Having begun by looking at the content of the letter from Mr Robert Goodwill, which was then followed by scrutiny of the first part of the FAQ issued by the Department for Transport (DfT), the third and final posting on this particular subject will complete the analysis of the information provided to the public, by examining the second part of the FAQ .
We begin with what is a very simple question but where the answer is anything but. The actual wording of the question is poor but this is how it is presented by the DfT.
“Are Department for Transport aware of Chemtrails?
In the UK the Department is not aware of any other matter or aerosol being ejected from aircraft (known as chemtrails), other than the normal exhaust products from the aircraft.
We are aware that other countries have on occasions used weather modification techniques, such as cloud seeding, which causes precipitation by introducing substances into cumulus clouds that cause condensation. However, these techniques are aimed at reducing the locally damaging impacts of hail, or promoting rainfall, and have no impact on climate and should not be considered to be geoengineering. Since 1977, cloud seeding and environmental techniques have been subject to international regulation. In 1977, countries agreed the Convention of the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD). The treaty forbade the use of environmental modification techniques in hostile circumstances. See the following link for further details."
Even though this is a very straightforward question, the DfT seems to have difficulty providing a direct answer. It starts by limiting the scope of the answer to “In the UK” and to what the Department is “aware of”, rather than what is actually known by the government about chemtrails. My response to my MP and the minister was as follows.
“What does this really mean? To say that you are not aware of something is to admit your ignorance on the matter. Alternatively, he could have said that he knew that it was not happening, which would be a positive statement, if it was based upon real knowledge.
Is he unaware because he is ignorant of the facts or because he has failed to make himself aware of what the facts actually are?"
The answer by the DfT includes a rambling about the activities of “other countries”, which seems to be designed to deflect the reader away from what is actually happening in the UK. I pointed this out to my MP and the minister.
“It seems that the Government is more aware of what is happening overseas than in the UK. However, if cloud seeding “causes precipitation”, which affects the level of condensation in clouds, to the point that it reduces hail or increases rain, then, it is fair to conclude that cloud seeding affects the climate. Yet, within the same sentence, he states that these techniques have “no impact on climate” and “should not be considered to be geoengineering”. In other words, it is a unique form of cloud manipulation that changes the weather without affecting climactic conditions.
Also, why foreign activities are relevant to the UK, or why we should be concerned by what they are called, is not explained. Maybe the suggestion here is that weather modification by other nations is having a detrimental affect on UK citizens because of the techniques used.
Please can you explain how it is that cloud seeding affects hail and rain but does not affect the climate, why it should not be considered to be geoengineering and what the detrimental affects to UK citizens are from the activities of other nations in this area?"
The answer concluded by talking about an international treaty on environmental modification techniques and pointed out that the treaty forbade the use of such techniques in “hostile circumstances”. To me, this means that if the circumstances are not hostile, then the use of such techniques is not forbidden. My response to my MP and the minister was as follows.
“This is an interesting comment because we are not in “hostile circumstances” (unless there is something that I do not know about). It also suggests that if the current conditions are “non-hostile”, then there are no such restrictions in place. As such, it would be possible for “environmental modification techniques” to be utilised domestically.
Please can you explain whether the Government is directly, or indirectly, undertaking any form of environmental modification in the UK and, if it is, whether it is subject to any form of oversight to ensure the protection of the public’s welfare?"
The next question on the DfT’s FAQ concerns itself with persistent airplane trails but the question is framed in such a way as to link this phenomenon to contrails, when no such link has ever been established. Ordinarily, water vapour (contrails) will dissipate but chemical trails (chemtrails) tend to persist in the atmosphere for considerable periods of time.
“Why do contrails seem to form grid like patterns in the sky and why are they long lasting? Should they not disappear within a few minutes?"
Aircraft often follow similar routes separated by altitude, time or lateral distance and that is why you see grid like patterns in the sky. There is now widely accepted scientific evidence that contrails can grow and persist in the sky to form larger clouds that become indistinguishable from natural cirrus clouds."
I responded to my MP and the minister with the following observations.
“This is an irrational argument. The regularity by which flight routes in the UK are utilised, is not in and of itself, an explanation for the formation of grid patterns.
He claims that there is “widely accepted scientific evidence” for the growth and persistence of contrails but he does not reference any peer reviewed scientific journals in this area or what “widely accepted” actually means in terms of a scientific consensus. Also, his claim is that “contrails can grow and persist”, not that there is evidence that they do.
Please can you provide independent scientific evidence that endorses the Government’s view that contrails do “grow and persist”?"
The subsequent question on the FAQ addresses possible health concerns but once again, the question is framed in terms of contrails, instead of chemtrails.
“Are there any ill health effects caused by contrails?
There is no evidence that contrails cause health problems. The main impact of aviation on ground local air quality relates to emissions during the landing and take-off phase up to 3000 feet. Above this height the oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter which can cause respiratory problems become dispersed."
I responded to my MP and the minister with the following comments.
“This is extremely misleading. The issue is not contrails; it is about aircraft that are dispersing contaminants. By linking these two separate issues, he is deliberately creating a false association. It would be like focussing on the exhaust fumes of a car operating a crop sprayer from its roof rack.
What do contrails have to do with the unlawful spraying of poisons into the atmosphere?"
I then addressed the comments about respiratory problems being an issue at certain heights.
"This is also misleading. The “main impact” really means the immediate impact. Air circulates throughout the atmosphere all of the time, so the idea that pollutants released above 3000 feet remain at that altitude is ludicrous.
What has this got to do with non-contrail pollution?"
The final question deals with the impact on the climate but once again is framed in terms of contrails, not chemtrails. It also contradicts an earlier assertion that weather modification techniques have no impact on climate, whereas airplane condensation trails do.
"Are there any climatic implications from contrails?
We are interested in understanding the formation and coverage of contrails from a climate change perspective."
I commented as follows.
"As before, this is the old magician’s trick of mis-direction. The issue is not contrails. What people are concerned about is being part of a mass experiment that they have not consented to. The Government should confirm if such experiments could be happening now, given that they have in the past, but were concealed by the Official Secrets Act.
Is it possible that a Government agency could have authorised such activities, even if the Department for Transport spokesman is unaware of it?"