Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) aka Chemtrails

Here is the ‘White Paper’ for Stratosperic Aerosol Injection (SAI) or also layman’s term ‘Chemtrails’ – SAI is terminology to be used if you inquire about the skies to the government.  

They’ve been doing this spraying since the 60’s. I use to have a military file that mentioned ‘Bio-warfare’ and using it on ‘citizens’.  

What happened to our blue skies?  Why do we get a ‘white shade’ pulled across the sky?  Why are there no longer ‘ConTrails’ which are ice crystals that form from high altitude and dissipate within 30 – 45 seconds as they drop to warmer air?  Why do so many people now have asthma, lung issues, coughs, sore throats and other upper respiratory illnesses and diseases?  

This is not by accident – research ‘Weather Wars” click on Resources above and scroll down to the files.  Education is key, not ‘Indoctrination’.

Relevant climate response tests for stratospheric aerosol injection: A combined ethical and scientific analysis 

Abstract

In this paper, we focus on stratospheric sulfate injection as a geoengineering scheme, and provide a combined scientific and ethical analysis of climate response tests, which are a subset of outdoor tests that would seek to impose detectable and attributable changes to climate variables on global or regional scales. We assess the current state of scientific understanding on the plausibility and scalability of climate response tests. Then, we delineate a minimal baseline against which to consider whether certain climate response tests would be relevant for a deployment scenario. Our analysis shows that some climate response tests, such as those attempting to detect changes in regional climate impacts, may not be deployable in time periods relevant to realistic geoengineering scenarios. This might pose significant challenges for justifying stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection deployment overall. We then survey some of the major ethical challenges that proposed climate response tests face. We consider what levels of confidence would be required to ethically justify approving a proposed test; whether the consequences of tests are subject to similar questions of justice, compensation, and informed consent as full-scale deployment; and whether questions of intent and hubris are morally relevant for climate response tests. We suggest further research into laboratory-based work and modeling may help to narrow the scientific uncertainties related to climate response tests, and help inform future ethical debate. However, even if such work is pursued, the ethical issues raised by proposed climate response tests are significant and manifold.
1 Introduction Continue reading