An intimidating climate

Most human activity finds its motivation in two elemental emotions: Love and Fear. This applies even to the most "rational" pastime of humanity, science. In modern society, people don't need any scientific understanding to benefit from the fruits of the creation of systems of knowledge. According to the most popular narratives of civilisation, the "Age of Enlightenment" has replaced the "Dark Age" of religious superstition, often implying that we live in the best times humanity has ever had.

Without a doubt, we cannot remember a time when seven billion of us inhabited this planet, and we have absolutely no record of living in an age of technology and information like we do today. This relates mainly to the fact that record keeping, and systematic investigation of this planet as a whole started not too long ago, compared to the time homo sapiens sapiens crawls over this planet, or the time Mother Earth existed at all.

Our curiosity about what exists now, and existed before us doesn't need facts. Stories have been the glue to keep societies together, fill the gaps in our knowledge in ways which might or might not serve us as a whole. Explorers and traders increased to story pool of relatively isolated clans and tribes, before writing allowed a new form of transmitting myths, narratives and ideas. The invention of the printing press accelerated this process, the internet now provides access to stories from nearly all parts of the world.

We can pick and choose a narrative from a plethora of ideas for any topic of interest. Let's take the origin of humanity as example. The bible claims that we are product of "God", who created everything on this planet in six days about 6,000 years ago. According to science, humanity evolved from ancestral primates a few hundred thousand years ago. Many First Nations people narratives involve a creator as well, as do other mythologies which survived until today. Of course, one of the more interesting stories floating around mixes many sources to describe humanity as genetically engineered by aliens.

The lack of continuous records means we have to refrain to educated guesswork when it comes to our past. We know of our own existence, and if we're lucky, we might be able to trace back our family history for some generations back. While some people want to convince us that they can trace back to people mentioned in the Bible, our collective past as humanity is anything but certain. Luckily, precise knowledge of our history thousands, ten thousands, hundred thousands or even millions of years ago has little impact to our ability to survive.

Because our survival in the future poses now the biggest danger ever, one of our own making. At least if we believe in the narratives prescribed by the latest whole world religion, science. Long before the heat death of the entire universe, long before our sun burns out and fails to provide the energy which contributed to the diversity of life on this planet, humanity will change the climate in ways which will make our own survival impossible.

Ironically, the narrative of "Global warming" aka "Climate change" aka "Extreme climate" mimics biblical stories. As "supreme" species of this planet, precipice of evolution, this planet is not only at our disposal, but our carelessness will dispose of it by creating too much carbon dioxide. However, the right kind of sacrifice suggested by the new global priesthood might avert the inevitable climate crisis. Meanwhile, doomsday vaults get constructed for those worthy of surviving the coming climate cataclysm.

Excuse me for sounding like a heretic, or in modern language, being a "climate skeptic". Of course, the term heretic cannot be used here, as it describes someone not following specific religious believes imposed to a society. It would unveil the religious character which has become typical for contemporary science. Yet, the similarities between questioning the immaculate conception of Jesus Christ during the times of the Spanish Inquisition and doubting the "consensus of climate scientists about anthropogenic global warming" suggest that autonomous thought remains even in the "Age of Enlightenment" highly unpopular.

But the data! Look at the data! Let's be honest, no one does. No one can. We know more about the average American (if we're willing to pay) than about the weather in the US. Cambridge Analytica prides itself to have about 2000-3000 data points for about 250 million US citizens, derived mainly from online activity. If a weather station logged just the temperature on an hourly basis, it would create roughly 9000 records per year. To know as much about the weather as about the habits of US citizens, it would take about 80 millions weather stations in the US. Which don't exist.

70% of the Earth's surface consists of ocean. According to Wikipedia, we have about 1250 buoys collecting weather data. That means a single buoy collects data for an area bigger as the UK, or New Zealand. I guess if someone wanted to suggest that a single weather station suffices to determine the average temperature for the UK, a lot of people would cry foul. Not to mention the drop of ratings for any weather report based on this solitary station, no one would bother checking it out simply because it wouldn't give them any useful information.

We just don't understand the climate. The measurements happen only in few spots, compared the immense volume of the atmosphere and the depth of the ocean. We don't have a thermometer we can stick up the planet's ass to assess whether it's developing a fever. Climate has been defined as the development of weather patterns of 30 years, so most people arguing about this have experienced one or maybe two "climate cycles". While the efforts to collect more data have increases without a doubt over the last decades, it's still by far insufficient for any meaningful conclusion.

The current data collection doesn't allow any proper estimation of average temperature, the longer we go back the worse it gets. Which explains why no existing climate model could simulate what has happened in the last hundred years. The term "global warming" initially used for this fear-mongering narrative leaves a tell-tale sign about the intentions for it.

First Nations people understand themselves as part of nature, and therefor never as radically changed the surface of the planet as colonialism and capitalism did. In these cultures, "ecology" wasn't a niche subject of scientific inquiry, but integral but the way of life and survival. The eradication of indigenous cultures to exploit natural resources also erased the intuitive understanding of our dependency as humanity on a healthy environment.

Carbon dioxide acts as nutrient for plant growth, and excessive amounts of it should lead to bumper crops. But deforestation and polluting the environment lead to a damage to eco-systems essential for the health of the planet despite not being commercially exploitable. The effects of collapsing eco-systems, such as Great Barrier Reef, or species extinction by loss of habitat, are undeniable. Declaring CO2 as solitary culprit just helps to create another playgroup for inane economic games, helping the enemies of humanity to gain more power and influence.

The fear-inducing narrative of climate change exists for quite some time now, and it taps into our innate love for nature. Just like the concept of monarchy, those who put us into misery present themselves as saviours. Just like the kings of the olden days, submission to their cruel game means more hardship for most, more power for those who love to exploit others for their pleasure. We live symbiotic with this planet. The parasites sucking our life blood don't care for the health of our host, Mother Earth.

Warm and windy winter day with QFA63

Lineclouds appearing in the sky,

creating clouds not wet but dry,

you can watch them disappearing

to disguise the trace of geo-engineering.

Soon after witnessing another blaze

they melt into the typical white haze

that cover our skies once bright blue,

and prevents the sun from reaching you.

Certainly, that can't bring any harm?

It's just a little bit unnaturally warm,

bees and many trees are slowly dying,

but the powers that be wouldn't be lying?

Wake up to the world of today,

trust me, everything is okay.

Artificial clouds

Some people start sniggering when they hear the term 'chemtrails', and happily dismiss it as one of those crazy conspiracy theories. "Where's the evidence?" they might ask. Although some people have analysed soil and rainwater samples to prove the existence of things that don't usually float in our atmosphere, like Aluminium, Barium and Strontium, and sometimes even weird biomaterial like desiccated red blood cells, as long as the main stream media doesn't pick up on it, it can't be real.

But it's easy to observe inexplicable celestial phenomena, usually dismissed as 'contrails'. Anyway, today weather radar above Melbourne showed something I challenge anyone to explain as 'natural phenomenon'. The pictures below show this afternoon's weather radar. Pretty much in the center of all images are four parallel 'clouds', that begin as thin lines and slowly morph into less suspicious, cloud like shapes.

I think it's quite safe to assume that those lines of the radar were artificially created. However, I'm open to any explanation how these parallel constellation might have occurred naturally. When I've got some more time, I might make any animation out of these.

Rain-making act of 1967

During the last few weeks I noticed quite persistently skies above Melbourne that didn't look normal to me. Strange shapes, sometimes iridescent rings around the sun and moon, plenty of high altitude haze, clouds that seemed to fall from the sky while I was observing them.

I upset at least a couple of people by tweeting out my observations about what's nowadays called stratospheric aerial geo-engineering, carefully avoiding the term chemtrail. I avoided this term not only because of the association with conspiracy theory, and like every properly conditioned citizen will know, a conspiracy theory can only be fantasy, but mainly because I didn't see any blatantly obvious trails in the sky.

Colours, the structure (or lack thereof), shapes and movement were the give aways for my assumption that Melbourne gets quite persistently sprayed lately, so I investigated a bit more about what could happen here. Geo-engineering, also known as solar radiation management or climate remediation, is a topic not very publicly discussed.

While nearly everyone has heard nowadays about climate change, especially after the introduction of a carbon tax to ostensibly fight it, the nice sounding terms like solar radiation management or climate remediation disguise discussions and research focussing on alternatives to a reduction of CO2 emission into the atmosphere.

In times when markets go crazy, the idea that a market instrument like the carbon tax can save our planet needs multiple leaps of faith to become credible. Especially considering the fact that Australia (or rather some industries) makes some seizable amount of money with carbon-based fuels and are exempt from this tax anyway.

It took a long time to make the illusion of climate change sufficiently real and threatening to call for 'global solutions', and once a momentum of fear is created it can be used in different ways as well. The concept of solar remediation management reminds a little bit of Mr. Burns plans to withdraw sunlight from the hometown of the Simpsons, Springfield, and potentially bears as many good intentions as this cartoon story.

With less sunlight reaching the planet, less heat will be produced, hence the planet cools down. Precipitation (clouds) achieve this effect naturally, so what could possibly go wrong when we put more clouds in the sky to reflect the sun back before it heats the planet up? Only several things....

While the cloud cover reflects some of the sunlight back, it also keeps the heat that's already there in. It also requires a lot of planes bringing the artificial clouds out, which delivers the currently accepted culprit for global warming to a place where it's most effective. Last but not least, water vapour alone wouldn't be sufficient to create artificial clouds, so an interesting mix of nano-particles (according to existing patents) does the job.

The whole picture behind geo-engineering gets really spooky, feel free to go through this rabbit hole yourself. As I can't really tell what in the world are they spraying (which is the title of a good documentary available on the youtubes), I rather focus on what can potentially be done to find out what's already happening.

I don't believe that any entity would claim: Hey, I know how to stop global warming, shall we give it a go? Experiments on that scale happen usually in secret, as no one can anticipate consequences of newly introduced technology. Controlling nature in our favour often yields more problems than solutions, cane toads and GMO might serve as example here.

Once facts have been created, the marketing machinery starts to retroactively justify what already has happened. As I've seen chemtrails not only in Australia, but also many years ago in Germany, and as they are observed at least in the US, Europe and here I happily conclude that the planetary 'rescue' by climate remediation is already in full swing.

The case of Wikileaks has shown to the world that governments do a lot without asking their citizens, and taking away 'a little bit of sunlight' might not find consent, but a lot of opposition. In 2010, the Brumby government financed a conference about Geoengineering in California. Doing this far away from home fits into the secrecy about this topic, and the willingness to create facts without letting the affected citizens even know.

During this Asilomar conference, Brumby stated that he wanted to attract geo-engineering research to Victoria, not too surprising considering the amount of energy generated by brown coal in this state. As many decisions in parliament are taken without even being discussed beforehand, or being noticed by media afterwards, exposing Victorians to aerial spraying could already happen, even quite legally.

Section 2 of the Rain-making control act 1967 defines rain-making wide enough to cover geo-engineering:

rain-making operation means the seeding or nucleating of clouds by artificial means from a manned aircraft.

Section 3 fully fits into the scope of geo-engineering:

Whenever it appears to the Minister to be desirable in the public   interest to promote rainfall or otherwise modify natural cloud      processes in any part of Victoria-

(a)  for improving primary production either generally or locally and
        whether with respect to one or more than one primary product;
   (b)  for improving water storages either generally or locally;
   (c)  for reducing fire-danger in a forest area; or
   (d)  for any other sufficient purpose-
the Minister may authorise the carrying out of rain-making          operations in respect of the area or areas concerned.

OMG, global warming is coming, and we can't stop our power plants to prevent it - so when taking the climate change paradigm as reality, geo-engineering as prevention certainly fits the 'other sufficient purpose' catch-all phrase.

The act further describes that the Victorian PM can grant away the authority for 'rain-making acts' in a way that would allow daily spraying, and informing some other ministers. (Section 5)

(3) The Minister shall cause a copy of every authority issued under this Act
to be forwarded to Minister administering the Water Act 1989, the Minister
administering the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 and the Minister
administering Part 9 of the Local Government Act 1989.

So whatever happens above us, might already have left bureaucratic traces. I have no clue which divisions of the corporation Victoria handle above mentioned acts. Yet all three acts referred to have been recently amended (within the last two years), yet my duress for legalese is depleted for now, so I will stop my research here for today.

If all the spraying isn't officially permitted by the PM, the fines for 'unauthorised' rain-making are quite mild: $1000 a day. I wonder which path to go for Freedom of Information Acts to figure out who is spraying what so obviously and persistently over our heads.