Please information about see updated and expanded research on this page – tinyurl.com/ccgwbook
Andrew Johnson, 18 Nov 2010
Borrowash, Derbs, UK – Looking West, Feb 21, 2009 – Photo by Andrew Johnson
In the last 20-30 years, in the days since I left school, the issue of Global Warming has been increasingly reported in the press. More recently, the issue has been interchangeably relabelled as “climate change”.
Having watched the development of this issue for this length of time, it has been easy to see its increasing politicisation. This seems to have been made possible because of the confusion which arises in people’s minds between the issues of environmental damage and destruction and that of CO2 emissions from industrial activity. Overall, this has made it significantly more difficult to establish a clear picture of what is actually happening to the climate – and what the cause of any changes really are.
It is clear to me, if to no one else, that there is indeed an agenda in place which assumes that CO2 output from human activities (called Anthropogenic Global Warming – AGW) is one of the main threats to our survival. It is also clear to me that basic scientific data easily calls this assumption into question and those groups, such as the Hadley CRU at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, have not done enough to study the data relating to alternative explanations for climate change (for example, the data which correlates sun or sunspot activity to changes in global temperature ).
One good sign is that high profile critics of AGW such as Dr Tim Ball (formerly of University of Winnipeg)  and Dr Harold Lewis (Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California)  have started to speak out more vociferously and are deeply concerned by what they see around them.
If it was only academic disagreements that were the issue, then I probably would not even have taken the trouble to write this article. However, conclusions about CO2-induced global warming are being used to set public policy and enormous funds are being spent on various research projects and proposals. Also, taxpayers’ money has been used to fund certain government initiatives – certainly here in the UK – to encourage a reduction in the so-called “carbon footprint” of businesses and individuals . To someone like me, who sees that this issue has not only been politicised but “propagandised”, this is all deeply troubling. Whilst at one level, these initiatives often encourage responsible and careful use of resources (which is good), at another level, more punitive measures and restrictions are now being proposed or imposed in some areas  (which is generally bad). Even now, some companies allow individuals to pay a premium for a “carbon neutral” service or option.
In the last 2 years or so, an even more troubling development has come to the fore – the idea of geo-engineering. Such schemes propose altering the earth’s atmosphere in some way to counteract the effects of global warming (or climate change) . The implicit assumption in these schemes is seemingly that the reasons why the climate is changing are well understood – and climate change is largely due to human activity causing excessive CO2 output. By and large, it seems that those people, like me, do not have a voice with which to criticise the very nature of these proposals and research projects and to question why they should even exist or are being developed.
The irony is, that simple repeated observation of our skies reveals another phenomenon – one which can sometimes have a direct and almost immediate effect on local climatic conditions. It is the phenomenon of persistent jet trails . Since I became interested in this phenomenon, I have both done my own research and received hundreds of photographs from people around the world who are very concerned about the effects of these aircraft trails on our skies .
A new documentary film has just been released called “What in the World Are They Spraying” where statements by some of the scientists involved with developing geoengineering proposals are documented and challenged . The film also shows some of the data which some people have gathered in relation to aircraft trails and their effects at ground level. The observed effects seem to match those discussed in some of the geoengineering proposals themselves, even though no large geoengineering projects are said to be in operation. In the film, one scientist is interviewed who explains how the pH of the soil in the area where he lives has increased from being alkaline to being neutral over the last few years – and this has affected the growth of vegetation. Other tests on snow from Mount Shasta in Northern California are also mentioned. These tests have shown anomalous high levels of strontium and aluminium – both substances which are referenced in some geoengineering research proposals.
I myself have documented the appearance of these aircraft trails – using time lapse photography – which has shown anomalies in the way trails seem to persist on certain days. At other times, the trails form rectangles and grids – sometimes only over specific areas (they can also be seen on satellite photographs). I have also a used a “virtual radar” device which, when plugged into a PC, allows the tracking of any aircraft that are broadcasting an ADSB signal . This has revealed some interesting results – and the people I have asked have not, so far, been able to adequately explain specific instances of anomalous trail persistence.
The implication made in the “What in the World Are They Spraying” documentary is that the climate is already being artificially manipulated. Many people reject this idea without giving it much thought – as they cannot immediately see either a motive for doing this, how it can be done without public or governmental consent or who would be doing it. However, as I have written elsewhere, the fact that we cannot fully answer these questions does not mean the very obvious weather anomalies seen in repeated observations do not exist .
Over the last few years, I have discovered the controversial research of people like Wilhelm Reich and discussions of the “Cloudbuster” units he developed in the 1950’s and 1960’s . Also, there is the story of Charles Hatfield “The Rainmaker” from 1915, popularised in the 1956 Burt Lancaster of the same name . Some people are not willing to take these areas of research seriously, largely because they are not widely discussed or acknowledged as being significant – especially in the academic community.
I now allocate more significance to the idea of covert geoengineering research and activity than I once did – and here’s why. The research of Dr Judy Wood into the events of 9/11 lead her to post a collection of data about Hurricane Erin . Few people are aware that this category 3 storm, comparable in diameter to Hurricane Katrina, was closest to New York City at about 8am on the morning of 9/11. In the morning weather reports, only 2 out of 4 local news channels reported the presence of the Hurricane  – even though it had been moving, in a fairly straight line, towards New York City since its encounter with Bermuda on 7th Sep 2001. If that was not too much of a coincidence then one must also consider that on 12 Sep 2001, the Hurricane made a right-hand turn and headed away from the city .
Understanding the possible reason for the presence of this hurricane is difficult – as one has to re-analyse, at a fundamental level, the official story of 9/11 – especially in relation to the way the WTC complex was destroyed. This has been the subject of most of the rest of Dr Judy Wood’s analysis of 9/11 data and evidence .
With the wealth of data now available from weather satellites, weather monitoring stations and even photographs from private individuals, it is possible, with time, to do significant weather data analysis, independent of any funded “experts”. My own experience of this has shown me a wide range of anomalies which, collectively , call into question most or all of the conclusions about global warming and climate change which are championed by many academics as well as “celebrities” like Al Gore, Bill Gates  and Sir Paul McCartney  (none of whom are climatologists).
In November 2010, I attended a meeting at the Royal Society in London entitled “Geoengineering – taking control of our planets climate” . All of the discussion was entirely oriented around AGW and no other views were properly represented . It was attended by a number of academics and I was strongly concerned about the total lack of awareness of any of the data which proves that the CO2 issue is barely, if at all, relevant. I was reminded of the enormous gulf between my understanding of the issue (based on readily available evidence) and those both attending and speaking at the conference. The few people that I e-mailed following the event have, so far, not chosen to respond. This is unsurprising – especially as some of them seem to be employed in ways which prop up the CO2 myth.