Sadly, was driving so unable to provide pics. Saw a plane last night, heading south along the Severn. It was not on flight radar…
Could be military, but they tend to head east from the Severn towards Brize or Fairfield.
2 Likes
Apologies for just posting a link and running.
2 Likes
MoA open thread comment
Hidden Behind Climate Policies, Data From Nonexistent Temperature Stations
Hundreds of ‘ghost’ climate stations are no longer operational; instead they are assigned temperatures from surrounding stations.
When recalling past temperatures to make comparisons to the present, and, more importantly, inform future climate policy, officials such as Mr. Guterres and President Biden rely in part on temperature readings from the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN).
The network was established to provide an “accurate, unbiased, up-to-date historical climate record for the United States,” NOAA states, and it has recorded more than 100 years of daily maximum and minimum temperatures from stations across the United States.
The problem, say experts, is that an increasing number of USHCN’s stations don’t exist anymore.
“They are physically gone—but still report data—like magic,” said Lt. Col. John Shewchuk, a certified consulting meteorologist.
“NOAA fabricates temperature data for more than 30 percent of the 1,218 USHCN reporting stations that no longer exist.”
He calls them “ghost” stations.
Mr. Shewchuck said USHCN stations reached a maximum of 1,218 stations in 1957, but after 1990 the number of active stations began declining due to aging equipment and personnel retirements.
NOAA still records data from these ghost stations by taking the temperature readings from surrounding stations, and recording their average for the ghost station, followed by an “E,” for estimate.
The addition of the ghost station data means NOAA’s “monthly and yearly reports are not representative of reality,” said Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and senior fellow for environment and climate at the Heartland Institute.
“If this kind of process were used in a court of law, then the evidence would be thrown out as being polluted.”
Posted by: scorpion | Apr 10 2024 19:26 utc
2 Likes
Interesting to see the map of zombie weather stations. I’m not sure why some are red while others are red with a black border. I attempted to download some of the data and exclude the ‘E’ readings but couldn’t find any.
1 Like
#sockpuppets #faitaccompli #DeepState #neoliberalism #MJ12 #badbinoculars
More gloomy news from Biden! White House says it’s open to plan that would BLOCK sunlight from hitting surface of the Earth in bid to limit global warming
"The White House has opened the door to an audacious plan to block sunlight from hitting the surface of the Earth in a bid to halt global warming.
Despite some scientists warning the effort could have untold side effects from altering the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, President Joe Biden’s administration have admitted they’re open to the idea, which has never been attempted before.
In a report released Friday by the White House, officials suggested limiting sunlight to rapidly cool the planet, a process known as solar radiation modification (SRM)." Go to: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12254167/More-gloomy-news-Biden-backs-plan-BLOCK-sunlight-Earth-bid-limit-global-warming.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top For full article.
Thanks Ger,
Could you check your DM link above - it’s not working.
Meanwhile get a load of this idiot!
Injecting the sky - Met Office confirm Geoengineering
This guy is an utter moron as the Comments beneath also confirm.
1 Like
Link’s fine here R.
Thanks, seems to be ok now.
Amazing how the article talks of the idea of a plan to block sunlight, as if the chemtrails that millions of us see almost every day for years aren’t there.
2 Likes
Richard Vobes interviews two pilots. Really interesting and worth the time if you’ve got it. 57minutes.
The TRUTH about chemtrails from pilots.
1 Like
For anyone on the fence regarding the truth about chemtrails, I suggest watching the early part of ‘Day 1, Attack on Food and Farmers’ video (no transcript as far as I’m aware).
"Petition Make all forms of ‘geo-engineering’ affecting the environment illegal
We want all forms of geo-engineering to be illegal in the UK. We do not want any use of technologies to intervene in the Earth’s natural systems.
We think there is a potential for this to negatively impact humanity, flora and fauna in the future. It has previously been said that Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) is essential to meet climate targets. We believe that this, and all other forms of geo-engineering, should be made illegal in the UK.": https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701963
UK Government is poised to unveil funding/for experiments aimed at/reducing the amount of sunlight
"Researchers are preparing to test a groundbreaking approach to combat global warming by ‘dimming the Sun’. The UK Government is poised to unveil funding of up to £50m for experiments aimed at reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth’s surface, according to the Telegraph.
This innovative technology seeks to reflect a portion of the sun’s rays back into space, which could provide a temporary solution to slow down rising temperatures*. The announcement comes on the heels of the National Environment Research Council’s decision to allocate £10 million for research into solar radiation management schemes (SRM), as revealed on April 3.
Professor Mark Symes, the programme director for the government’s advanced research and invention funding agency, Aria, stated that the funding would support ‘small, controlled, outdoor experiments on particular approaches’, reports the Manchester Evening News.
These experiments may involve injecting aerosols into the atmosphere or enhancing cloud brightness to reflect sunlight. Prof Symes told the Telegraph: "We will be announcing who we have given funding to in a few weeks and when we do so we will be making clear when any outdoor experiments might be taking place. One of the missing pieces in this debate was physical data from the real world. Models can only tell us so much.
"Everything we do is going to be safe by design. We’re absolutely committed to responsible research, including responsible outdoor research.
“We have strong requirements around the length of time experiments can run for and their reversibility and we won’t be funding the release of any toxic substances to the environment.”
Last year was the hottest on record, with 2024 going down in history as the first year the average temperatures soared past the 1.5C mark above pre-industrial levels. January 2025 made its own mark, becoming the warmest January ever recorded, with global average temperatures striking a staggering 13.23C, which is 1.75C above the pre-industrial baseline.
The 1.5C threshold has come into sharp focus after being established in the Paris Agreement back in 2015, where 195 member countries committed themselves to combatting climate change. Should the world stay within the 1.5C warming limit, it is expected that some of the worst impacts of climate change - such as extreme heatwaves, critical food shortages, and the spread of diseases via insects - could be alleviated or avoided altogether.
Amplified levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are being pumped into Earth’s atmosphere due to human activities, fuelling climate change. The scientific community is increasingly sounding the alarm that carbon dioxide concentrations are not reducing rapidly enough, thereby running the risk of inciting catastrophic global warming events, including the destabilisation of ocean circulation patterns and the disintegration of colossal ice sheets.
“The uncomfortable truth is that our current warming trajectory makes a number of such tipping points distinctly possible over the next century,” warned Prof Symes in an interview with the Guardian. “This has driven increased interest in approaches that might actively cool the world in a short timeframe in order to avoid those tipping points.”
The experiments are set to provide ‘critical’ data that is essential for evaluating the viability of Sun-dimming technology.
One key research focus is SRM, which encompasses methods like stratospheric aerosol injection. This technique involves dispersing minuscule particles into the stratosphere from aircraft, with the aim of reflecting sunlight back into space.
Other proposed methods include marine cloud brightening, where ships would emit sea-salt particles into the atmosphere to enhance the reflective capacity of clouds. Additionally, there’s the concept of seeding cirrus clouds in the upper atmosphere to facilitate greater heat dissipation into space.
Nonetheless, geoengineering – the intentional and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system – is a subject of debate among scientists. Concerns have been raised about the potential adverse effects on critical aspects such as food production.
Prof Symes has assured that no ‘toxic substances’ will be released into the environment during the outdoor experiments. In conjunction with field experiments, Aria will also support modelling studies, indoor testing, climate observation, and investigations into public perceptions of geoengineering.": Government will pay to 'dim the Sun' in bid to tackle global warming - Plymouth Live
*Quote; "Quote; "Nb. I’ve had to make my position clear again; “I worked (with others), for decades to prove that mankind was causing #climatechange by its use of fossil fuels and” the consequent “production of #CO2…what would you suggest we use #nuclearpower? No…we need sustainable systems #biodiversityistheengineofsustainability…not hard “techno-fixes”” https://twitter.com/Williamtheb/status/1528711278889508866 "
Others (and there are parallels with “flying saucers flown by aliens” here), see clandestine or “unofficial” geoengineering as evidential of a global Deep State conspiracy to worsen our climate for political purposes, I don’t, the alternative narrative of geoengineering being carried out to ameliorate the effects of man-made climate change which the Deep State knows to be more serious than it allows the public to be aware is (I’m sorry Mr.Icke), much, much more believable.
Quote: “If the govt. are more concerned about temperature rise than they let on SRMs might be being applied clandestinely as a stop-gap measure…this may have been true for a good while now…as they say such measures don’t decrease ocean acidification…they are of last resort against temperature rise…how long, I wonder, before a “temperature event” do they need to be deployed?”": https://www.arafel.co.uk/2022/02/the-coming-storm-from-forbidden-america.html
Safe and effective. Safe and effective. Safe and effective. Just keep taking the poison and remember, it’s safe and effective.
1 Like
Open Letter: Reply to Parliamentary Debate on Geoengineering 23/06/25
By Rose Clark / 1 September, 2025
Britons For A Clean Atmosphere
Open Letter: Reply to Parliamentary Debate on Geoengineering 23/06/25
Context
We have decided to publish our responses to the Parliamentary debate on Geoengineering as an open letter, serving as a resource and article for those who are interested.
Britons for a Clean Atmosphere member, Antoinette Taylor, created the petition, Make all forms of geoengineering affecting the environment illegal, via the UK Parliament petitions website. The petition raised 160,632 signatures, triggering a parliamentary debate. The subsequent debate took place in the context of heightened public concern about the ARIA sun-dimming research when the official news came earlier this year.
As expressed in our initial response to the debate, a true and honest debate did not take place, but instead a scripted regurgitation of the government’s already stated position. Nevertheless, this development has capacity to heighten public awareness and strengthen public engagement. However there is risk of this important development being forgotten about in the current political climate where strategic flooding of the information space is continuous.
Key Points
First of all, we extend sincere thanks to Dr Roz Savage MP for introducing the parliamentary debate on geoengineering on 23rd June 2025. Despite the low rate of attendance, it was most heartening that all speakers at the debate were united with Dr Savage in opposing the use of solar radiation management (SRM), showing that there is a clear consensus against it.
We can perhaps interpret the low rate of attendance as evidence that MPs, on the whole, are not well informed about geoengineering and the serious hazards posed by it. We can probably also interpret the lack of scrutiny by MPs during the two years that it took for the ARIA bill to pass through parliament and into law as further evidence of this surprising lack of awareness.
Thanks to the debate, the existence of polluting, hazardous atmospheric interventions known as ‘geoengineering’ can no longer be denied. Furthermore, now that the fact of geoengineering well & truly on record, we can perhaps hope that our representatives will now take time to begin to educate themselves on this urgent matter of national interest.
As well as the very positive development that the debate represents, there are some unanswered questions that it has raised. We would like to share these with all reading this open letter for your consideration and warmly welcome your responses.
The government claim that it has no plans to deploy SRM does not in any way alter the need for regulation, as recommended in 2010 by the Science & Technology Committee and in 2009 by the Royal Society.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/22102.htm
If there were no plans to deploy SRM, how do we explain the flurry of articles in April/May of this year announcing that launch of the very same programmes?
UK govt to approve Sunlight-dimming experiments to combat global warming UK Scientists Want to Block Out The Sun to Fight Climate Change - Orbital Today Experiments to 'dim the Sun' one step closer in the UK - BBC Weather
As Dr Savage rightly pointed out, solar radiation geoengineering is a planetary level experiment that gives no chance of reversal if things go wrong. The widely acknowledged material and moral hazards are multifaceted, impacting ecology, environment, health, economy and geopolitics. An experiment on this scale potentially impacts every single one of us and yet the debate completely overlooked the key research principle of informed consent. Surely this is an unacceptable if not criminal assault on the right to live free from serious harm?
The debate accepted the need for ‘research,’ but failed to acknowledge that there is no meaningful distinction between outdoor SAI/SRM experiments and actual deployments. Whether by research or actual deployments these activities release hazardous pollution into the atmosphere.
Readers should be aware that Britain, one of 193 countries, approved a ban on geoengineering research under a global biodiversity treaty in 2010.
In the conclusion to the debate Dr Savage made the essential point that there is need for utmost transparency. The ethical need for transparency for the public was similarly acknowledged by the above committees in 2009/10. However ARIA appears to be exempt from the Freedom of Information laws which seems to be a blatant and arrogant betrayal of public trust.
To expand on this, we would like to draw attention to the following document. This document confirms that, evading all ethical consent and democratic obligation, the infrastructure, finance, personnel and experimental zones for geoengineering experiments in Britain are ALREADY in place.
We would like to direct the reader to the section, De-Risking Cirrus Modification, Annex 2, page 5 (p.22 of entire document). One of the most significant disclosures here are the intended trials, due to take place in phases, culminating in real-world experimentation over Stornoway in the Scottish Highlands. These trials will use aircraft to release particles with the intention of allowing more heat to escape Earth’s atmosphere. The particles are referred to vaguely, and with no mention of any assessments of environmental impact.
Aspects of the research such as adding “metal oxides” to aircraft fuel to create “contaminated soots” in order to create cloud are particularly concerning. Furthermore, on page 23 you will see that silver iodide is likely to be used for these seeding experiments. Silver iodide, the primary agent used in cloud seeding, is classified as a hazardous substance.
These facts illustrate perfectly both the dangers of ARIA, set up as an arms-length body free from the usual processes of scrutiny and the tendency of the scientific community to use technology once in existence, points that made so eloquently by Dr Savage in her summary of the debate. We should note that ARIA has been described as a ‘unique organisation with unique freedoms.’ This level of unchecked autonomy and empowerment to conduct ‘high risk, high reward research’ is completely unacceptable.
We would also like the reader to be aware that the UK cloud seeding industry is thriving in our governance-free present state of affairs. If you scrutinise this information, you will perhaps note an intention to convince the public, rather than give opportunity for the public to exercise the right to informed consent. See also the ecological hazards noted, as well as lack of regulatory framework.
If readers wish to research further into the global cloud seeding market, here is some key information: “The market is projected to grow from USD 428.6 million in 2025 to USD 738.2 million by 2032.”
Given that the UK is clearly now a test bed for these experimental technologies it is alarming that the discussion about how to regulate climate geoengineering hasn’t even begun here. In fact, we are falling far behind other parts of the world in this respect.
https://legiscan.com/US/text/HB4403/id/3262580
(U.S. Federal legislation (HB 4403) has been proposed to ban geoengineering and 33 U.S. States have now introduced prohibitive legislation, with three States passing legislation into law).
We have very much welcomed the debate that took place in June, but view this as just the beginning of an ongoing dialogue and full transparency on an issue which has such enormous implications for people and the environment. We also anticipate that the debate will be the starting point for the kinds of legislative developments that we are seeing in other parts of the world.
Thank you again for your attention to this urgent matter.
Please send this open letter to your MP and tell them that policy must be enacted including regulatory mechanisms to prohibit and penalise polluting geoengineering atmospheric interventions to protect human health and our environment.
Please circulate this open letter in your networks and please sign our previous open letter:
2 Likes
A tremendous information source. Thanks for posting this. @Rich .
I had no real idea what was happening but I was suspicious about geoengineering ‘experiments’ and the letter shows their is no real distinction between research and deployment.
A lot of rule dodgers. The letter gets in the word criminal, rightly so.