UK Parliament debates geoengineering and chemtrails; they are gaslighting us
RHODA WILSON
In December 2024, a petition to the UK Parliament was started requesting that all geo-engineering in the UK be outlawed. The petition was debated in the House of Commons on 23 June.
As expected, the debate, led by Liberal Democrat MPs, was used as an opportunity to push the climate change scam and deny that solar radiation management techniques, which include chemtrails, were being deployed in the UK.
One important thing to come out of the debate, as indicated by Roz Savage MP, is that there really is a cult belief that underpins the “climate change crisis” narrative.
On 23 June, the UK House of Commons debated an e-petition relating to geoengineering (also stylised as geo-engineering) and the environment.
Anthony Webber provided some personal insight in an article published by Unity News Network, read HERE. The debate was a result of a petition started by Antoinette Taylor on 23 December 2024, which requested that all forms of geo-engineering affecting the environment be made illegal.
As the petition reached the required 100,000 signatures, the Petitions Committee considered it for a debate in the House of Commons. Roz Savage, the Liberal Democratic MP for South Cotswolds, “volunteered to take on this responsibility,” Webber said, and introduced the petition to parliament for debate on 23 June 2023.
“This was the first time there had been a Parliamentary debate on this subject, and it was a historic moment,” he said.
Related: MPs will debate a petition relating to geo-engineering and the environment, UK Parliament Petitions Committee, 18 June 2025
Table of Contents
Parliamentary Research Briefing
The summary of a research briefing published for Parliament ahead of the debate stated:
Atmospheric geoengineering is the deliberate modification of the climate system to reduce or offset the effects of climate change.
It can include deployment of greenhouse gas removal technologies (GGRs) … It can also include solar radiation modification (SRM).
There is no SRM currently being practised in, or above, the UK. In 2020, the government published its view on greenhouse gas removal technologies and solar radiation management, which set out support for GGRs and emphasised that “the government is not deploying SRM, and has no plans to do so.” In response to a PQ [Parliamentary Question or MP’s written question] in January 2025, Minister for Climate Kerry McCarthy reiterated this, adding that the government “funds modelling research to understand the potential impacts of SRM deployment.”
The Met Office has also set out its position on geoengineering research (2025), concluding that “much more research is needed to understand all the potential benefits and drawbacks associated with these different techniques to ensure any debate in this area is based on robust evidence.”
Research Briefing: Debate on an e-petition relating to geo-engineering and the environment, House of Commons Library, UK Parliament, 20 June 2025
You can read the full 25-page research briefing, which includes 11 pages listing further reading, as well as other resources such as Parliamentary coverage and PQs, HERE.
The briefing noted that the UK Government has expressed support for GGRs, which can help the UK meet its target of delivering net zero emissions by 2050. Delivering net zero emissions is the first flaw in the Government’s policy. As we have written numerous times over the years, the ideology that human activities are causing global warming is a myth and carbon dioxide (CO2), for example, is the gas of life. The demonisation of CO2 as harmful is an attack on life itself.
The briefing then notes that the independent Climate Change Committee (“CCC”) advises the government on meeting the net zero target and has stated that GGRs will be essential to meeting the 2050 target, particularly in offsetting residual emissions in hard-to-decarbonise sectors such as aviation. Taking advice from the CCC is the second major flaw in the Government’s strategy.
We noted in an article last year that the CCC is unaccountable, riddled with conflicts of interest, incompetent, opaque, defensive and hypocritical. And that the cost of the CCC’s catastrophic modelling “errors” and misleading advice could run into trillions of pounds.
Read more: Corrupt and incompetent UK Climate Change Committee should be disbanded
Survey of 77 “Experts”
The Parliament research briefing goes on to explain contrails and chemtrails. The term “chemtrails,” the briefing informs us, refers to unsupported theories that contrails are produced by the deliberate spraying of chemicals into the atmosphere, but a panel of 77 international atmospheric scientists and geochemists found no evidence to support this theory in 2016. For this, the research briefing references a 2016 article in the Smithsonian Magazine titled ‘Science Officially Debunks Chemtrails, But the Conspiracy Will Likely Live’. The article states:
In the study, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the scientists were asked if they had ever uncovered possible evidence of a government chemtrail programme in their research. Of the 77 scientists, 76 said no.
Science Officially Debunks Chemtrails, But the Conspiracy Will Likely Live On, Smithsonian Magazine, 22 August 2016
The article was based on a letter published in Environmental Research Letters. The letter’s authors surveyed “two groups of experts – atmospheric chemists with expertise in condensation trails [“contrails”] and geochemists working on atmospheric deposition of dust and pollution – to scientifically evaluate for the first time the claims of [secret large-scale atmospheric programme] SLAP theorists.”
The surveys were run by researchers at the University of California, Irvine, and Carnegie Institution for Science, with support from the California-based non-profit Near Zero. Near Zero are “experts” who “provide credible, impartial and actionable assessment with the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to near zero.”
“Near Zero’s only agenda is helping to identify ways to quickly cut greenhouse gas emissions to near zero,” its website states. There is no information on Near Zero’s website as to who funds it or who the “experts” are. But one thing is for certain: if their sole focus is on “near zero,” they are not impartial and so, possibly, also not credible.
There are obvious problems with using this letter as evidence. Firstly, there is the potential bias in the selection of the “experts” surveyed, which begins to become evident in the letter itself:
Expert participants were selected by using the ISI Web of Science to identify the authors of the most-cited peer-reviewed publications covering these topics that have been published in the past 20 years (1994–2014). In the first case, we searched for papers with the topic ‘contrail’. For experts on atmospheric deposition, we used the search terms ‘atmospheric deposition’ AND (‘aluminium’ OR ‘barium’ OR ‘strontium’), which narrowed the results to experts working on the elements most frequently pointed to as evidence of spraying by the analyses of SLAP proponents, and excluded other types of deposition events such as acid rain and nitrogen run-off. For the purposes of this study, we define ‘contrail expert’ and ‘atmospheric deposition expert’ to be a person who has co-authored one or more of the 100 most-cited papers in each search.
Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying programme, Environmental Research Letters, 10 August 2016
During the covid era, we learnt that science papers that do not follow the prevailing narrative experience problems in being published by a science journal, to the extent that many are not published at all. We also learnt that research that supports a narrative is well-funded, while research that challenges it is not.
Secondly, there is the survey itself:
The surveys asked the two groups of experts to assess data that have been presented on websites as evidence of SLAP. In both surveys, the first question asked was: ‘Have you, in your work or personal life, ever come across evidence that you think indicates the existence of a secret large-scale atmospheric spraying programme?’
Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying programme, Environmental Research Letters, 10 August 2016
Using the word “secret” is a set-up; it is subjective. What is secret to one is not secret to another. It also implants the idea of “conspiracy theory,” which most “experts” would not want to be seen to be associated with if they wish to maintain or advance their position or reputation within academia.
The “data” that the “experts were asked to comment on is also questionable. Further into the letter, the authors admit that the “data” on websites was restricted to pre-selected and limited photographs or laboratory results, and then the “experts were asked for their “simplest explanation”:
Figure 2 shows the four photos assessed by contrail experts. In each case, 100% of the experts indicated that the simplest explanation of the trails in the photo was not a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying programme.
Figure 3 shows the responses to photocopies of three different laboratory analyses that SLAP proponents argue show high and abnormal concentrations indicative of chemical spraying. For each analysis, experts were first asked if the simplest explanation of the trails in the photo was a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying programme.
Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying programme, Environmental Research Letters, 10 August 2016
This survey of 77 “experts,” whose names are published at the end of the letter, is hardly a scientific evaluation of the evidence as the letter’s authors claim; it is more like a school project conducted at a village fête.
Aside from the amateurish approach to these particular surveys, whenever we see a survey or questionnaire, we should consider whether the Delphi method is being deployed. Essentially, the Delphi method is used to rig surveys; the questions are designed so that the person taking the survey will agree with the basic premises of those setting the questions.
You can judge for yourself whether the Near Zero supported survey questions were loaded by reading the two surveys HERE and HERE.
Read more: UK government uses Delphi method to manipulate outcome of public consultations
What Was Said During The Debate?
You can watch the petition debate held in Westminster Hall on 23 June 2025 below and read a transcript in Hansard HERE.
.Savage introduced the debate by saying that she has no problem with carbon dioxide removal, thus endorsing the manufactured “climate change crisis” narrative. She does, however, object to SRM because “SRM does not remove carbon. It does not stop ocean acidification. It does not reduce fossil fuel use. It masks the symptoms while the root cause, our fossil fuel carbon emissions, goes unchecked.”
Although she has cosied up to the climate change alarmism agenda, Savage did make a good point about scientific control. “We cannot conduct a controlled experiment with SRM. We do not have two planets, one on which we conduct SRM and one on which we do not. There is no planet B to test it on. Once SRM is deployed, we are in effect launching a planetary experiment, with no ability to reverse it if things go wrong,” she said.
Savage denies SRM has already been occurring for decades by saying, “As for the chemicals used in SRM, the aerosols under consideration include sulphates and even aluminium.”
She then went on to describe why she thinks we need to mitigate climate change and reinforce the climate alarmist narrative. “Globally, we are still emitting about 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. If we continue on our current path – as an environmental campaigner for more than two decades, I very much hope we do not – we are headed for about 2.7° of warming by the end of the century,” she said. “It is increasingly clear that we have to transition away from fossil fuels.”
She then used the Rockefeller line about the scarcity of “fossil fuels,” saying. “Fossil fuels are finite, and the cost of extraction is rising, so given that we know we will have to make the transition at some point, sooner or later, why not do it sooner?”
Related:
- L. Fletcher Prouty: Oil is not a fossil fuel; it is the second most prevalent liquid on Earth
- The Great Oil Conspiracy: It has been known since the end of WWII that oil is not a fossil fuel; it is abiotic
- Not all “fossil fuels” are from fossils, so where do they come from?
Savage’s speech in Parliament is what controlled opposition looks like. Is this why she “volunteered to take on this responsibility”? To ensure the nefarious climate change narrative stayed on track?
Pippa Heylings, Liberal Democrat MP for South Cambridgeshire, was Savage’s support act and followed Savage spouting the same false climate change narrative that is dictated by the United Nations.
Nick Timothy, Conservative MP for West Suffolk, injected some much-needed common sense to counteract the Liberal Democrats’ climate ideology. “[Heylings] used the opportunity to speak about climate change. Although she and I probably disagree profoundly about the wisdom of the net zero target and the plan to decarbonise the whole grid by 2030, I am sure she opposes, as I do, the giant solar and battery farms that the Government want to impose on both our constituencies and most of the east of England,” he said.
“My party’s position on SRM is clear. We oppose any attempts to seed the sky, and every effort must be made to be respectful of nature and our planet. Chasing such hare-brained scientific schemes to interfere with the climate and the atmosphere will not give us answers to any live public policy dilemmas,” he added.
Timothy noted that public concern was prompted by the Advanced Research and Innovation Agency (“ARIA”) offering £56.8 million of public money to examine climate cooling theory. “Having been very clear about the Conservative position, I invite the Minister to provide a clear statement that the Government will not support SRM,” he said.
Related:
- ARIA: The UK government’s secretive agency masquerading as a beacon of scientific progress
- UK government plans to mandate new homes have solar panels and also plans to block sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface; the two do not go together
Kerry McCarthy, Labour’s Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, harped on about the manufactured climate change crisis and the need to mitigate its fictional effects by using “greenhouse gas removal technologies.”
“We are acting on nature-based approaches … However, we know that nature-based approaches need to be complemented by engineered solutions to remove carbon dioxide at the speed and scale necessary for us to meet our targets,” he said.
Adding, “I make it clear for the record that the Government are not deploying solar radiation modification and have no plans to do so. There will be no spraying of chemicals in the skies over the UK for SRM, geo-engineering or climate remediation. Our priority is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from human activities and to adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change.”
“There is no substitute for decarbonisation, which is why we are pressing on with our missions for clean power and net zero,” he said. “The science is clear that, without rapid action, we risk irreversible damage to the planet’s biosphere. To halt global warming, the world needs to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions, which includes the UK’s emissions.”
It’s difficult to know with any particular politician whether they believe the drivel they spout about climate change or whether they are knowingly lying to satisfy their bosses, or line their pockets.
Savage ended the debate with the remark, “This debate seems to be one of those rare occasions where we find multi-party consensus.”
The public who are concerned about all geo-engineering projects have once again been gaslit by politicians. There was no real debate; it was simply a group of politicians abusing the democratic process and the Commons to promote a global agenda.
Savage’s Pagan Cult Belief
“During my years of rowing solo across oceans to raise awareness of our climate and nature issues, I learned the hard way that we cannot fight mother nature. We cannot flout her laws and expect to win,” Savage said in her remarks concluding the Commons debate on geo-engineering.
Savage’s use of the term “mother nature” should tell us all we need to know about the cult she and her co-conspirators are following.
“Mother Nature” is a variation of “Mother Earth” or “Earth Mother”; they are names for Gaia, a Greek goddess. According to Greek mythology, from Gaia’s fertile womb all life sprang, and unto Mother Earth all living things must return after their allotted span of life is over.
As Greek Medicine explains, “Gaia, as Mother Nature, personifies the entire ecosystem of Planet Earth. Mother Nature is always working to achieve and maintain harmony, wholeness and balance within the environment. Mother Nature heals, nurtures and supports all life on this planet, and ultimately all life and health depend on her. In time, Nature heals all ills.”
“In the 1960s, James Lovelock formulated the Gaia hypothesis. It states that all life, and all living things on this planet, are part of a single, all-encompassing global entity or consciousness which he named Gaia. It is this global consciousness, Mother Gaia, that makes our planet capable of supporting life, while our near neighbours in the solar system are barren and lifeless,” Greek Medicine adds.
Conservapedia sums up “Mother Nature,” describing it as a modernised pagan view of “Nature” native to pantheism, evolutionism and modern cosmic religion.
The pagan cult that Savage, knowingly or unknowingly, is subscribing to has been pushed for years under the banner of “climate change” and “conservation.” To understand how the climate change cult has been indoctrinating people in Gaia worship, listen to Julia Roberts below speaking as if she is “Mother Nature.”
Conservation International: Nature Is Speaking – Julia Roberts is Mother Nature, 6 October 2014 (2 mins)
As a Christian nation, a nation built on Christian values, customs and laws, we should strongly oppose Gaia worship, and we should not fall into the trap of using cult terminology to promote or oppose an agenda.
Read more: Globalists are aiming for a one-world religion: Education is one of their key tools to implement it
US EPA Reveals Weather Modification Programmes
If Savage thinks public concerns about SRM are merely “conspiracy theories,” we point her to recent events, namely the recent devastating floods in central Texas, USA.
“After the Guadalupe River flooded in central Texas [ ] took over 100 lives, Americans were looking for answers as to how such a tragedy could happen so quickly,” Blaze Media reported yesterday. “The extreme rainfall had some pointing to possible weather modification.”
On Thursday, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Lee Zeldin, said in a video that the EPA had published reports on both contrails and geoengineering in an attempt to reach full “transparency.”
The EPA’s documents explained that nine US states have active weather modification programmes. California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming have cloud seeding programmes. New Mexico and North Dakota have cloud modification programmes, while Texas boasts weather modification in general, as well as cloud seeding.
Cloud seeding is a weather modification technique used to increase precipitation by introducing substances into clouds to encourage rainfall or snowfall. Common materials used include silver iodide, salt or dry ice.
Related:
- Are Gulf states’ floods due to weather modification or global warming? Corporate media can’t decide
- Does Cloud Seeding Happen in the UK? Houses and Properties, 6 September 2024 (Note the comments posted under the article as well)
A whistle-blower has recently come forward and pointed to federal grants to organisations like the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (“UCAR”), which leads geo-engineering research in fields like stratospheric aerosol geo-engineering, which many refer to as the formal term for the colloquial word “chemtrails.”
The whistle-blower’s account in conjunction with BlazeTV host Nicole Shanahan’s research (see PDF below), “lends to the idea that while some government officials may brush off weather modification or geoengineering as a myth or wild conspiracy theory, government programmes and government funding have been and continue to be used to conduct small and large-scale operations,” Blaze Media said.
Featured image: Roz Savage smiling with the sea behind her (chemtrails and aeroplanes added). Adapted from ‘Rower turned MP backs call for sewage crackdown’, BBC, 21 September 2024
This article (UK Parliament debates geoengineering and chemtrails; they are gaslighting us) was created and published by The Expose and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Rhoda Wilson
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply