiation Management, seems to indicate that once geoengineering begins, the programs cannot be suspended without causing the very problem the engineering was intended to solve. Is thisfirst-ever peer-reviewed study on geoengineering and covert weather modification programs really the nail in the coffin the mainstream media and science experts seem to believe? Or is this just another ploy designed to distract you from the pattern of Xs being sprayed in the skies above you? Let us know your thoughts below. Image: ddees.com Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for selfnewsPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter. Derrick is the author of two books: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion. Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact Derrick@activistpost.com This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link. My thoughts? Exactly. To say there is no evidence is absolutely absurd and proves beyond a doubt that those scientists are bought and paid for. More ignore what you clearly observe because we say it doesnt exist garbage. Spot the person who has never worked in the scientific field! Always nice when the flat earthers, bought off scientists and other government shills expose themselves for the cretins that they are. What do you say from whom? A Carnegie Study? Their first mistake was investigating contrails and not chemtrails. Oops, better luck next time. Would you trust your leaders to tell you the truth? No, which is why you have to trust replicable independent studies. None of which ever find any evidence for chemtrails. If my dear leaders said there was no GOD (not God nor gods) and they rightly did so because they had studied all of science and determined that there was no proof sorry, I know better IMnsHO and E (experience) but to each their own. I would never believe in something as vague and woolly and unprovable as a god. I accept that it is impossible to prove either way, but I see no benefit in believing in what seems to me very likely to be a man-made construct created in antiquity to keep the peasants compliant. As far as I can see, religion causes nothing but misery. I agree with you completely, and that was also my own view until I actually experienced (personal and primarily subjective) what I took to be God at the time, but when I thoroughly researched the entire field, I came to believe that the man-made institutions (religions) only related to their own version which is a God or god, not GOD. You are one religiously devout paid disinformant. Well then would you be so kind as to tell me where I can pick up my pay? After identifying 220 contrail experts and 255 atmospheric deposition experts, the researchers narrowed it down to 49 contrail experts and 65 atmospheric deposition, a total of 77 purported experts. How does 49+65 equal 77 ?!?!?!?!? i wonder what the ones they cut out would have had to say? Also, did anyone fly through various trails to test the composition of them? Instead of analyzing others data, why didnt they do this type of research directly? If no one is looking for the info, why would they think anyone would have it for them to see? Someone needs to go up there and fly some equipment through those trails, many of them, many many times not sift through other peoples work for an answer people probably havent been looking for. Also The results show that 76 0f 77 scientists said they had not encountered evidence of a secret aerosol program. So what did that one guy have to say then? Not included, conveniently. Bloody intellectual fools. GO LOOK AT THE DAMN TRAILS YOURSELVES! YOU CALL YOURSELVES SCIENTISTS??? I thought about the need for collecting samples from behind some of these planes, or at least trying to find out if they are all commercial jets, or military jets, and where they take off and land. This would be a dangerous task to say the least. Somehow, the chemicals need to get on the planes. Some think they are added to jet fuel. Some think they are injected into the exhaust. Can anyone get samples of jet fuel? Can anyone track fly ash or other metals like aluminum or barium to see if 100% of it can be accounted for? The US population would not be happy to discover we are being sprayed. Anyone who gets too close to the truth, if indeed it is occurring, risks being rubbed out. It will require courage and sacrifice. Carnegie doing science for Rockefeller, tells you this? You buy it? Ive got bridge I can sell you rather cheaply too. Care to write your check for two million dollars? The bridge? Oh its in Brooklyn, NY. I actually own it by way of some horse thieving one of my great, great, grandfathers did a while back. You pay me now, Ill get you the bridge over the next thousand years or so. Who wrote their report? Snopes? Thanks Carnegie Science at the University of California Irvine, I can quit worrying about the crap they are not spraying. Im sure its not aluminum and barium nano particulates and other crap. No, DO LOOK UP. Look up how contrails form. Then stop worrying about ridiculous hoaxes like chemtrails. There are enough real problems to worry about without filling your head with fantasies. Youd think an organization such as Carnegie Science at UC Irvine would have collected samples and analyzed them according to their own scientific principles instead of just looking at others work and criticizing that. Also, if there is such a weather modification program it is covert and just asking scientists if they have encountered evidence of such a program is ridiculous. When you see the names Carnegie or Rockefeller involved in any scientific discussion, you should be suspicious of the conclusions they reach. So covert that iut makes vast, lingering white stripes in the sky? Why doesnt someone point a a spectrometer or a spectrophotometer at one to see what elements and compounds are in a chemtrail? thank Gaia for some sense these well meaning trailers lack the same critical thinking as AGW chaps great to focus their energy against actual issues e.g. Fuku Flu fracking GMOs there is a lot to go around. Carnegie and Rockefeller? Good lord this lot are responsible for development of the AIDS virus. They ahve been actively involved with depopulation agenda for years and years! Seen it all now! What a bunch of absolute total and utter liars! Do they honestly think we are THAT stupid?! The majority of people ARE that stupid and lazy, only listening/watching/reading MSM, and all these scientists rely on that. It took me no time at all to see that this is a deliberately deceptive article, probably placed there to deceive anyone who is still ignorant of the spraying or on the fence about it. The very title contains the word contrails, and the article then goes on to use that term almost interchangeably with chemtrails, when the two terms describe decidedly different conditions. Most (if not all) planes flying at high altitude will leave some degree of contrail or trail of condensation. These trails are analogous to what happens when you first start up your automobile on a very cold morning. At first, there is a certain amount of hot air leaving the exhaust pipe that turns atmospheric moisture into steam, so that you have a short trail of steam. The same happens in aircraft, but when you look at the contrail, it is only a multiple of the planes length perhaps 10 times (and I admit, this number is just speculation off the top of my head). The contrails soon dissipate into the atmosphere and disappear completely. By contrast, the chemtrails remain following the aircraft that leave them. Like a plume of smoke, they widen and take on a roughly triangular shape, crossing the entire visible sky, and they remain for hours on end. About 14 paragraphs into this article, there is a photograph that clearly depicts chemtrails covering the entire sky visible in the picture. Normal condensate trails do not remain in the sky for hours and hours. Nor are these phenomena explainable as clouds, which have very definable shapes and movement. Never mind the egregious simple arithmetic error pointed out below by Tabbytha (After identifying 220 contrail experts and 255 atmospheric deposition experts, the researchers narrowed it down to 49 contrail experts and 65 atmospheric deposition, a total of 77 purported experts. How does 49+65 equal 77!?) The article is a piece of total deceptive propaganda. 