October 22, 2025 • 57 mins
Typically, when you hear someone bring up the concept of chemtrails, it's either to dismiss the idea as a conspiracy theory or to claim there's something dangerous up there in the sky -- something the mainstream doesn't want you to know about. But a growing group of experts think something like chemtrails might just be the key to literally saving life on Earth. Tune in and learn more about stratospheric aerosol injections.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Fellow conspiracy realist. The rumors are true, Matt, Noel, Dylan
and yours truly did make it to the High Seas
and did return successfully. We are getting used to being
landlubbers again, so we're sharing some classic episodes as we
find whatever the opposite of sea legs.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Are exactly, everything is still moving. A little bit for me,
a little bit of discomfort here realizing that, oh no,
I'm on solid ground and the floor is not moving,
nor is it lava. While we were out there on
the high season, you know what, I didn't see a
lot of.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
What's that contrails or chem trail. Yeah, and Dylan, you
were just pointing out that apparently there have been fewer
chem trails because of the government shutdown.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Yeah, yeah, you know.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
And so get out there, breathe the fresh air, enjoy
your chem trail free life while lasts. I'm sorry I
made it sound like that was totally your pitch.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Well, I got some opinions, man, that's right. Oh shoot,
I think all we need to set up this episode
is for you to know that KEM trails and what
are we calling these stratospheric aerosol injections?
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Orsi?
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Oh, I like that I love those.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
Raphael Baby least favorite teenager, Ninja Turtle.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Actually he's the hardest one though.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
I think he has a lot of complicated issues.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
He's in that bath of you remember, Yeah, I remember?
Speaker 1 (01:26):
But anyway, what do we need to know, Matt?
Speaker 2 (01:28):
What do we need to know? We need to know
that they're kind of one and the same, but not really,
and one of them.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
Might just help solve global warming. It's a weird pitch
because kim trails are often seen as a villainous thing.
But what if they could be the key to saving
the planet.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Oh I hope, so, I hope.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
So we sure did. Back in twenty twenty. This is
our classic episode.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Disclaimer don't doesn't really have many opinions about conspiracy theories
around KEM.
Speaker 3 (01:57):
Trails, from UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History
is riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now
or learn the stuff they don't want you to know.
A production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Nol.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
They called me Ben. We were joined as always with
our super producer Paul, Mission Control Deck, and most importantly,
you are here and that makes this stuff they don't
want you to know. Now we're recording at a slightly
different time today. I want to check in with you guys.
How are you doing. How was your weekend?
Speaker 4 (02:49):
Well, Matt has been off on adventures, as you would say,
Ben and I think we have both missed him very much. Matt,
how is your weekend? I know you were playing with
some fun new toys.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Yeah, I just got these new binormal mics. I was
running around my house recording some things and yelling and
pretending to be a zombie in the exterior or on
the exterior of my house. So I'm sure my neighbors
think I'm insane, but that's great.
Speaker 4 (03:14):
Was there grunting involved?
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Was there like zombies and zombie sounds? That sounds fun? Dude.
Speaker 4 (03:21):
Well, I'm glad you occupied yourself productively during your time off.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
I did good times. Missed you guys. Thanks for you know,
holding down the fort while I was away.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Well, we saved this episode for you, specifically, Matt. This
is this topic came to us from an anonymous source.
We always talk about our call in line, the various
ways you can contact us. So someone called one eight
three three st D WYTK recently and left a message
(03:55):
that sent us down a bit of a rabbit hole.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Yeah, so this person called in after we did I
believe was chemtrails in the UK. We did that episode
and this person wrote in to tell us about the
topic we're going to be covering today. Just mentioned it
to us, Hey, we should look into it, and what
we found was surprising. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
You see, regardless of where you live nowadays, regardless of
where where you reside in the globe of ours, your
local news is probably full of crises. They're both real
and imagined, and they're all terrible things, right, That's how
news makes money. Some of these disasters, like the War
(04:37):
on Christmas, are more or less, you know, seasonal hoaxes.
Everybody's hip to it. They're meant to rile people up,
to make them behave a certain way. Others like COVID
nineteen are unfortunately all too real. Today, we are exploring
something that was once upon a time considered a conspiracy
theory all its own, and that is global warming. Over
(05:02):
the past few decades, numerous government institutions thousands of private
entities have been aware of the massive threat posed by
global warming and the gist of global warming is this,
Even tiny changes in our average temperatures on Earth's surface
or in its atmosphere can have long reaching, devastating effects
(05:27):
on the world overall. When we say small amounts, we
mean like five degrees five like that is. That is
how fragile our existence is. That's the small kind of
variable that our entire our entire ecosystem depends on. Five
degrees up, eight degrees up. Things are wild at that point.
(05:50):
And most people here's the thing nowadays, most people agree
this is a problem. Everyone's aware of it. It should
come to come as no surprise, however, that no one
has proposed a solution that everyone supports. So what's going on?
I know, I've probably already made a couple of people
angry in the audience today by saying that global warming
(06:12):
is not, in fact a conspiracy. But let's look at it, like,
let's look what is global warming? What is climate change?
Here are the facts?
Speaker 4 (06:22):
Well, I mean, you know, climate change is certainly something
that you can observe. We can definitely see our climate
changing year over year. It gets hotter, quicker, and it's
just kind of something that you can very much experience
with your senses, So I don't understand why it's controversial,
but yeah, let's talk about weather versus climate. For example,
(06:44):
weather refers to localized atmosphere conditions occurring over short periods
of time, anywhere from a couple.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Of days to just a few minutes.
Speaker 4 (06:51):
So things like rain and snow, cloud cover, storms, floods,
these are examples of weather events.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
They happen and.
Speaker 4 (06:59):
Then they're gone and over a short period of time.
Climate is just a pullback view of all of that.
It refers to a series of these kinds of events,
patterns that happen over a longer period of time, long
term regional or even global averages of temperature, humidity, rainfall patterns.
These things are seasonal. They happen over seasons, years, or
(07:21):
even decades.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
So an easy way to think about it is if
you look outside or you listen in and there's a
thunderstorm going on, that is your friendly neighborhood weather, and
that's just how it's going to be. You see an
oddly rain free weekend and a time when you usually
see rain, that's also going to be weather. But let's
say you're dealing with a year long drought, or let's
(07:44):
say that the amount of rain that's happening every year
is decreasing year over year. For you know, let's say
a decade or two, that's gonna be climate and that
that thing is changing.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
Yep, this is the issue. I think it escapes a
lot of people, even people who should know better. Climate
change is the long term change and the average weather
patterns and you know, the big patterns, the things that
define Earth on a local, regional, and global climactic scale.
Global warming is just that, it's like a subdivision of it.
(08:18):
It's long term heating of Earth's climate system. And we've
observed this since the pre industrial period that would be
about you know, the eighteen fifties to the early twentieth century.
We've observed it due to human activities, mainly fossil fuel burning,
because fossil fuel burning increases the amount of carbon dioxide,
(08:42):
nitros oxide, methane, ozone, so on, the so called greenhouse gases,
and they're called greenhouse gases because they trap heat from
the Sun in Earth's atmosphere. It gets you know, it's
like the old roach motel advertisements, you know what I mean.
The Sun's enter checks in, but it can't check out.
And this is this is bad for us because we
(09:07):
have evolved to live in an environment where there is
not as much greenhouse gas. So when you think about
climate change and when you think about global warming, it's
kind of like how all mazes are puzzles, but not
all puzzles are mazes. Like how all case ideas are snacks,
but not all snacks are case ideas. How all anime
is animated, but not all animation is you know, you
(09:29):
get it, You get the moving picture here.
Speaker 4 (09:31):
Ben, I take issue with casidia being a snack. That
is an entree, my friend, that is an entree.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
I don't know, man, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
I'm working life. But agree to disagree then, so I,
you know, I can eat like two three case dias
is set. I may have a problem, but the case
d is aside. One of the most important differences between
climate change and global warming is that climate change can
(09:58):
occur natural truly, and people don't mention this enough. It
gets wrapped up in all these weird conspiracy theories. We
have to remember that ice ages came and went way
before humans started human ing or whatever. The thing is
that most probably not all changes in Earth's climate since
(10:21):
the early nineteen hundreds that we can measure. They have
been driven by human activity, but there were still there
were still natural things that are very important part of
the story.
Speaker 4 (10:30):
Well, isn't it also a matter ban of you know,
those ice ages that came and went naturally. That was
a much longer timeline than we're talking about too. When
when the human intervention comes into the picture, we start
to see these things happen a little more rapidly in
like our lifetime, right.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
Yeah, absolutely, Yeah, we have to remember, of course that
we are very much not super important. Humans are very
much not super important to life on Earth as anything
more than a threat. Billions billions of years past, I say,
just came a wit volcanoes erupted, which that's super cool.
(11:06):
You know, there were earthquakes that were floods, there were
tectonic shifts, the continents were in different positions, and then
we showed up basically very recently at the like the very.
Speaker 4 (11:18):
End, walking in like we own the place. But yeah,
those natural changes are things like al Nino, La Nina
and so on, or changes in the Sun's output, Earth's orbit,
or one of one of the coolest most metal examples,
which would be.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Giant volcanic eruptions.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Yeah, those are great, but those do a real number
on the atmosphere. They actually naturally do some of the
things that we're talking about today. Humans don't have any
control over this stuff, but we, like all living things
on Earth, hope for the best and also kind of
have a little bit of a god complex where we
want to figure out how to do these kinds of things.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
Yeah, and you know, when you get into some of
the climate change debates, one of the major arguments you're
going to see for climate change being a hoax is
what we just mentioned here, changes in the sun and
how much energy is actually being emitted from the sun
and at what time and what kinds of cycles the
Sun goes through compared to the cycles that the Earth
(12:19):
is going on, and then how those two things interact,
and whether or not global climate change is actually just
the sun changing. That's a debate for a different day.
For this episode, we're going to take it in or
we're going to take it as though that is not
the primary thing that is affecting the Earth, and how
the atmosphere is being affected and how the climate is
(12:40):
actually changing. Yeah, yes, exactly. So we're going to talk
about or we are thinking about man made things here again,
fossil fuels, a lot of the methane that gets up
into the atmosphere and other gases again up in the
atmosphere because of factory farming and things like that. But
you know, as always that old black gold, you know,
(13:03):
the Texas tea, that's going to be one of the
main things just burning off these things, traps that heat
because of these because of the CO two and the
other things that are being released.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
And this is also I don't think it is in
the notes, but this is coming. This is important. A
lot of developing countries have a problem with industrial countries
or the so called quote unquote first world countries telling
them to practice pollution controls because the idea is like, oh, okay,
(13:35):
you're making us run this race with a backpack of
bricks because you already you already burned all the coal
you needed, you know what I mean. Hydroelectric energy and
solar energy is all well and good for you guys,
but we shouldn't have to Like, you couldn't have gotten
where you are, you know, Western Europe, United Kingdom, us,
(13:56):
et cetera, if you hadn't been able to just throw
all this garbage into the sky for you know, a
century or more.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Did you guys ever play the game Age of Empires.
Speaker 4 (14:07):
Yes, was that sort of like a sim city but
like with like civilization kind of.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Or no kind. It was more of a war strategy
game essentially, but it was also civilization building. But one
of the primary things you had to do in that game,
and I think it is very telling here, it's exactly
what civilizations have to do, what countries have to do.
You have to build up, you have to level up
essentially your technology, and one of the primary steps you
(14:35):
have to get to is essentially fossil fuel burning the
industrial age, where you have to make enough power to
do all the things that you need to do to
advance further. And yeah, that's exactly what you're saying there, Ben.
It's just if you remove that step by making making
countries and governments control exactly how much emissions they're allowed
(14:56):
to put out there, then you're really just you're going
to handicap them.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
Yeah, it's like it's like the same people who built
their fortunes on these sorts of acts, right, this kind
of energy, are the same institutions that are telling other
up and comers that they cannot play by the same
rules and the you know, is it hypocritical? Sure, yes,
(15:23):
But also our understanding as a species of the problem
has changed. We know a lot more about what's going on.
We just learned it a little too late. My nihilism
is probably going to come to the forefront here because
there are some consequences, right, we know, we know very
well the consequences they Science obeys no political parties, Science
(15:47):
obeys no religious ideology. Science does not could not care
less about what you know, what part of the world
you live in, what you like for breakfast, et cetera.
There are genuine consequences of human created global warming. As
far as we can tell, they are biblical level, like
Book of Revelations. Things like, first off, weather, I love
(16:10):
the way you guys describe weather is a function of climate. Right,
So if the climate is changing, the weather is changing,
and because this is the real world, those changes are
not like super awesome, They're not convenient or whatever. A
warmer climate creates this atmosphere that collects, retains, and drops
more water, but in different places, so wet areas are
(16:34):
becoming wetter than they should be across the year. Monsoon
season or so on, and dry areas are becoming drier
than they should be. Floods in Bangladesh pretty soon, like
within your lifetime, there are going to be parts of
the world that are uninhabitable because of record breaking heat
(16:55):
in the Middle East, for instance, or in Africa. There's
just not enough ac for everybody, and some world governments
seem to be pretending there is, but they have to
know better whether in climate affect agriculture, food supplies. Oof,
everybody thought it was crazy for those MRIs, but they
last forever.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
Buy some.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
Yeah, there's this concept of climate refugees. This this notion
that the part of the world where you find yourself
and could potentially become unlivable. Basically, the closer to the
equator that you get, the higher the likelihood that your
descendants or potentially even you might have to move. Yep,
your kids could become climate refugees as well as yourself.
(17:38):
As this stuff, you know, can kind of escalate, and
as we talked about, the timeline moves pretty quickly when
human intervention becomes involved. Sea levels will continue to rise
as ice caps melt. So say goodbye to some of
your favorite vacation spots like like the Maldives are where
what have you. And then there's you know the issue
of wildlife not being able to adapt. We know wildlife
(18:01):
can adapt, we know that. You know, evolution does occur
for changing conditions, but that requires a very long timeline.
So wildlife can't adapt quickly enough, and it can cause
extinction events. The human species will, for all intents and purposes,
descend into a different kind of war, which is the
(18:22):
war for resources.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
A different kind of war. No, they're all resource wars now,
I'm just choking. Not all of them, but most of them.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
Yeah, yeah, I agree.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
I thought you would.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
You would pick up on that point, especially met because
we had talked for years about what was it. The
Third World War will be about water? That's yeah, feel.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
True, whether it's rising sea levels or just not having
enough potable water.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
It's I mean, guys, we're in one right now, or
at least, you know, things are sort of leveling out.
But there was a few weeks or months even where
you couldn't get toilet paper, you know, and people were
losing their minds about it. I mean, that's just like
sort of an inkling of how bad things could get.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
Right, Oh, I actually I did some research off the
books on that, and I think it. I think I
have an explanation for it, which is pretty interesting. And
also I'm eighty percent sure it's true. It might be,
it might be for another day, but I think I
think I figured out at least the toilet paper. And
it's not because there wasn't enough. It's bizarre, but but yeah,
(19:32):
we've we've painted these these problems right. First off, to
your point, whether it's toilet paper or water, well, in
the entire human species is just so ready to bucket
each other at any given point about any given thing.
It doesn't it doesn't even matter right. People of the
same religion wage religious wars on each other because they
(19:52):
disagree with the interpretation of one sentence of one chapter
of an unimportant part of their favorite book, you know
what I mean. And maybe I've offended people by saying
some parts of your favorite book might not be as
important as others. But the point is this is very bad.
Human beings are in a bad situation. We're driving headlong
(20:14):
over a cliff, an existential cliff, and the rest of
the living things on earth are sort of in the
backseat of the car with us saying where are we going?
What are we doing? It's up to human beings to
find the solution to this problem. We have created. What
are the solutions. We'll tell you after a word from
our sponsor, and we're back. So yes. In addition to
(20:44):
creating tons of problems for every living thing on Earth,
our human species has also created a couple of solutions.
You know, we've been in our writer's room, we got
our whiteboard, we've been brainstorming. But first, and this is
very import don't let the various misleading discourses fool you.
(21:05):
Don't let the people in mainstream news or the weird
like Koch Brothers found funded documentaries, and don't let any
of that fool you. The experts throughout the planet were
pretty much universally on the same page about global warming
and have been for decades. And when I say experts,
(21:28):
I do mean I do mean governments, you know, I
do mean academics. I also mean oil companies like Exon.
Exon knew about this. They knew global warming was real
and that people were doing it way back in nineteen
seventy seven, more than like, more than a decade before
anybody else publicly cared about it, and.
Speaker 4 (21:50):
They didn't tell anybody, Ben, They just kept this to themselves.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
To what end?
Speaker 4 (21:54):
Why wouldn't they tell everybody? Why wouldn't they just come
screaming this, you know, to the high heavens, Ben.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Well, they were definitely screaming something to the public.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Was it money? Are they screaming? Ben?
Speaker 1 (22:10):
Yeah? Well, they spent some money on the studies. The
studies were pretty conclusive. The internal memos confirmed that the
executives talked about this and how real it was, and
then they spent millions over the next few decades trying
to trying to fight any legislation because you see, fighting
(22:31):
global warming would affect the bottom line of a fossil
fuel company.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
Yeah, that's right. And we actually interviewed Amy Westervelt, who
makes a podcast called Drilled. We did that last year
in twenty nineteen, and we went over in great detail
what these companies knew when they learned it. And if
you want to check that episode out, please go do
it now. But one of the major things to remember
here been one of the videos we were watching in
(22:59):
research for this was a Stanford University professor, David Keith,
and he was speaking about the nineteen sixty four academic
papers that were coming out where they're discussing, hey, guys,
there seems to be an issue here, just raising their hands,
you know, and just saying, hey, maybe we should start
thinking about ways we can prevent the Earth from warming
(23:22):
up too much, because it looks like we might be
having an effect. So, yeah, it's still a jump from
sixty four to seventy seven or so, but seventy seven
is pretty early to be aware of.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
The everybody knew it was a real conspiracy. It was
not a conspiracy theory. These the same. It's just like
those senators who were doing insider trading and dumping all
their stocks while they were telling people not to worry
about the quote unquote so called pandemic. Right, the oil
(23:54):
companies were doing the same thing. The point is we
could have had a much much earlier head start. Current solutions.
Proposed solutions for global warming include things like a carbon tax.
This is this is something that you know, people who
read the economists, for instance, would really enjoy. The gist
(24:18):
is that, you know, we make countries or companies pay
a premium somehow for their carbon emissions or fossil fuels.
Now you can see, of course, how the developing world
would say this is massively unfair. This is, you know,
victimizing the impoverished geopolitically. Uh, you know, because it is
(24:44):
in terms of development, it's it's not a perfect solution.
And also, you know, companies and entities that are at
the top, the ones that rule the rest, don't tend
to pay taxes anyway. Not really.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
Yeah, Well, the the major issue here is that other
actions have to be taken rather than just you know,
monetary incentive, incentivizing and paying, like having to pay more
money if you're going to essentially put carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere. Because now it's inevitable that warming is going
(25:21):
to happen, and it has been for quite a while.
Now we have to find ways to actually cool like
cool it down, or prevent the warming, or get stuff
out of the atmosphere. We have to go to more
drastic measures now and they are not easy.
Speaker 1 (25:38):
Yeah, we've been incentivizing alternative energy, right And one thing
that's interesting, the world is recovering right now because people
are flying less, they're traveling less, they're we're we're producing
fewer things. This is actually a record breaking year for
(26:01):
alternative energy in a couple of places in Western Europe,
like there are a couple of countries that have gone
completely free from coal or have drastically reduced their usage
of it. But to your point, Matt, even taxing people
for fossil fuels, even you know, making it cheaper for
(26:21):
them to use solar geothermal hydroelectric energy, that's still not enough.
And so the question is what if we tried something else,
Because there's another answer here, just maybe, just maybe remember
those epic giant volcanic eruptions. What if we could just
sort of, you know, do that. Here's where it gets crazy.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
Yeah, well, the reason why we would want to do
that is because it actually has a cooling effect, a
measurable cooling effect anytime a giant volcano explodes. So the
mimicking that there were talking about here, it's it's a thing.
It's real. It's a proposed solution, or part of a
proposed solution to global climate change. And it's called stratospheric
(27:10):
aerosol injection. Oh boy, it's it's certainly well, let's say
at this point it is a theoretical solution, but it
is a it is a geoengineering technique that could possibly
happen in the near future and a way to combat
man made temperature rise on planet Earth.
Speaker 4 (27:31):
Right, Like, geoengineering is sort of a blanket term for
things like that could include everything from cloud seating. Is
this notion of you know, changing the weather through science,
and this is just you know, one of numerous techniques
and technologies, some more theoretical than others, but this one
does seem to be, you know, something that could absolutely
(27:53):
be implemented. And so geoengineering in terms of like you know,
cooling the Earth's temperatures, there's two kind of big paths
that you could go down. The first would be this
concept of sucking up all of the kind of scattered
CO two particles in greenhouse gases that are already in
the atmosphere, sort of hoovering them up. And then the
(28:14):
second would be solar radiation management, i e. Affecting the
way the Sun's rays interact with the atmosphere. And that
is absolutely where SAI comes in.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
And SAI stands for stratospheric aerosol injection, not the not
the you know, catchiest of terms. It sounds a little technical,
and it should because it is, but it's pretty wild. Okay,
are we talking about impersonating volcanoes, yes, kind of. But
(28:52):
walk with us here, you know, let us finish the pitch.
What if we took a ton of balloons, right, or
airships or drones or lanes or you know what, missiles,
why not artillery, and we just sent them up in
the stratosphere to release sulfates into the air. To the
point about cloud seating, this is something this is similar
(29:14):
to the stuff that the government of China and the
government of the United States, as well as the government
of the United Kingdom have all done in the past.
With cloud seating, you disperse I believe it's silver iodide,
and the idea is that it will attract moisture droplets
so you can form clouds. Cloud seating is all about
(29:37):
forming clouds. Orgone Energy is all about busting clouds. You
can check out both of those episodes for more information.
But we would be doing this on a much larger scale.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
And a much higher scale.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Yeah, literally literally to what you were saying earlier, Matt.
Volcanoes do this naturally. When they erupt, they shoot tons
of aerosol particles in the air and they create something
that is known as global dimming. The particles released by volcanoes.
If the volcano is large enough for a time, they
(30:12):
run a sort of scrimmage line of filter between the
Earth's surface and the sun. They reduce the amount of
light and heat that enters the atmosphere. So you can
see the logic start to form here, right.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
And SAI is going to try and mimic this by
delivering sulfide gases the same kind of stuff, sulfur dioxide,
hydrogen sulfide, sulfuric acid. Way up. But we're talking around
sixty thousand feet into the air. It's the mesosphere and stratosphere,
and we currently don't we're going to talk about this,
(30:46):
but there's no real good way to do that at
sixty thousand feet right now. We'll get into that. But
the research shows that if we could do this effectively
and enough, this would or could at least counter chain
just to temperature as well as temperatures in the oceans,
change the water temperature back to a place where animals
(31:08):
could live, you know, instead of just die with the
ocean acidification and all the other things that are happening.
And here's the other thing too, It's not like this
would be a crazy slow process. You shoot all this
stuff up into the stratosphere and then you got to
wait and wait and wait. No, it would happen pretty
quickly if we did it right.
Speaker 4 (31:29):
So you're saying we should pump sulfuric acid up into
the sky. That was that? Is that what I'm getting here?
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (31:38):
Not you like the UU, I mean the U of
Science or whoever's saying this. That sounds that sounds like
there could be some issues.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
We're gonna blot out the sun nul.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
So why haven't we done it right? That's the question.
Why haven't you know? I don't know about you, guys.
I'm sold. Why haven't we just shot a ton of
of a sulfur dioxide so two hydrogen sulfide sulfuric acid
into the sky? I mean, God knows, we're putting out
a plenty of pollution as it is. What's a little
(32:11):
more Let's answer that question because spoiler alert, it turns
out there are some issues with stratospheric aerosol injection, and
we'll explore them after a word from our sponsors. All Right,
we know what you're thinking.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
Right.
Speaker 1 (32:32):
First off, what's the bottom line? Right you're saying you're saying,
Matt Michigan con troll nol Ben. Let's talk turkey. Obviously,
this isn't happening because it's crazy expensive. Well, we have
some weird news for you. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (32:48):
Strangely enough, it's not that expensive, because you know, we
kind of mentioned this earlier in the show.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
It's pretty low tech.
Speaker 4 (32:55):
Ultimately, I mean, you know, it involves planes or drones
or balloons or airships or what have you. But it's
stuff that we already have, and we could even use artillery.
We could actually fire these chemicals up into the atmosphere.
The chemicals are super easy to obtain, so that's not
really an issue at all. I think I saw some
(33:16):
I mean it's you know, it's not like this has
been like, you know, spreadsheeted out exactly yet, but I
saw somewhere it would only be in the handful of
billions of dollars, not like the trillions. You know, it
would definitely be costly in terms of like you know,
you or I money, but in terms of government big
brother money, it's kind of a drop in the bucket.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
Well, so, okay, maybe my understanding is off here. The
way I've been thinking about this from some of the
writing was that it would take years right now, as
of right now, it would take years to engineer a
plane that would be needed to make these like to
keem trail style seed this stuff out there into the
(33:59):
atmosphere because of the altitude that the planes would have
to or the jets would have to operate at, and
because you're they're my understanding is around sixty thousand feet
is where you need to put the stuff, all these chemicals,
and then you would have to make constant runs. Basically,
Oh yeah, you would have a fleet of enough planes
(34:21):
that are just going up there. I don't know the
exact frequency, but let's say just for sake of argument,
every day. And they would also have to carry enough
of a payload at sixty thousand feet to actually make
it worth the trip.
Speaker 4 (34:35):
Well, and I don't mean to imply that it would
be like, yes, we're ready to roll with this yesterday,
but I mean, the basis of the technology exists, it
would obviously require some retro fitting to you know, you'd
end up with some kind of hybrid vehicle somewhere between
a regular plane and like a spacecraft, because you it
would need to have some of those protections to be
able to go to that altitude, but the chemicals are available,
(34:58):
the technology, the basis of it. We don't have to
reinvent the wheel. We just kind of have to improve
it a little bit to make it happen.
Speaker 1 (35:03):
One thing that I think is this is something where
I'd love to hear from you, fellow conspiracy realists. The
science here is looking pretty sound, but we as a
global community, we as a species, are still kind of
in the brainstorming phase. So if you have an idea
about how this was about how best to deliver this,
(35:27):
if you're in favor of it, which not everybody is,
then let us know. You know, hit us up conspiracy
at iHeartRadio dot com or any of the various ways
you want to find us. You know, our Facebook page
will probably blow up with some weird threads about this. Yeah,
you know, you're you're both right here. It's not super expensive.
(35:49):
The technology exists, it needs tweaking because, for instance, you know,
one of the first things I thought about was what
about recoverable ICBMs intercontinental ballistic missiles. Some of those can go,
could function high enough, but they don't have at least
them aware. They don't have the seeding kind of apparatus,
(36:10):
right they can't really be the crop dusters for the
stratosphere that we need. So it's like we do have
all the technology, but we don't have it all in
the one thing we need. Right, we have some stuff
that can do task A, we have some stuff that
can do task B. We need something that can just
do the alphabet of the task in a one stop shop.
(36:32):
And yeah, to your point, we can make or obtain
the chemicals. This is so weird. Reminds me of the
Mister Show sketch about blowing up the Moon because they
figured out they could do it. Yeah, and we figured
out we could do it. But here's the problem. So
(36:53):
if we know that theoretically we're really close to being
able to do this, the technology is there, we just
need to get the perfect remix. We have to ask
ourselves how efficient will it be, what will the efficacy be?
Will this actually work? And this is a big sticking
point something we talked a little bit about in the
course of today's episode. Those chemicals so two and all,
(37:16):
it's the rest of its entourage. They're short lived, and
that's a good thing for the bulk of human history
because that's the reason that a volcanic eruption, even a
massive one, doesn't put us out of the game forever.
That's the reason why we're not living in some horrible,
(37:36):
a different kind of horrible situation. The aerosol chemicals there
can only be where we really need them to be
for a couple of weeks, maybe one or two months,
and we would have to be and that's if we're
one hundred percent certain that the particles are the right size.
(37:58):
That makes a huge difference. And that's also why we
would have to institute a program. So like that number
eighteen billion is kind of a is kind of a watermark.
We hear as a get started, right, it's a get
started number. I just want to say, for the record,
Jeff Bezos, if you're listening, I see that now as
(38:21):
of May eighteenth, twenty twenty, your net worth is over
an estimated one hundred and forty billion dollars. And if
we call this kind of earth saving bond villain working
for Good project twenty billion dollars, then that means you,
Jeff alone, can do this seven times. You can you
(38:43):
can attempt to save the world in this way seven times.
Speaker 4 (38:46):
But here's the thing, among many things and sticky parts
of this whole concept. I mean it would require like
global consensus, right, like I mean it would it would
to do it in a way that benefited every everyone,
and like a single unilateral kind of like you know,
implementation of this. It would require the kind of un
(39:07):
level cooperation that we just don't really typically see. And
also again this is this is very new, I mean
not super new, but like new in the scale of civilization,
new technology, and this concept. So I've read there's a
lot of you know, varying opinions about this, And one
thing that I've read is that it wouldn't be a
(39:28):
one size fits all for all regions. Like there would
be potentially regions that would not benefit from this and
that could be actually harmed by this and could harm
agriculture in certain regions. And this thing could like you
know benefit you know, certain areas of the country, and
then there are other areas that it could actually harm
in terms of like their normal you know, levels of
(39:51):
agricultural output that it could really you know, have a
have a negative effect on that. Have you guys seen
anything about about these these.
Speaker 2 (39:58):
Issues, Yeah, for sure. In the American Meteorological Society put
out a statement in twenty thirteen, yes, twenty thirteen, where
they talked about some of these issues, and you know,
similarly to other major hard problems that are out there.
(40:19):
They basically were saying, hey, we need more research on
all of this stuff, the potential for everything. We need
to study historical, ethical, legal, and social implications that this
geoengineering could have across the planet in different places, and
we need to develop and analyze policy options. So basically,
(40:42):
it's the same thing that we've seen time and time
again for decades now when it comes to hard problems
like climate change, and it's everybody doesn't want to deal
with it while they're in office. That's what it feels
like to me. I mean, the Meteorological Society is correct
that we need way more research, We need way more
information on this before we act. But if we don't
(41:04):
act soon in some major way, what do we do.
It's already too late. It's just it's a tough thing.
Just last thing here is David David Keith. I got
it wrong. I said I think I said he was
with Stanford. He spoke at Stanford. He's from the University
of Calgary. That's that's my bad. Sorry about that.
Speaker 1 (41:24):
Professor Keith Yeah, he's got a it's got a great,
great lecture on this. It runs a little more than
an hour, but if you're interested in it, he goes
through the different angles. He's really spent spent some time
on the cognitive road with this one. I do want
to mention too that, like many macro level changes, global
(41:48):
proposed changes. First off, yes, obviously, as you know longtime listeners,
human beings cannot agree on anything, and the greater good
is a very dangerous subjective to kind of rorshack ink blot,
and so we know that humans probably won't cooperate. I
(42:09):
think to your point, Matt, it's especially instructive to look
back over you know the weakness of democracy. And now
I'm not arguing for authoritarianism or fascism or whatever, but
I will point out that we've seen time and time again.
You know, people who are elected for two four or
(42:30):
six years tend to focus on things that will show
results within two four to six years. You're not gonna
if you're if you're a president asking someone to to
sacrifice literally anything about their life because it'll be better
in twenty five years, you're probably not going to get
(42:52):
re elected. And it doesn't it really doesn't matter what
you believe, how right or wrong you are. People are like, hey, buddy,
I elected you for two four to six years, and
that is the metric upon which you are being graded.
We're just, you know, as humans, we just suck at
this kind of stuff. So I don't even think it's
corporations necessarily being insidious. We're just very It's the tragedy
(43:18):
of the commons, right, we're very, very bad at allowing
other people to exist, whether there are people who are
alive at the same time as us, whether there are
people who inherit the earth we leave behind, and that's like,
that goes across the board. I'm sorry, there's not a
person alive who doesn't have a problem with that is
the solution. Then that we is the solution. Then some
(43:42):
kind of world government, some kind of AI that says, hey, look,
you know, we know that this is going to hurt
people in parts of the world. You know, specifically, we
know this is going to hurt some very disadvantaged people
who don't have the infrastructure or the technology to deal
with the famine that we would be creating. We would
(44:05):
be creating this. We know that volcanic eruptions like volcanic
eruptions have been linked to famine in the nineteen nineties
because of that global dimming, the crops don't grow, and
this is just going to exacerbate the horrific living conditions
for some people who are already living in dire straits
(44:26):
right now without without any SAI and volcanic eruptions you know,
leading to famine are just are just one example of
the delettorious side effects that would occur. You know, the
thing about this is we're essentially we're shooting stuff into
the atmosphere, and that stuff, even if it's very tiny,
(44:50):
is still at the whims of gravity. That means that
these particles, depending on how they are distributed or dispersed,
could return to Earth surface, and if they do, they
can worsen existing medical conditions. They if you have asthma,
you want to stay away from these chemicals, but imagine
(45:14):
if they just start raining down on you. And then
you know, it's all about placement. It could be good
for us for a little while if we get the
right size particles in the right place, but if we
put them in the wrong place, like if we put
them in the stratospheric clouds at Earth's poles, they could
damage the ozone layer, which doesn't you know, which has
(45:35):
been having a hard time lately in.
Speaker 4 (45:38):
General, and not to mention that it could potentially reduce
global rainfall around the world, especially in the summer when
you've got these monsoon seasons, and there's some pretty solid
scientific evidence that links volcanic eruption to famine and Ethiopia
in the nineties, So maybe not the best move to,
(46:00):
you know, approximate the effects of tons of volcanic explosions,
because who knows what the side effects could be. It
really does feel like, you know, the way things are
kind of fast tracked through, like FDA approval, and then
all of a sudden we realize what the side effects
are once it's actually out there in the world, and
it's kind of hard to put those badgers back in.
Speaker 2 (46:19):
Those those bags.
Speaker 4 (46:21):
So I don't know, it's it's I always am concerned with, Oh,
let's just give it a try, Let's just shoot it
up there and see what happens.
Speaker 2 (46:27):
You know.
Speaker 4 (46:28):
I feel like there definitely needs to be more research.
Speaker 2 (46:31):
What we need is a giant vacuum that just sucks
all the co two up, or it needs to be
an ionized pull of some sorts that's attached to a plane,
you know, like sixty thousand feet and just gets all
the co two.
Speaker 4 (46:44):
You know, like a shop back whoop, never mind, suck it.
Speaker 2 (46:48):
Remember from the office? Never mind? I do?
Speaker 5 (46:50):
Remember?
Speaker 2 (46:50):
Okay, good?
Speaker 4 (46:51):
And you know, you can't deny that this SAI or
any of this geo engineering stuff is really just a
band aid, and it's just kind of a quick fix
so that we don't have to think on a longer timeline,
which you know, governments and incorporate well, governments specifically been
to your point, have proven pretty incapable of doing. I mean,
(47:12):
even the current situation we find ourselves in with COVID nineteen,
we see the government just kind of like wringing their
hands and pulling their hair out with even attempting to
think about things more than two weeks out in the future.
I mean, it just seems, you know, absolutely mind boggling
to think about something on as long a timeline as
climate change requires. And it's why you start getting, you know,
(47:34):
this rhetoric around the idea that it's not real, that
it's some kind of hoax, and it really is just
kind of an excuse to not do anything about it.
And that is exactly what this technology would be as
an excuse to not do anything about it.
Speaker 1 (47:48):
I like that phrase. Yeah, yeah, it's a new space
age way of kicking the can down the road. Huh.
So it's interesting too, because what we're telling you is
that despite all of the people who have you know,
(48:09):
pooh poohed the idea of kim trails or said, you know,
I am a skeptic, kim trails do not exist. This
is our what second episode in a few months proving
that things like chem trails are very much on the
in the front of the mind of the of certain
areas of the scientific community. This is a chim trail
(48:31):
proposal essentially. And you know, Matt, I cannot read your
mind because we are recording virtually here, but I do.
I was thinking of you during the research for this,
and I have to ask you, does this not sound
(48:51):
just a little bit like what humans did in the
Ai battle that like precedes the events of the Matrix.
They blought out the sun.
Speaker 2 (49:01):
Yes, it sounds exactly like that. In fact, in that movie,
they blot out the sun because all the machines use
solar energy. Right, That's the whole concept there. In our case,
we're just trying to blot out the sun to make
it a little less hot, just a little bit.
Speaker 4 (49:19):
Yeah, but when they do that and the maystrix, don't
the machines adapt and figure out how to like harvest
energy from like human spines and brains. Yes, this will
become the batteries, Isn't it just like a band aid
that creates a much much worse situation.
Speaker 2 (49:35):
Not to put too fine a point on it now,
as large as an impact as that movie had on me,
it is just a movie, guys. But it feels like
maybe a bad call because it made most of the
surface of the Earth uninhabitable to humans, if because it
got out of hand essentially I'm imagining or well, no,
(49:58):
in that movie, it was extreme case, right where they
actually wanted to do all the giant volcano explosions to
blot out the sun. And in our case, we're trying
to do a moderate number of giant volcanic explosions controlled
over time through aerosol injection. So really, guys, there's nothing
to worry about. We're fine, we should just do it.
Speaker 1 (50:18):
Why not, you know what I mean? Yippie kaya, right,
let's hop on the bomb and doctor Strange love it
down into Down into fame.
Speaker 4 (50:30):
Guys, if I may just do a little sarcasm alert here,
sarcasm alert, please do not read the things Ben and
Matt just said as there as them speaking their hearts.
Speaker 2 (50:39):
That is all correct, But there's also well to an
extent at least, But there's also like you know, there
seems like there could be something here. We just don't
know enough yet, I would say, in my gut says,
it feels like a bad idea, but we have to
do something, and maybe this is one way to at
(51:00):
least attempt to tackle the problem.
Speaker 1 (51:03):
Maybe it gives us a little more time to figure
out an actual solution, if I mean. That's why we
use the phrase band aid so often.
Speaker 2 (51:15):
Right.
Speaker 1 (51:16):
The idea is that, you know, if all things go well,
which they never do, we will be able to fix something.
We'll be able to find a permanent solution, or at
least give our species and life on Earth here a
chance to move beyond this planet into the stars, which
(51:38):
is or a different dimensions, etc. But moving into the
stars is ultimately the goal of life on Earth, right,
That's what we've been kind of working for. That's our
big next season if we survive. One note on this,
experts believe that if we do practice stratospheric aerosol injections,
it will affect the color of this sky. Won't darken
(52:00):
it the way that the humans and the matrix did.
It will actually lead to something called sky whitening. Sunsets
will be more colorful, you will. It'll be the kind
of change that you can walk outside and notice. So
one of the questions I think a lot of people
are wondering, is is this already happening? Good news? Maybe
(52:24):
not yet. We would probably know whether this is the
case if it was, because there would be visible changes.
It would have to to the point we've made a
couple of times, it would have to be an all
at one situation. It would have to be global, right,
Like you could do cloud seating the way that Uncle
(52:45):
Sam did in Southeast Asia, and you could create regional floods.
But if you try to practice SAI in one region
of the world, it probably wouldn't do much. And if
it did something, it wouldn't be very helpful. Right, That's
the even bigger question. Should we do this well?
Speaker 2 (53:06):
I would propose to you this Ben because of the
amount of scientific research that's been going into this. The
number of articles, scholarly articles you can find on this subject,
there are several, because there are several startups, like tech
startups that are trying to come up with a way
for this to be able to happen, at least starting
(53:28):
from the United States and then moving outward. It feels
like maybe there are some tests going on or some
tech being developed in the background, like for those planes,
for instance, that we were talking about, the ones that
have to go to very high altitude. I would suspect
that there's testing going on now, but that the actual
(53:49):
full on spraying is not happening for sure.
Speaker 1 (53:52):
So what do you think should this happen out of
full scale knowing that we will, you know, if Earth
somehow agrees to do this, if we make this a priority,
we agree to we say, okay, the almost eight billion
of us are going to collectively impersonate volcanoes. We're gonna
(54:15):
do it, you know, like every couple of months, just
to give us some more time to not destroy ourselves.
But we know that we are going to be killing
many people along the way. We're just not going to
be killing everybody. Is that the right thing?
Speaker 2 (54:31):
To do.
Speaker 1 (54:31):
Is Spock right when he says the needs of the
many outweigh the needs of the few. Is this a
true case of greater good? And if that's not the solution,
then what is we want to hear from you? You
can find us. We're all over the internet.
Speaker 2 (54:45):
In most places we are conspiracy stuff. Sometimes conspiracy stuff show.
I believe that's Instagram. You can, you know, contact us
on all those places. Tell us what you think. You
can check out here's where he gets It's our Facebook
community page. Check that out. You can, you know, talk
with other fellow conspiracy realists about this episode and others
(55:09):
and make suggestions.
Speaker 5 (55:10):
You can also give us a call. You can absolutely
give us a call. We are one eight three three
st d w y t K. That is basically a
direct line to Matt Frederick's personal cell phone device where
he is. He's awaiting your call.
Speaker 2 (55:28):
That's right, I sit here patiently waiting for you to
ring patiently. No, it's not.
Speaker 1 (55:33):
It actually goes to all of us.
Speaker 4 (55:34):
But Matt has been just an absolute champion of this
line and has been known to give people a ring
back occasionally. So I pitched this as a as a feature.
I know Matt might pitch it as a bug, but
I think it's a positive thing.
Speaker 2 (55:48):
If you give Matt, if you give.
Speaker 4 (55:49):
Us a call, you might just get a follow up
from our boy, Matt Frederick.
Speaker 2 (55:53):
Is that a Caine ben Bolin? What is that that
I'm looking at? Umbrella?
Speaker 1 (55:58):
I'm so glad you asked Matt. It's actually my trustee
and you can see it. It's my trustee Cane Sword.
Speaker 2 (56:06):
Oh nice. Oh that's so cool.
Speaker 3 (56:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (56:11):
I can't take it to the airport, but it's fun.
It's fun to walk around with. And if you are
a fan of segues to an email address. Boy, do
I have some news for you? You can contact us
twenty four to seven any old time of day or night,
even if the sky changes color on you.
Speaker 2 (56:31):
We are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com. Stuff they don't
(56:54):
want you to know is a production of iHeartRadio. For
more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Fellow conspiracy realist. The rumors are true, Matt, Noel, Dylan
and yours truly did make it to the High Seas
and did return successfully. We are getting used to being
landlubbers again, so we're sharing some classic episodes as we
find whatever the opposite of sea legs.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Are exactly, everything is still moving. A little bit for me,
a little bit of discomfort here realizing that, oh no,
I'm on solid ground and the floor is not moving,
nor is it lava. While we were out there on
the high season, you know what, I didn't see a
lot of.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
What's that contrails or chem trail. Yeah, and Dylan, you
were just pointing out that apparently there have been fewer
chem trails because of the government shutdown.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Yeah, yeah, you know.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
And so get out there, breathe the fresh air, enjoy
your chem trail free life while lasts. I'm sorry I
made it sound like that was totally your pitch.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Well, I got some opinions, man, that's right. Oh shoot,
I think all we need to set up this episode
is for you to know that KEM trails and what
are we calling these stratospheric aerosol injections?
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Orsi?
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Oh, I like that I love those.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
Raphael Baby least favorite teenager, Ninja Turtle.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Actually he's the hardest one though.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
I think he has a lot of complicated issues.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
He's in that bath of you remember, Yeah, I remember?
Speaker 1 (01:26):
But anyway, what do we need to know, Matt?
Speaker 2 (01:28):
What do we need to know? We need to know
that they're kind of one and the same, but not really,
and one of them.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
Might just help solve global warming. It's a weird pitch
because kim trails are often seen as a villainous thing.
But what if they could be the key to saving
the planet.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Oh I hope, so, I hope.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
So we sure did. Back in twenty twenty. This is
our classic episode.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Disclaimer don't doesn't really have many opinions about conspiracy theories
around KEM.
Speaker 3 (01:57):
Trails, from UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History
is riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now
or learn the stuff they don't want you to know.
A production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Nol.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
They called me Ben. We were joined as always with
our super producer Paul, Mission Control Deck, and most importantly,
you are here and that makes this stuff they don't
want you to know. Now we're recording at a slightly
different time today. I want to check in with you guys.
How are you doing. How was your weekend?
Speaker 4 (02:49):
Well, Matt has been off on adventures, as you would say,
Ben and I think we have both missed him very much. Matt,
how is your weekend? I know you were playing with
some fun new toys.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Yeah, I just got these new binormal mics. I was
running around my house recording some things and yelling and
pretending to be a zombie in the exterior or on
the exterior of my house. So I'm sure my neighbors
think I'm insane, but that's great.
Speaker 4 (03:14):
Was there grunting involved?
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Was there like zombies and zombie sounds? That sounds fun? Dude.
Speaker 4 (03:21):
Well, I'm glad you occupied yourself productively during your time off.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
I did good times. Missed you guys. Thanks for you know,
holding down the fort while I was away.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Well, we saved this episode for you, specifically, Matt. This
is this topic came to us from an anonymous source.
We always talk about our call in line, the various
ways you can contact us. So someone called one eight
three three st D WYTK recently and left a message
(03:55):
that sent us down a bit of a rabbit hole.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Yeah, so this person called in after we did I
believe was chemtrails in the UK. We did that episode
and this person wrote in to tell us about the
topic we're going to be covering today. Just mentioned it
to us, Hey, we should look into it, and what
we found was surprising. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
You see, regardless of where you live nowadays, regardless of
where where you reside in the globe of ours, your
local news is probably full of crises. They're both real
and imagined, and they're all terrible things, right, That's how
news makes money. Some of these disasters, like the War
(04:37):
on Christmas, are more or less, you know, seasonal hoaxes.
Everybody's hip to it. They're meant to rile people up,
to make them behave a certain way. Others like COVID
nineteen are unfortunately all too real. Today, we are exploring
something that was once upon a time considered a conspiracy
theory all its own, and that is global warming. Over
(05:02):
the past few decades, numerous government institutions thousands of private
entities have been aware of the massive threat posed by
global warming and the gist of global warming is this,
Even tiny changes in our average temperatures on Earth's surface
or in its atmosphere can have long reaching, devastating effects
(05:27):
on the world overall. When we say small amounts, we
mean like five degrees five like that is. That is
how fragile our existence is. That's the small kind of
variable that our entire our entire ecosystem depends on. Five
degrees up, eight degrees up. Things are wild at that point.
(05:50):
And most people here's the thing nowadays, most people agree
this is a problem. Everyone's aware of it. It should
come to come as no surprise, however, that no one
has proposed a solution that everyone supports. So what's going on?
I know, I've probably already made a couple of people
angry in the audience today by saying that global warming
(06:12):
is not, in fact a conspiracy. But let's look at it, like,
let's look what is global warming? What is climate change?
Here are the facts?
Speaker 4 (06:22):
Well, I mean, you know, climate change is certainly something
that you can observe. We can definitely see our climate
changing year over year. It gets hotter, quicker, and it's
just kind of something that you can very much experience
with your senses, So I don't understand why it's controversial,
but yeah, let's talk about weather versus climate. For example,
(06:44):
weather refers to localized atmosphere conditions occurring over short periods
of time, anywhere from a couple.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Of days to just a few minutes.
Speaker 4 (06:51):
So things like rain and snow, cloud cover, storms, floods,
these are examples of weather events.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
They happen and.
Speaker 4 (06:59):
Then they're gone and over a short period of time.
Climate is just a pullback view of all of that.
It refers to a series of these kinds of events,
patterns that happen over a longer period of time, long
term regional or even global averages of temperature, humidity, rainfall patterns.
These things are seasonal. They happen over seasons, years, or
(07:21):
even decades.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
So an easy way to think about it is if
you look outside or you listen in and there's a
thunderstorm going on, that is your friendly neighborhood weather, and
that's just how it's going to be. You see an
oddly rain free weekend and a time when you usually
see rain, that's also going to be weather. But let's
say you're dealing with a year long drought, or let's
(07:44):
say that the amount of rain that's happening every year
is decreasing year over year. For you know, let's say
a decade or two, that's gonna be climate and that
that thing is changing.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
Yep, this is the issue. I think it escapes a
lot of people, even people who should know better. Climate
change is the long term change and the average weather
patterns and you know, the big patterns, the things that
define Earth on a local, regional, and global climactic scale.
Global warming is just that, it's like a subdivision of it.
(08:18):
It's long term heating of Earth's climate system. And we've
observed this since the pre industrial period that would be
about you know, the eighteen fifties to the early twentieth century.
We've observed it due to human activities, mainly fossil fuel burning,
because fossil fuel burning increases the amount of carbon dioxide,
(08:42):
nitros oxide, methane, ozone, so on, the so called greenhouse gases,
and they're called greenhouse gases because they trap heat from
the Sun in Earth's atmosphere. It gets you know, it's
like the old roach motel advertisements, you know what I mean.
The Sun's enter checks in, but it can't check out.
And this is this is bad for us because we
(09:07):
have evolved to live in an environment where there is
not as much greenhouse gas. So when you think about
climate change and when you think about global warming, it's
kind of like how all mazes are puzzles, but not
all puzzles are mazes. Like how all case ideas are snacks,
but not all snacks are case ideas. How all anime
is animated, but not all animation is you know, you
(09:29):
get it, You get the moving picture here.
Speaker 4 (09:31):
Ben, I take issue with casidia being a snack. That
is an entree, my friend, that is an entree.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
I don't know, man, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
I'm working life. But agree to disagree then, so I,
you know, I can eat like two three case dias
is set. I may have a problem, but the case
d is aside. One of the most important differences between
climate change and global warming is that climate change can
(09:58):
occur natural truly, and people don't mention this enough. It
gets wrapped up in all these weird conspiracy theories. We
have to remember that ice ages came and went way
before humans started human ing or whatever. The thing is
that most probably not all changes in Earth's climate since
(10:21):
the early nineteen hundreds that we can measure. They have
been driven by human activity, but there were still there
were still natural things that are very important part of
the story.
Speaker 4 (10:30):
Well, isn't it also a matter ban of you know,
those ice ages that came and went naturally. That was
a much longer timeline than we're talking about too. When
when the human intervention comes into the picture, we start
to see these things happen a little more rapidly in
like our lifetime, right.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
Yeah, absolutely, Yeah, we have to remember, of course that
we are very much not super important. Humans are very
much not super important to life on Earth as anything
more than a threat. Billions billions of years past, I say,
just came a wit volcanoes erupted, which that's super cool.
(11:06):
You know, there were earthquakes that were floods, there were
tectonic shifts, the continents were in different positions, and then
we showed up basically very recently at the like the very.
Speaker 4 (11:18):
End, walking in like we own the place. But yeah,
those natural changes are things like al Nino, La Nina
and so on, or changes in the Sun's output, Earth's orbit,
or one of one of the coolest most metal examples,
which would be.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Giant volcanic eruptions.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Yeah, those are great, but those do a real number
on the atmosphere. They actually naturally do some of the
things that we're talking about today. Humans don't have any
control over this stuff, but we, like all living things
on Earth, hope for the best and also kind of
have a little bit of a god complex where we
want to figure out how to do these kinds of things.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
Yeah, and you know, when you get into some of
the climate change debates, one of the major arguments you're
going to see for climate change being a hoax is
what we just mentioned here, changes in the sun and
how much energy is actually being emitted from the sun
and at what time and what kinds of cycles the
Sun goes through compared to the cycles that the Earth
(12:19):
is going on, and then how those two things interact,
and whether or not global climate change is actually just
the sun changing. That's a debate for a different day.
For this episode, we're going to take it in or
we're going to take it as though that is not
the primary thing that is affecting the Earth, and how
the atmosphere is being affected and how the climate is
(12:40):
actually changing. Yeah, yes, exactly. So we're going to talk
about or we are thinking about man made things here again,
fossil fuels, a lot of the methane that gets up
into the atmosphere and other gases again up in the
atmosphere because of factory farming and things like that. But
you know, as always that old black gold, you know,
(13:03):
the Texas tea, that's going to be one of the
main things just burning off these things, traps that heat
because of these because of the CO two and the
other things that are being released.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
And this is also I don't think it is in
the notes, but this is coming. This is important. A
lot of developing countries have a problem with industrial countries
or the so called quote unquote first world countries telling
them to practice pollution controls because the idea is like, oh, okay,
(13:35):
you're making us run this race with a backpack of
bricks because you already you already burned all the coal
you needed, you know what I mean. Hydroelectric energy and
solar energy is all well and good for you guys,
but we shouldn't have to Like, you couldn't have gotten
where you are, you know, Western Europe, United Kingdom, us,
(13:56):
et cetera, if you hadn't been able to just throw
all this garbage into the sky for you know, a
century or more.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Did you guys ever play the game Age of Empires.
Speaker 4 (14:07):
Yes, was that sort of like a sim city but
like with like civilization kind of.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Or no kind. It was more of a war strategy
game essentially, but it was also civilization building. But one
of the primary things you had to do in that game,
and I think it is very telling here, it's exactly
what civilizations have to do, what countries have to do.
You have to build up, you have to level up
essentially your technology, and one of the primary steps you
(14:35):
have to get to is essentially fossil fuel burning the
industrial age, where you have to make enough power to
do all the things that you need to do to
advance further. And yeah, that's exactly what you're saying there, Ben.
It's just if you remove that step by making making
countries and governments control exactly how much emissions they're allowed
(14:56):
to put out there, then you're really just you're going
to handicap them.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
Yeah, it's like it's like the same people who built
their fortunes on these sorts of acts, right, this kind
of energy, are the same institutions that are telling other
up and comers that they cannot play by the same
rules and the you know, is it hypocritical? Sure, yes,
(15:23):
But also our understanding as a species of the problem
has changed. We know a lot more about what's going on.
We just learned it a little too late. My nihilism
is probably going to come to the forefront here because
there are some consequences, right, we know, we know very
well the consequences they Science obeys no political parties, Science
(15:47):
obeys no religious ideology. Science does not could not care
less about what you know, what part of the world
you live in, what you like for breakfast, et cetera.
There are genuine consequences of human created global warming. As
far as we can tell, they are biblical level, like
Book of Revelations. Things like, first off, weather, I love
(16:10):
the way you guys describe weather is a function of climate. Right,
So if the climate is changing, the weather is changing,
and because this is the real world, those changes are
not like super awesome, They're not convenient or whatever. A
warmer climate creates this atmosphere that collects, retains, and drops
more water, but in different places, so wet areas are
(16:34):
becoming wetter than they should be across the year. Monsoon
season or so on, and dry areas are becoming drier
than they should be. Floods in Bangladesh pretty soon, like
within your lifetime, there are going to be parts of
the world that are uninhabitable because of record breaking heat
(16:55):
in the Middle East, for instance, or in Africa. There's
just not enough ac for everybody, and some world governments
seem to be pretending there is, but they have to
know better whether in climate affect agriculture, food supplies. Oof,
everybody thought it was crazy for those MRIs, but they
last forever.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
Buy some.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
Yeah, there's this concept of climate refugees. This this notion
that the part of the world where you find yourself
and could potentially become unlivable. Basically, the closer to the
equator that you get, the higher the likelihood that your
descendants or potentially even you might have to move. Yep,
your kids could become climate refugees as well as yourself.
(17:38):
As this stuff, you know, can kind of escalate, and
as we talked about, the timeline moves pretty quickly when
human intervention becomes involved. Sea levels will continue to rise
as ice caps melt. So say goodbye to some of
your favorite vacation spots like like the Maldives are where
what have you. And then there's you know the issue
of wildlife not being able to adapt. We know wildlife
(18:01):
can adapt, we know that. You know, evolution does occur
for changing conditions, but that requires a very long timeline.
So wildlife can't adapt quickly enough, and it can cause
extinction events. The human species will, for all intents and purposes,
descend into a different kind of war, which is the
(18:22):
war for resources.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
A different kind of war. No, they're all resource wars now,
I'm just choking. Not all of them, but most of them.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
Yeah, yeah, I agree.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
I thought you would.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
You would pick up on that point, especially met because
we had talked for years about what was it. The
Third World War will be about water? That's yeah, feel.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
True, whether it's rising sea levels or just not having
enough potable water.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
It's I mean, guys, we're in one right now, or
at least, you know, things are sort of leveling out.
But there was a few weeks or months even where
you couldn't get toilet paper, you know, and people were
losing their minds about it. I mean, that's just like
sort of an inkling of how bad things could get.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
Right, Oh, I actually I did some research off the
books on that, and I think it. I think I
have an explanation for it, which is pretty interesting. And
also I'm eighty percent sure it's true. It might be,
it might be for another day, but I think I
think I figured out at least the toilet paper. And
it's not because there wasn't enough. It's bizarre, but but yeah,
(19:32):
we've we've painted these these problems right. First off, to
your point, whether it's toilet paper or water, well, in
the entire human species is just so ready to bucket
each other at any given point about any given thing.
It doesn't it doesn't even matter right. People of the
same religion wage religious wars on each other because they
(19:52):
disagree with the interpretation of one sentence of one chapter
of an unimportant part of their favorite book, you know
what I mean. And maybe I've offended people by saying
some parts of your favorite book might not be as
important as others. But the point is this is very bad.
Human beings are in a bad situation. We're driving headlong
(20:14):
over a cliff, an existential cliff, and the rest of
the living things on earth are sort of in the
backseat of the car with us saying where are we going?
What are we doing? It's up to human beings to
find the solution to this problem. We have created. What
are the solutions. We'll tell you after a word from
our sponsor, and we're back. So yes. In addition to
(20:44):
creating tons of problems for every living thing on Earth,
our human species has also created a couple of solutions.
You know, we've been in our writer's room, we got
our whiteboard, we've been brainstorming. But first, and this is
very import don't let the various misleading discourses fool you.
(21:05):
Don't let the people in mainstream news or the weird
like Koch Brothers found funded documentaries, and don't let any
of that fool you. The experts throughout the planet were
pretty much universally on the same page about global warming
and have been for decades. And when I say experts,
(21:28):
I do mean I do mean governments, you know, I
do mean academics. I also mean oil companies like Exon.
Exon knew about this. They knew global warming was real
and that people were doing it way back in nineteen
seventy seven, more than like, more than a decade before
anybody else publicly cared about it, and.
Speaker 4 (21:50):
They didn't tell anybody, Ben, They just kept this to themselves.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
To what end?
Speaker 4 (21:54):
Why wouldn't they tell everybody? Why wouldn't they just come
screaming this, you know, to the high heavens, Ben.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Well, they were definitely screaming something to the public.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Was it money? Are they screaming? Ben?
Speaker 1 (22:10):
Yeah? Well, they spent some money on the studies. The
studies were pretty conclusive. The internal memos confirmed that the
executives talked about this and how real it was, and
then they spent millions over the next few decades trying
to trying to fight any legislation because you see, fighting
(22:31):
global warming would affect the bottom line of a fossil
fuel company.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
Yeah, that's right. And we actually interviewed Amy Westervelt, who
makes a podcast called Drilled. We did that last year
in twenty nineteen, and we went over in great detail
what these companies knew when they learned it. And if
you want to check that episode out, please go do
it now. But one of the major things to remember
here been one of the videos we were watching in
(22:59):
research for this was a Stanford University professor, David Keith,
and he was speaking about the nineteen sixty four academic
papers that were coming out where they're discussing, hey, guys,
there seems to be an issue here, just raising their hands,
you know, and just saying, hey, maybe we should start
thinking about ways we can prevent the Earth from warming
(23:22):
up too much, because it looks like we might be
having an effect. So, yeah, it's still a jump from
sixty four to seventy seven or so, but seventy seven
is pretty early to be aware of.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
The everybody knew it was a real conspiracy. It was
not a conspiracy theory. These the same. It's just like
those senators who were doing insider trading and dumping all
their stocks while they were telling people not to worry
about the quote unquote so called pandemic. Right, the oil
(23:54):
companies were doing the same thing. The point is we
could have had a much much earlier head start. Current solutions.
Proposed solutions for global warming include things like a carbon tax.
This is this is something that you know, people who
read the economists, for instance, would really enjoy. The gist
(24:18):
is that, you know, we make countries or companies pay
a premium somehow for their carbon emissions or fossil fuels.
Now you can see, of course, how the developing world
would say this is massively unfair. This is, you know,
victimizing the impoverished geopolitically. Uh, you know, because it is
(24:44):
in terms of development, it's it's not a perfect solution.
And also, you know, companies and entities that are at
the top, the ones that rule the rest, don't tend
to pay taxes anyway. Not really.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
Yeah, Well, the the major issue here is that other
actions have to be taken rather than just you know,
monetary incentive, incentivizing and paying, like having to pay more
money if you're going to essentially put carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere. Because now it's inevitable that warming is going
(25:21):
to happen, and it has been for quite a while.
Now we have to find ways to actually cool like
cool it down, or prevent the warming, or get stuff
out of the atmosphere. We have to go to more
drastic measures now and they are not easy.
Speaker 1 (25:38):
Yeah, we've been incentivizing alternative energy, right And one thing
that's interesting, the world is recovering right now because people
are flying less, they're traveling less, they're we're we're producing
fewer things. This is actually a record breaking year for
(26:01):
alternative energy in a couple of places in Western Europe,
like there are a couple of countries that have gone
completely free from coal or have drastically reduced their usage
of it. But to your point, Matt, even taxing people
for fossil fuels, even you know, making it cheaper for
(26:21):
them to use solar geothermal hydroelectric energy, that's still not enough.
And so the question is what if we tried something else,
Because there's another answer here, just maybe, just maybe remember
those epic giant volcanic eruptions. What if we could just
sort of, you know, do that. Here's where it gets crazy.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
Yeah, well, the reason why we would want to do
that is because it actually has a cooling effect, a
measurable cooling effect anytime a giant volcano explodes. So the
mimicking that there were talking about here, it's it's a thing.
It's real. It's a proposed solution, or part of a
proposed solution to global climate change. And it's called stratospheric
(27:10):
aerosol injection. Oh boy, it's it's certainly well, let's say
at this point it is a theoretical solution, but it
is a it is a geoengineering technique that could possibly
happen in the near future and a way to combat
man made temperature rise on planet Earth.
Speaker 4 (27:31):
Right, Like, geoengineering is sort of a blanket term for
things like that could include everything from cloud seating. Is
this notion of you know, changing the weather through science,
and this is just you know, one of numerous techniques
and technologies, some more theoretical than others, but this one
does seem to be, you know, something that could absolutely
(27:53):
be implemented. And so geoengineering in terms of like you know,
cooling the Earth's temperatures, there's two kind of big paths
that you could go down. The first would be this
concept of sucking up all of the kind of scattered
CO two particles in greenhouse gases that are already in
the atmosphere, sort of hoovering them up. And then the
(28:14):
second would be solar radiation management, i e. Affecting the
way the Sun's rays interact with the atmosphere. And that
is absolutely where SAI comes in.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
And SAI stands for stratospheric aerosol injection, not the not
the you know, catchiest of terms. It sounds a little technical,
and it should because it is, but it's pretty wild. Okay,
are we talking about impersonating volcanoes, yes, kind of. But
(28:52):
walk with us here, you know, let us finish the pitch.
What if we took a ton of balloons, right, or
airships or drones or lanes or you know what, missiles,
why not artillery, and we just sent them up in
the stratosphere to release sulfates into the air. To the
point about cloud seating, this is something this is similar
(29:14):
to the stuff that the government of China and the
government of the United States, as well as the government
of the United Kingdom have all done in the past.
With cloud seating, you disperse I believe it's silver iodide,
and the idea is that it will attract moisture droplets
so you can form clouds. Cloud seating is all about
(29:37):
forming clouds. Orgone Energy is all about busting clouds. You
can check out both of those episodes for more information.
But we would be doing this on a much larger scale.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
And a much higher scale.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Yeah, literally literally to what you were saying earlier, Matt.
Volcanoes do this naturally. When they erupt, they shoot tons
of aerosol particles in the air and they create something
that is known as global dimming. The particles released by volcanoes.
If the volcano is large enough for a time, they
(30:12):
run a sort of scrimmage line of filter between the
Earth's surface and the sun. They reduce the amount of
light and heat that enters the atmosphere. So you can
see the logic start to form here, right.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
And SAI is going to try and mimic this by
delivering sulfide gases the same kind of stuff, sulfur dioxide,
hydrogen sulfide, sulfuric acid. Way up. But we're talking around
sixty thousand feet into the air. It's the mesosphere and stratosphere,
and we currently don't we're going to talk about this,
(30:46):
but there's no real good way to do that at
sixty thousand feet right now. We'll get into that. But
the research shows that if we could do this effectively
and enough, this would or could at least counter chain
just to temperature as well as temperatures in the oceans,
change the water temperature back to a place where animals
(31:08):
could live, you know, instead of just die with the
ocean acidification and all the other things that are happening.
And here's the other thing too, It's not like this
would be a crazy slow process. You shoot all this
stuff up into the stratosphere and then you got to
wait and wait and wait. No, it would happen pretty
quickly if we did it right.
Speaker 4 (31:29):
So you're saying we should pump sulfuric acid up into
the sky. That was that? Is that what I'm getting here?
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (31:38):
Not you like the UU, I mean the U of
Science or whoever's saying this. That sounds that sounds like
there could be some issues.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
We're gonna blot out the sun nul.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
So why haven't we done it right? That's the question.
Why haven't you know? I don't know about you, guys.
I'm sold. Why haven't we just shot a ton of
of a sulfur dioxide so two hydrogen sulfide sulfuric acid
into the sky? I mean, God knows, we're putting out
a plenty of pollution as it is. What's a little
(32:11):
more Let's answer that question because spoiler alert, it turns
out there are some issues with stratospheric aerosol injection, and
we'll explore them after a word from our sponsors. All Right,
we know what you're thinking.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
Right.
Speaker 1 (32:32):
First off, what's the bottom line? Right you're saying you're saying,
Matt Michigan con troll nol Ben. Let's talk turkey. Obviously,
this isn't happening because it's crazy expensive. Well, we have
some weird news for you. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (32:48):
Strangely enough, it's not that expensive, because you know, we
kind of mentioned this earlier in the show.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
It's pretty low tech.
Speaker 4 (32:55):
Ultimately, I mean, you know, it involves planes or drones
or balloons or airships or what have you. But it's
stuff that we already have, and we could even use artillery.
We could actually fire these chemicals up into the atmosphere.
The chemicals are super easy to obtain, so that's not
really an issue at all. I think I saw some
(33:16):
I mean it's you know, it's not like this has
been like, you know, spreadsheeted out exactly yet, but I
saw somewhere it would only be in the handful of
billions of dollars, not like the trillions. You know, it
would definitely be costly in terms of like you know,
you or I money, but in terms of government big
brother money, it's kind of a drop in the bucket.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
Well, so, okay, maybe my understanding is off here. The
way I've been thinking about this from some of the
writing was that it would take years right now, as
of right now, it would take years to engineer a
plane that would be needed to make these like to
keem trail style seed this stuff out there into the
(33:59):
atmosphere because of the altitude that the planes would have
to or the jets would have to operate at, and
because you're they're my understanding is around sixty thousand feet
is where you need to put the stuff, all these chemicals,
and then you would have to make constant runs. Basically,
Oh yeah, you would have a fleet of enough planes
(34:21):
that are just going up there. I don't know the
exact frequency, but let's say just for sake of argument,
every day. And they would also have to carry enough
of a payload at sixty thousand feet to actually make
it worth the trip.
Speaker 4 (34:35):
Well, and I don't mean to imply that it would
be like, yes, we're ready to roll with this yesterday,
but I mean, the basis of the technology exists, it
would obviously require some retro fitting to you know, you'd
end up with some kind of hybrid vehicle somewhere between
a regular plane and like a spacecraft, because you it
would need to have some of those protections to be
able to go to that altitude, but the chemicals are available,
(34:58):
the technology, the basis of it. We don't have to
reinvent the wheel. We just kind of have to improve
it a little bit to make it happen.
Speaker 1 (35:03):
One thing that I think is this is something where
I'd love to hear from you, fellow conspiracy realists. The
science here is looking pretty sound, but we as a
global community, we as a species, are still kind of
in the brainstorming phase. So if you have an idea
about how this was about how best to deliver this,
(35:27):
if you're in favor of it, which not everybody is,
then let us know. You know, hit us up conspiracy
at iHeartRadio dot com or any of the various ways
you want to find us. You know, our Facebook page
will probably blow up with some weird threads about this. Yeah,
you know, you're you're both right here. It's not super expensive.
(35:49):
The technology exists, it needs tweaking because, for instance, you know,
one of the first things I thought about was what
about recoverable ICBMs intercontinental ballistic missiles. Some of those can go,
could function high enough, but they don't have at least
them aware. They don't have the seeding kind of apparatus,
(36:10):
right they can't really be the crop dusters for the
stratosphere that we need. So it's like we do have
all the technology, but we don't have it all in
the one thing we need. Right, we have some stuff
that can do task A, we have some stuff that
can do task B. We need something that can just
do the alphabet of the task in a one stop shop.
(36:32):
And yeah, to your point, we can make or obtain
the chemicals. This is so weird. Reminds me of the
Mister Show sketch about blowing up the Moon because they
figured out they could do it. Yeah, and we figured
out we could do it. But here's the problem. So
(36:53):
if we know that theoretically we're really close to being
able to do this, the technology is there, we just
need to get the perfect remix. We have to ask
ourselves how efficient will it be, what will the efficacy be?
Will this actually work? And this is a big sticking
point something we talked a little bit about in the
course of today's episode. Those chemicals so two and all,
(37:16):
it's the rest of its entourage. They're short lived, and
that's a good thing for the bulk of human history
because that's the reason that a volcanic eruption, even a
massive one, doesn't put us out of the game forever.
That's the reason why we're not living in some horrible,
(37:36):
a different kind of horrible situation. The aerosol chemicals there
can only be where we really need them to be
for a couple of weeks, maybe one or two months,
and we would have to be and that's if we're
one hundred percent certain that the particles are the right size.
(37:58):
That makes a huge difference. And that's also why we
would have to institute a program. So like that number
eighteen billion is kind of a is kind of a watermark.
We hear as a get started, right, it's a get
started number. I just want to say, for the record,
Jeff Bezos, if you're listening, I see that now as
(38:21):
of May eighteenth, twenty twenty, your net worth is over
an estimated one hundred and forty billion dollars. And if
we call this kind of earth saving bond villain working
for Good project twenty billion dollars, then that means you,
Jeff alone, can do this seven times. You can you
(38:43):
can attempt to save the world in this way seven times.
Speaker 4 (38:46):
But here's the thing, among many things and sticky parts
of this whole concept. I mean it would require like
global consensus, right, like I mean it would it would
to do it in a way that benefited every everyone,
and like a single unilateral kind of like you know,
implementation of this. It would require the kind of un
(39:07):
level cooperation that we just don't really typically see. And
also again this is this is very new, I mean
not super new, but like new in the scale of civilization,
new technology, and this concept. So I've read there's a
lot of you know, varying opinions about this, And one
thing that I've read is that it wouldn't be a
(39:28):
one size fits all for all regions. Like there would
be potentially regions that would not benefit from this and
that could be actually harmed by this and could harm
agriculture in certain regions. And this thing could like you
know benefit you know, certain areas of the country, and
then there are other areas that it could actually harm
in terms of like their normal you know, levels of
(39:51):
agricultural output that it could really you know, have a
have a negative effect on that. Have you guys seen
anything about about these these.
Speaker 2 (39:58):
Issues, Yeah, for sure. In the American Meteorological Society put
out a statement in twenty thirteen, yes, twenty thirteen, where
they talked about some of these issues, and you know,
similarly to other major hard problems that are out there.
(40:19):
They basically were saying, hey, we need more research on
all of this stuff, the potential for everything. We need
to study historical, ethical, legal, and social implications that this
geoengineering could have across the planet in different places, and
we need to develop and analyze policy options. So basically,
(40:42):
it's the same thing that we've seen time and time
again for decades now when it comes to hard problems
like climate change, and it's everybody doesn't want to deal
with it while they're in office. That's what it feels
like to me. I mean, the Meteorological Society is correct
that we need way more research, We need way more
information on this before we act. But if we don't
(41:04):
act soon in some major way, what do we do.
It's already too late. It's just it's a tough thing.
Just last thing here is David David Keith. I got
it wrong. I said I think I said he was
with Stanford. He spoke at Stanford. He's from the University
of Calgary. That's that's my bad. Sorry about that.
Speaker 1 (41:24):
Professor Keith Yeah, he's got a it's got a great,
great lecture on this. It runs a little more than
an hour, but if you're interested in it, he goes
through the different angles. He's really spent spent some time
on the cognitive road with this one. I do want
to mention too that, like many macro level changes, global
(41:48):
proposed changes. First off, yes, obviously, as you know longtime listeners,
human beings cannot agree on anything, and the greater good
is a very dangerous subjective to kind of rorshack ink blot,
and so we know that humans probably won't cooperate. I
(42:09):
think to your point, Matt, it's especially instructive to look
back over you know the weakness of democracy. And now
I'm not arguing for authoritarianism or fascism or whatever, but
I will point out that we've seen time and time again.
You know, people who are elected for two four or
(42:30):
six years tend to focus on things that will show
results within two four to six years. You're not gonna
if you're if you're a president asking someone to to
sacrifice literally anything about their life because it'll be better
in twenty five years, you're probably not going to get
(42:52):
re elected. And it doesn't it really doesn't matter what
you believe, how right or wrong you are. People are like, hey, buddy,
I elected you for two four to six years, and
that is the metric upon which you are being graded.
We're just, you know, as humans, we just suck at
this kind of stuff. So I don't even think it's
corporations necessarily being insidious. We're just very It's the tragedy
(43:18):
of the commons, right, we're very, very bad at allowing
other people to exist, whether there are people who are
alive at the same time as us, whether there are
people who inherit the earth we leave behind, and that's like,
that goes across the board. I'm sorry, there's not a
person alive who doesn't have a problem with that is
the solution. Then that we is the solution. Then some
(43:42):
kind of world government, some kind of AI that says, hey, look,
you know, we know that this is going to hurt
people in parts of the world. You know, specifically, we
know this is going to hurt some very disadvantaged people
who don't have the infrastructure or the technology to deal
with the famine that we would be creating. We would
(44:05):
be creating this. We know that volcanic eruptions like volcanic
eruptions have been linked to famine in the nineteen nineties
because of that global dimming, the crops don't grow, and
this is just going to exacerbate the horrific living conditions
for some people who are already living in dire straits
(44:26):
right now without without any SAI and volcanic eruptions you know,
leading to famine are just are just one example of
the delettorious side effects that would occur. You know, the
thing about this is we're essentially we're shooting stuff into
the atmosphere, and that stuff, even if it's very tiny,
(44:50):
is still at the whims of gravity. That means that
these particles, depending on how they are distributed or dispersed,
could return to Earth surface, and if they do, they
can worsen existing medical conditions. They if you have asthma,
you want to stay away from these chemicals, but imagine
(45:14):
if they just start raining down on you. And then
you know, it's all about placement. It could be good
for us for a little while if we get the
right size particles in the right place, but if we
put them in the wrong place, like if we put
them in the stratospheric clouds at Earth's poles, they could
damage the ozone layer, which doesn't you know, which has
(45:35):
been having a hard time lately in.
Speaker 4 (45:38):
General, and not to mention that it could potentially reduce
global rainfall around the world, especially in the summer when
you've got these monsoon seasons, and there's some pretty solid
scientific evidence that links volcanic eruption to famine and Ethiopia
in the nineties, So maybe not the best move to,
(46:00):
you know, approximate the effects of tons of volcanic explosions,
because who knows what the side effects could be. It
really does feel like, you know, the way things are
kind of fast tracked through, like FDA approval, and then
all of a sudden we realize what the side effects
are once it's actually out there in the world, and
it's kind of hard to put those badgers back in.
Speaker 2 (46:19):
Those those bags.
Speaker 4 (46:21):
So I don't know, it's it's I always am concerned with, Oh,
let's just give it a try, Let's just shoot it
up there and see what happens.
Speaker 2 (46:27):
You know.
Speaker 4 (46:28):
I feel like there definitely needs to be more research.
Speaker 2 (46:31):
What we need is a giant vacuum that just sucks
all the co two up, or it needs to be
an ionized pull of some sorts that's attached to a plane,
you know, like sixty thousand feet and just gets all
the co two.
Speaker 4 (46:44):
You know, like a shop back whoop, never mind, suck it.
Speaker 2 (46:48):
Remember from the office? Never mind? I do?
Speaker 5 (46:50):
Remember?
Speaker 2 (46:50):
Okay, good?
Speaker 4 (46:51):
And you know, you can't deny that this SAI or
any of this geo engineering stuff is really just a
band aid, and it's just kind of a quick fix
so that we don't have to think on a longer timeline,
which you know, governments and incorporate well, governments specifically been
to your point, have proven pretty incapable of doing. I mean,
(47:12):
even the current situation we find ourselves in with COVID nineteen,
we see the government just kind of like wringing their
hands and pulling their hair out with even attempting to
think about things more than two weeks out in the future.
I mean, it just seems, you know, absolutely mind boggling
to think about something on as long a timeline as
climate change requires. And it's why you start getting, you know,
(47:34):
this rhetoric around the idea that it's not real, that
it's some kind of hoax, and it really is just
kind of an excuse to not do anything about it.
And that is exactly what this technology would be as
an excuse to not do anything about it.
Speaker 1 (47:48):
I like that phrase. Yeah, yeah, it's a new space
age way of kicking the can down the road. Huh.
So it's interesting too, because what we're telling you is
that despite all of the people who have you know,
(48:09):
pooh poohed the idea of kim trails or said, you know,
I am a skeptic, kim trails do not exist. This
is our what second episode in a few months proving
that things like chem trails are very much on the
in the front of the mind of the of certain
areas of the scientific community. This is a chim trail
(48:31):
proposal essentially. And you know, Matt, I cannot read your
mind because we are recording virtually here, but I do.
I was thinking of you during the research for this,
and I have to ask you, does this not sound
(48:51):
just a little bit like what humans did in the
Ai battle that like precedes the events of the Matrix.
They blought out the sun.
Speaker 2 (49:01):
Yes, it sounds exactly like that. In fact, in that movie,
they blot out the sun because all the machines use
solar energy. Right, That's the whole concept there. In our case,
we're just trying to blot out the sun to make
it a little less hot, just a little bit.
Speaker 4 (49:19):
Yeah, but when they do that and the maystrix, don't
the machines adapt and figure out how to like harvest
energy from like human spines and brains. Yes, this will
become the batteries, Isn't it just like a band aid
that creates a much much worse situation.
Speaker 2 (49:35):
Not to put too fine a point on it now,
as large as an impact as that movie had on me,
it is just a movie, guys. But it feels like
maybe a bad call because it made most of the
surface of the Earth uninhabitable to humans, if because it
got out of hand essentially I'm imagining or well, no,
(49:58):
in that movie, it was extreme case, right where they
actually wanted to do all the giant volcano explosions to
blot out the sun. And in our case, we're trying
to do a moderate number of giant volcanic explosions controlled
over time through aerosol injection. So really, guys, there's nothing
to worry about. We're fine, we should just do it.
Speaker 1 (50:18):
Why not, you know what I mean? Yippie kaya, right,
let's hop on the bomb and doctor Strange love it
down into Down into fame.
Speaker 4 (50:30):
Guys, if I may just do a little sarcasm alert here,
sarcasm alert, please do not read the things Ben and
Matt just said as there as them speaking their hearts.
Speaker 2 (50:39):
That is all correct, But there's also well to an
extent at least, But there's also like you know, there
seems like there could be something here. We just don't
know enough yet, I would say, in my gut says,
it feels like a bad idea, but we have to
do something, and maybe this is one way to at
(51:00):
least attempt to tackle the problem.
Speaker 1 (51:03):
Maybe it gives us a little more time to figure
out an actual solution, if I mean. That's why we
use the phrase band aid so often.
Speaker 2 (51:15):
Right.
Speaker 1 (51:16):
The idea is that, you know, if all things go well,
which they never do, we will be able to fix something.
We'll be able to find a permanent solution, or at
least give our species and life on Earth here a
chance to move beyond this planet into the stars, which
(51:38):
is or a different dimensions, etc. But moving into the
stars is ultimately the goal of life on Earth, right,
That's what we've been kind of working for. That's our
big next season if we survive. One note on this,
experts believe that if we do practice stratospheric aerosol injections,
it will affect the color of this sky. Won't darken
(52:00):
it the way that the humans and the matrix did.
It will actually lead to something called sky whitening. Sunsets
will be more colorful, you will. It'll be the kind
of change that you can walk outside and notice. So
one of the questions I think a lot of people
are wondering, is is this already happening? Good news? Maybe
(52:24):
not yet. We would probably know whether this is the
case if it was, because there would be visible changes.
It would have to to the point we've made a
couple of times, it would have to be an all
at one situation. It would have to be global, right,
Like you could do cloud seating the way that Uncle
(52:45):
Sam did in Southeast Asia, and you could create regional floods.
But if you try to practice SAI in one region
of the world, it probably wouldn't do much. And if
it did something, it wouldn't be very helpful. Right, That's
the even bigger question. Should we do this well?
Speaker 2 (53:06):
I would propose to you this Ben because of the
amount of scientific research that's been going into this. The
number of articles, scholarly articles you can find on this subject,
there are several, because there are several startups, like tech
startups that are trying to come up with a way
for this to be able to happen, at least starting
(53:28):
from the United States and then moving outward. It feels
like maybe there are some tests going on or some
tech being developed in the background, like for those planes,
for instance, that we were talking about, the ones that
have to go to very high altitude. I would suspect
that there's testing going on now, but that the actual
(53:49):
full on spraying is not happening for sure.
Speaker 1 (53:52):
So what do you think should this happen out of
full scale knowing that we will, you know, if Earth
somehow agrees to do this, if we make this a priority,
we agree to we say, okay, the almost eight billion
of us are going to collectively impersonate volcanoes. We're gonna
(54:15):
do it, you know, like every couple of months, just
to give us some more time to not destroy ourselves.
But we know that we are going to be killing
many people along the way. We're just not going to
be killing everybody. Is that the right thing?
Speaker 2 (54:31):
To do.
Speaker 1 (54:31):
Is Spock right when he says the needs of the
many outweigh the needs of the few. Is this a
true case of greater good? And if that's not the solution,
then what is we want to hear from you? You
can find us. We're all over the internet.
Speaker 2 (54:45):
In most places we are conspiracy stuff. Sometimes conspiracy stuff show.
I believe that's Instagram. You can, you know, contact us
on all those places. Tell us what you think. You
can check out here's where he gets It's our Facebook
community page. Check that out. You can, you know, talk
with other fellow conspiracy realists about this episode and others
(55:09):
and make suggestions.
Speaker 5 (55:10):
You can also give us a call. You can absolutely
give us a call. We are one eight three three
st d w y t K. That is basically a
direct line to Matt Frederick's personal cell phone device where
he is. He's awaiting your call.
Speaker 2 (55:28):
That's right, I sit here patiently waiting for you to
ring patiently. No, it's not.
Speaker 1 (55:33):
It actually goes to all of us.
Speaker 4 (55:34):
But Matt has been just an absolute champion of this
line and has been known to give people a ring
back occasionally. So I pitched this as a as a feature.
I know Matt might pitch it as a bug, but
I think it's a positive thing.
Speaker 2 (55:48):
If you give Matt, if you give.
Speaker 4 (55:49):
Us a call, you might just get a follow up
from our boy, Matt Frederick.
Speaker 2 (55:53):
Is that a Caine ben Bolin? What is that that
I'm looking at? Umbrella?
Speaker 1 (55:58):
I'm so glad you asked Matt. It's actually my trustee
and you can see it. It's my trustee Cane Sword.
Speaker 2 (56:06):
Oh nice. Oh that's so cool.
Speaker 3 (56:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (56:11):
I can't take it to the airport, but it's fun.
It's fun to walk around with. And if you are
a fan of segues to an email address. Boy, do
I have some news for you? You can contact us
twenty four to seven any old time of day or night,
even if the sky changes color on you.
Speaker 2 (56:31):
We are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com. Stuff they don't
(56:54):
want you to know is a production of iHeartRadio. For
more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.