Chemtrails Are Now Taught in Schools
By William Thomas
March 29, 2004
 |
| One of the first things we teach our children is to recognize -- and obey -- stop signs. Unfortunately, some kids are being taught that we don't have to stop polluting the skies. In fact, some text books teach, polluting the skies could be a good thing! Credit: Gar Smith / The-Edge |
A is for Apple. B is for Boy. C is for Chemtrails.
At least this is what one American father found while paging through his child's science book. My friend was astonished to find seventh graders being taught about chemtrails. And geo-engineering their home planet.
The chemtrails section is found in the Centre Point Learning's Science Essential Interactions science book. Under "Solutions for Global Warming," section 5.19 features a photo of a big multi-engine jet sporting a familiar orange/red paint scheme. The caption reads: "Figure 1: Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen."
The logo on the plane says: "Particle Air."
Helping habituate children to a life under lethal sunshine and "protective" spray planes, this trippy textbook urges young readers to "Use Sun Block." But its authors are really referring to a sunscreen spread across the sky.
"Could we deliberately add particles to the atmosphere?" asks the text, before helpfully suggesting that "Burning coal adds soot to the air." You might be old enough to recoil at such a notion. But in a country where down is up and wrong is right, your kids could be learning that what used to be bad is a now good thing!
"It would be real interesting to see the politics of the folks putting this out." My friend suggests.
Running on Empty and Headed for the Rocks
In the current White House, those politics are as "crude" as invading oil-rich Iraq over a bogus nuclear threat -- while permitting Pakistan to export atom bomb materials to terrorist organizations in return for the chance at an election-boosting capture of Osama bin Laden by US forces in the Hindu Kush. [New Yorker, March 1, 2004]
So why shouldn't the same petty petrol politics produce textbooks for kids inheriting a nightmare? The connection is this: In order to briefly "stretch the glide" of the fast-looming end of cheap oil that will utterly transform life as we know it, America's unelected oil president recently revoked pollution regulations on more than 2,000 of the nation's biggest polluting coal-fired power plants.
Ironically, this move -- like so many others made by an oil-addled White House -- will only hasten an Earthwreck as shattering to all onboard as a lurching square-rigger striking a rocky reef. Except our spaceship is surrounded by the cold, irradiated vacuum of deep space.
It turns out that a single 150-megawatt coal-burning power plant produces more emissions than 300,000 cars. Termed an "Extreme Human Health Hazard" by the EPA, microscopic coal particles also rot lungs, stop hearts, kill lakes, choke cities -- and stunt the lives of school kids with deadly sulfuric acid rain. [AP August 27, 2003; Los Angeles Times, August 28, 2003]
Airborne soot also blocks sunlight, lowering greenhouse temperatures. Volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and Pinatubo -- and globe-circling soot from 1,000 burning oil wells during Desert Storm -- belched enough sulfur into the stratosphere to cause a plunge in world temperatures, temporarily slowing global warming.
World scientists looked at deliberately putting megatons more sulfur into a closed, recirculating atmosphere already smoggy enough to depress orbiting astronauts. And decided that a sulfur sunscreen is not a swift idea.
But not this Jr. High science text: "Creating either kind of sunscreen would be cheap," it tells young readers. As if "cheap" were the only consideration.
Even this claim is bogus. The section on the downstream costs associated with the health and environmental effects of massive coal pollution -- or the 10 million tons of a chemical sunscreen suggested by the late Edward Teller -- appear to have been left out of the textbook. Ditto the impact on the possibility of solar-powered economies and the cumulative impacts on kids, critters and plants on which our future depends.
 |
| Dawn of the Apocalypse? No, it's a shot of dusk over San Francisco. On this particular evening there was not a single "natural" cloud in the sky. The cloud-cover was a carpet of lingering, spreading contrails. Credit: Gar Smith / The-Edge |
Dimming Prospects
Scientists are finding levels of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface decreasing by almost 3% a decade. All those jet-propelled vacations and car trips to the corner store add up. Since 1960, 10% less sunlight has reached Earth's inhabitants. Levels of solar radiation reaching parts of the former coal-belching Soviet Union are down almost 20%.
In any greenhouse, the rule of a green thumb is that every 1% decrease in solar radiation results in a 1% drop in plant productivity.
Since the Jet Age took off in the 1960s, normal condensation trails from five million jet flights every year have been found to block 10% of sunlight across Europe and the USA. Over heavily trafficked Atlantic and American air-routes, artificial cloud cover caused by jet engine pollutants has increased 20%.
Measurements taken with a calibrated photometer by Clifford Carnicom in Santa Fe show a rapid reduction in sunlight -- from a value of 97% on a "clear day" to around 80% during the early stages of heavy chemtrailing. Using a simple UV radiation meter, this reporter has confirmed similar drops in sunlight beneath artificial "chemcasts" on Canada's West Coast.
Where Are the Pictures of People Planting Trees?
In a country whose self-appointed regime routinely censors scientific studies, at least some 7th grade science are more focused on indoctrinating kids with risky techno "quick-fixes" than conscious conservation and common sense.
Forget science. Another schoolbook shows a helicopter seeding the ocean with iron particles. These desperate "IronX" experiments did indeed trigger plankton "blooms" that, in turn, transferred tons of atmospheric C02 underwater as those carbon-inhaling critters eventually died and sank to the seafloor.
But, oops! The science book fails to mention that the resulting ocean blooms also sucked all available oxygen from the seawater, suffocating all marine life in massive, spreading "dead zones."
Where are the pictures of people planting trees, turning down thermostats, or bicycling?
William Thomas is the author of Chemtrails Confirmed (New 2004 edition). http://willthomas.net/booksandvideos.htm
Resources
For a good introduction to the world of chemtrails, visit:
www.chemtrailcentral.com
/www.chemtrails911.com
www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html
From Switzerland, Joe Fleury joe.fleury@hispeed.ch invited photographers to participate in SkyPaint, a "chemtrail competition." Worldwide activism is encouraged. Each monthly winner receives "an underground CD of your choice." The site is located at: http://homepage.swissonline.ch/SkyPaint
A Few Words from Jay Reynolds
On November 4, 2003, Joy Reynolds sent an email to The-Edge. The subject line read: "Gar Smith's Green Lies Exposed." The cover letter read: "Caught you red-handed, Gar. Eat it." The balance of the message contained the following comment posted on a Chemtrail website.
Gar Smith -- Green ECO-Hoaxer
This fellow Gar Smith is known to me because he was editor-in-charge of Earth Island Journal and was responsible for republishing an article by William Thomas, originally done for NEXUS magazine in Australia. Stolen Skies: The Chemtrail Mystery. Jet Trails in the Sky Used to Disappear. Now they Linger.
This ECO-CREEP knew exactly what he was doing, he knew that contrails persist, that it's not true "Jet trailed used to disappear," but he is such a hypocrite and typical eco-green liar he didn't give a damn about the truth. He is just another Berkeley conman like Throatee, and if I ever get the chance I'm gonne whip both their asses real good, that's a promise.
Perhaps I should add. That when I referred Gar Smith to this critique of the article he published by Thomas, Smith wrote back and said that "all of that will be addressed." He never did what he said he would. SO, he lied to me personally as well as to the several thousand subscribers to Earth Island Journal."
Gar Smith Responds
Some Background:
Before I could do any follow-up reporting on the chemtrail controversy, I was removed as editor of Earth Island Journal and assigned a new challenge as editor of Earth Island's on-line magazine, The-Edge. I passed the Reynolds critique along to the new editor with the suggestion that he consider running it as a letter-to-the-editor and invite Will Thomas to reply to the criticisms.
The Journal subsequently published the Reynolds letter as a full-page opinion feature on the last page of the Winter 2003 issue.
I eventually forwarded the following letter to the Journal:
To the editor
The Winter 2003 Journal featured a 680-word letter in the "Voices" section in which Jay Reynolds claimed that the article "Stolen Skies: The Chemtrails Mystery" (Summer 2002 EIJ) contained "many inaccuracies which [sic] deserve correction."
Reynolds not only failed to identify any factual errors in ThomasÂ’ article, he also failed to cite a single source to bolster his contention that the long-lasting contrails visible in today's skies are identical to the ephemeral contrails of 50 years ago.
Reynolds falsely declared that Thomas' article "leads the reader to believe that the contrails produced by 6,000 commercial airplane flights per day are actually military jet's spraying of various substances worldwide."
Reynolds argued that the public's concern over chemtrails is based on nothing more than "speculation, hearsay, and rumor, but no tangible evidence."
In his very next sentence, Reynolds indulges in unsupported speculation himself when he proposes that contrails have been lingering in the skies for hours "probably as early as the Spanish Civil War." (An inept comparison, since high-flying jet aircraft did not exist in 1939. The first jet, the XP-59A, didn't take flight until 1942.)
While Reynolds' attack was devoid of citations, Thomas' Journal essay was densely sourced, citing 32 individuals, officials, government agencies and institutional reports.
The sources cited by Thomas included: - News reporters,
- Air traffic controllers,
- Canadian military officials,
- The Associate Press,
- The New York Times,
- Science and Technology Review,
- The New England Journal of Medicine,
- The US Air Force,
- The US Navy,
- The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
- The Harvard School of Public Health,
- The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
- Hughes Aerospace,
- The US Patent Office,
- Physicist Edward Teller,
- US Representative Dennis Kucinich, and
- Canadian Opposition Defense Critic Gordon Earle.
In addition, Thomas extensively quoted USAF Col. Walter Washbaugh, an outspoken critic of "chemtrails."
Reynolds devoted several paragraphs to promoting the unsourced argument that jet pollution is "relatively small" since it contributes only "a fraction of the global emissions (2 percent)." In 1999, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change determined that jet aircraft were responsible for 3.5 percent of climate-changing gasses. By 2050, the IPCC predicted, jets could account for 14 percent of global CO2 pollution.
Reynolds subsequently sent a gloating email to Thomas boasting that he (Reynolds) had "joined the Earth Island Journal staff." Thomas reports that the Journal never contacted him nor was he offered the opportunity to respond to ReynoldsÂ’ criticisms.
In recent years, a number of television, radio and print journalists in the US have lost their jobs after to airing chemtrail stories. I have learned that some members of the "chemtrail community" are now circulating the story that I was removed as editor of Earth Island Journal because I published Thomas' story. I wish to formally state that this is not true.
A Footnote
Jay Reynolds praised my 1997 Journal cover story ("Oil Spills in the Sky") as "accurate" but he believes that information in this article contradicts information in Will Thomas' 2002 Journal article. (I don't see a contradiction.)
I didn't publish the Thomas piece lightly. Over the course of the previous two years, scores of Journal readers had begged me to do a story on what they called "chemtrails." One reader actually drove nearly 100 miles to visit the Journal office with documents he had assembled and photographs he had taken of contrails in the skies over northern California.
I never ran these stories because I never saw sufficient evidence to explain adequately what was causing these historically atypical exhaust patterns. I certainly wasn't prepared to believe the stories about government involvement in some high-altitude conspiracy.
Will Thomas, a published author with a track record who had been published in the Journal several times before, finally provided an article with evidence, testimony and a debate about what might or might not be involved.
I still didn't believe that the US government was engaged in an actual operation to alter the atmosphere with chemical sprays. But what Thomas presented, for the first time, was evidence that (1) there were plans for attempting this and (2) patents had been granted for both the process and the machinery.
The discovery of high-level theoretical discussions to "address" global warming by deploying a "Sky Shield" of chemical clouds was alarming. In order to assure that such a project would never be attempted, it was necessary to publicize these plans. I decided to run the article.
The article was illustrated with a provocative photo showing at least six long-lived cloud trails crisscrossing in the skies over New Mexico. What made the photo more remarkable was that it was taken on September 11, 2001. On that day, due to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, all commercial jets had been grounded.
I ran the article with an important caveat, however. The closing sidebar, "Another Scary Scenario," proposed that the odd atmospheric effects could be the result, not of intentional intervention, but an unintended consequence of atmospheric pollution. The sidebar specifically cited "ardent chemtrails critic" Patrick Minnis for proposing this alternative, and quite plausible, explanation for the "chemtrail" phenomenon.
For more information contact:
