As a reaction to the responses by various MPs, the author of the No Consent Letter Against Chemtrail Activity has written a counter response. Chemtrails are a reason for concern for a growing number of citizens and should be taken seriously. You can download the template letter here: Demand for Ceasing Chemtrail Questions 2022
I have completed my response letter back to my local MP, who also happens to be the Chairman of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. This role is significant as included under this responsibility is Geo-engineering, as you will see by the nature of this document Geo-engineering: Parts I, II and III, (which although American includes UK representation).
Therefore, my counter response was very tailored to his role and the nature of the response that he sent me (included in italics below).
“Thank you for your email and attached letter. I am sorry that you have been concerned about recent aircraft contrails in the skies above Windsor.
I am aware that there are a number of theories about this, a number of which you have clearly read. However, the scientific community has said that there is no evidence that purported ‘chemtrails’ differ from normal water-based contrails, which are routinely left by high-flying aircraft and are imposed largely of ice.
The length of time that a contrail remains visible does vary considerably and depends on the atmospheric conditions and the altitude at which the plane is flying.
As the chairman of the Parliamentary Office of Science and technology, I truly believe in an evidence based approach to policymaking. If you are interested in reading about the science behind this, you might like to look at: https://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/
Thank you once again for getting touch.
Condensation trails vs. chemical trails
1) You have misunderstood the definition of condensation trails and chemical trails (also known as geoengineering, cloud seeding, weather modification, etc.);
2) I am not concerned about condensation trails only chemical trails (geoengineering);
3) My letter requested that you look at evidence and facts shared, also readily available via the internet ;
4) Therefore, please re-read my letter and information within and answer fully all of the concerns and all of the questions raised with scientific-evidence.
A templated, rapid or incomplete response can demonstrate any one of the following
1) A templated response implies that—a significant number of other people have raised the same concern;
2) An incomplete response implies that—Evidence or concerns raised in (my) letter have not been (fully) considered;
3) The suggestion of geoengineering not existing is a false, dismissive or ill-informed claim. Plentiful evidence of official sources includes scientific, government, military and also different countries.
An evidence-based approach is needed
The following links provide readily accessible official, historical proof, reference and documentation to geoengineering existing and the official knowledge of it –
1) Geo-engineering: Why or Why Not? – from the NASA (The National Aeronautics and Space Administration) website—NASA is an independent agency of the US Federal Government;
2) Geo-engineering: Parts I, II and III—official US Government paper;
3) Government Response to the Regulation of Geoengineering —UK Government paper.
Call to action
1) Ask them to look again at concerns raised, as per the above points;
2) Also, although geoengineering is documented widely and referred through official and Government channels, the risks of ejecting ‘substances’ into the atmosphere for both people and the environment are undocumented and unknown;
3) An evidence-based investigation is called for and I call upon you to take action regarding the impact of geoengineering.
Escalation contact – eg, Chairman of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology—Adam Afriyie
1) My local Councillors/MP have/(has) recommended contacting you, so that you can take appropriate action on this environmental and health concern;
2) By disregarding the information in my correspondence I believe that you are not fulfilling your duties as XXXXX;
3) Therefore, I call upon you as XXXXX to serve the people within your constituency through a thorough, evidence-based investigation in the best interest of the people. I believe that it is your duty to serve the people and to look into matters of concern in a professional and thorough manner.
I welcome your response following an honest, transparent and evidence-based investigation.
You can download this template letter here: Demand for Ceasing Chemtrail Questions 2022
- He is “aware that some other countries have on occasions, used weather modification techniques, such as cloud seeding”—Response Question: Which countries are using cloud seeding to change the weather and what are the (full list of) other weather modification techniques being used?
- Weather modification/cloud seeding “causes precipitation by introducing substance…that cause condensation”—Response Question: What is the (full) list of ‘substances’ being used in cloud seeding and weather modification?
- “However, these techniques are generally aimed at promoting rainfall”—Response Question: When not aimed at promoting rainfall, for what other purposes/outcomes are these techniques being used for?
- “…and should not be considered geoengineering” which he states as “projects used for the purpose of trying to minimise the human impacts of climate change”—Response Question: What is considered geoengineering and what is actually taking place during projects that are aimed at altering the climate including a (full) list of ‘substances’ utilised?
- “The UK does not use cloud seeding or deploy geo-engineering”—Response Question: Which countries do use cloud seeding or deploy geoengineering and what routes and with what frequency do they fly? Also, what protocols are in place to keep cloud seeding or geoengineering activities away from foreign (and therefore UK) skies, as this system seems to be failing of late?