Scroll down to read this post.


Please consider supporting my work here at Behind The Black by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, in any one of the following ways:


1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.


2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.

3. A Paypal Donation:

4. A Paypal subscription:

5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

Scientists to pollute atmosphere to stop global warming

The coming dark age: In order to stop global warming a team of scientists plan a first test of a method designed to block sunlight by injecting aerosols (the scientific term for pollution) into the upper atmosphere.

If all goes as planned, the Harvard team will be the first in the world to move solar geoengineering out of the lab and into the stratosphere, with a project called the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx). The first phase — a US$3-million test involving two flights of a steerable balloon 20 kilometres above the southwest United States — could launch as early as the first half of 2019. Once in place, the experiment would release small plumes of calcium carbonate, each of around 100 grams, roughly equivalent to the amount found in an average bottle of off-the-shelf antacid. The balloon would then turn around to observe how the particles disperse.

The test itself is extremely modest. Dai, whose doctoral work over the past four years has involved building a tabletop device to simulate and measure chemical reactions in the stratosphere in advance of the experiment, does not stress about concerns over such research. “I’m studying a chemical substance,” she says. “It’s not like it’s a nuclear bomb.”

Nevertheless, the experiment will be the first to fly under the banner of solar geoengineering. And so it is under intense scrutiny, including from some environmental groups, who say such efforts are a dangerous distraction from addressing the only permanent solution to climate change: reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. The scientific outcome of SCoPEx doesn’t really matter, says Jim Thomas, co-executive director of the ETC Group, an environmental advocacy organization in Val-David, near Montreal, Canada, that opposes geoengineering: “This is as much an experiment in changing social norms and crossing a line as it is a science experiment.” [emphasis mine]

The number of stupid and ill-documented conclusions mentioned in this article are so many it would be hard to list them all. For one, it assumes the climate is warming in a disastrous manner, an assumption that remains entirely unproven. For another, the last paragraph in the quote above illustrates how much politics dominates this scientific field. Science has nothing to do with this experiment.

Third, the risks involved in doing this kind of geoengineering are impossible to measure. They very easily could be very negative, for us and the environment. Fourth, the only objections to this experiment quoted in the article come from activist groups who believe in global warming, but would rather impose political restrictions on freedom and property rights than do geoengineering. Skepticism of the global warming theory is merely mentioned as an aside, coming from “the occasional conspiracy theorist.”

I could go on. The worst part of this article and the scientists proposing this work is their utter refusal to consider the gigantic amounts of research that has shown the many benefits of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and warming for agriculture and plant growth. Global warming, should it happen, could have negative consequences, but the data so far is very far from conclusive.

Let me add one more side note: The same environmentalists who generally support geoengineering to halt global warming are also likely to agree with this infantile op-ed: Richard Branson and Elon Musk threaten the purity of space.

Despite all the money the US and Russia have spent attempting to show who has the biggest balls, space remains pure. But, while Nasa re-engages and fuels up for another go, so-called space pioneers and entrepreneurs are already selling seats.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want space to be commercialised, owner [sic] by Richard Branson or Elon Musk. For me, this would ruin something very special.

I’d suggest you read it all, but I would fear your level of education and ability to think will be seriously damaged.

For these anti-human environmentalists, manipulating the Earth’s atmosphere, based on weak scientific theories, is perfectly okay. Having humans and private enterprise in space, however, is evil and must be prevented at all costs.

The empty-headed lack of thought and ignorance required to come to these conclusions, simultaneously, boggles my mind.


Conscious Choice cover

Now available in hardback and paperback as well as ebook!


From the press release: In this ground-breaking new history of early America, historian Robert Zimmerman not only exposes the lie behind The New York Times 1619 Project that falsely claims slavery is central to the history of the United States, he also provides profound lessons about the nature of human societies, lessons important for Americans today as well as for all future settlers on Mars and elsewhere in space.

Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters today and for our future in outer space, is a riveting page-turning story that documents how slavery slowly became pervasive in the southern British colonies of North America, colonies founded by a people and culture that not only did not allow slavery but in every way were hostile to the practice.  
Conscious Choice does more however. In telling the tragic history of the Virginia colony and the rise of slavery there, Zimmerman lays out the proper path for creating healthy societies in places like the Moon and Mars.


“Zimmerman’s ground-breaking history provides every future generation the basic framework for establishing new societies on other worlds. We would be wise to heed what he says.” —Robert Zubrin, founder of founder of the Mars Society.


All editions are available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and all book vendors, with the ebook priced at $5.99 before discount. The ebook can also be purchased direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit, in which case you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.


Autographed printed copies are also available at discount directly from me (hardback $24.95; paperback $14.95; Shipping cost for either: $5.00). Just email me at zimmerman @ nasw dot org.


  • wayne

    I would refer to any number of Alex Jones lengthy rants, over 20 years, on stratospheric aerosol injection for malevolent purposes, (AKA “chemtrails”) but they’ve all been vaporized down the rabbit hole.

  • Cotour


    You may think that this video below is a fantasy and is extreme political fear mongering, but it is the reality that the Socialists of the world and in America propose. And the American Democrat party leadership, and probably many in the Republican party leadership are all for it. All in the interests of the acquisition of and the retention of government power.

    In their thinking the government is primary and the people are a function of it. Exactly backwards.

    Think about some of the crazy counter intuitive pandering political talk you are hearing from the existing political class and the up and coming politically active “Progressive’s” in the media today. You intuitively know when you hear it, you know it does not make sense. They speak of the lack of morality of their opponents, the racism of their opponents, “equality” and them being the only arbiters of what it is, open borders, no borders, illegal immigrants rights in America, illegal immigrants voting in America, a right to a basic income, healthcare as a right, “Global warming” now “Climate change”, and other variations of lies, etc.

    All of the moral concepts and “free” stuff that they attempt to bribe the masses with while using other peoples confiscated tax money /wealth in order to garner their vote which is where the public’s only real power exists.

    A place where you own nothing, you have no privacy, your social score will be recorded through your web use, and it will be judged and limited by, there is no freedom. In other words, there is no America, not as it was formulated and you understand it anyway.

    The likes of social elitist planners in Davos and Brussels and Washington and the likes of Soros, Obama, Hillary and G.Bush sr. have their dreams and we are moving willingly towards them. Is this the world that you really desire to exist?


  • Diane

    In space policy, no one can hear you scream.

  • wayne

    that, is hilarious.

  • wayne

    Rogan and Mick West debunk contrails and chemtrails
    (episode 1052) excerpt

  • pzatchok

    I don’t understand the chemistry involved but if it reflects the sunlight out on the bay side why will it not reflect the Earths heat back in on the night side?

    Or is this just a diabolical plan to destroy human civilization and return the Earth back to a time before man?

  • Andrew_W

    pzatchok, that’s a good question, they should do the experiment to find out, was it Clarke or Asimov that made the observation that the first word/s most commonly spoken at the moment of great scientific discoveries isn’t “eureka”, but “that’s funny . . “.

  • Judy

    (sounds of minds boggling in the background)

  • Meanwhile, back at the Flat Earth Society . . .

    No @$&#! clue.

    There has been speculation that sentience is not necessarily endemic to humans. I find myself coming around to this idea based on the evidence.

  • Phill O

    Go back to the post Pinatubo eruption and we saw two years of reduced temperatures on the prairies and increased fusarium in grains (let our lab makes lots of money is analysis). Also, the sky at darkest night had a purple hue. Amateur astronomy was a wash. So, yes, in theory, it can be done. Should it be done? Not in any way! We could sue the buggers for the bad weather and that, more than reason, will stop the plan.

    This is like the plan to lubricate faults that get stuck, like the San Andreas. No one wanted to be responsible for the cause of a large earthquake.

  • wodun

    Fourth, the only objections to this experiment quoted in the article come from activist groups who believe in global warming, but would rather impose political restrictions on freedom and property rights than do geoengineering.

    I am against most forms of geoengineering because the side effects can be catastrophic and unpredictable. Throwing sand in the gears of nature with the intent to change it is more likely to mess something up than driving a car or having electricity.

    I don’t know about you, but I don’t want space to be commercialised, owner [sic] by Richard Branson or Elon Musk. For me, this would ruin something very special.

    Parts of space are culturally important across cultures. Too many space nerds don’t understand this. This is especially true for the Moon. We only have the one and it has been incredibly important throughout history. Most of the Moon should be treated as a preserve with any major development restricted to the far side.

    Development on the Moon is a lot like graffiti. You might think it is the best art in the world but many other people think it is disrespecting other people’s property. The Moon is different than other celestial bodies and there is a shared ownership of the Moon.

    Space nerds better wrap their heads around this because they aren’t the only humans who count and failing to be empathetic to our collective human soul could not only hinder activities on the Moon but also elsewhere in space.

  • Orion314

    The viewers of this site ,and , dare I say , the US citizens , at large, cry out for a 21st Century George Washington. There is a hell of a lot old , ex Vets, like me, merely waiting for target confirmation. We are long past lip service. How much voter fraud is too much? The finally straw is days away..D5? .God help us all…Rhetoric, only works with people, who can read.

  • pzatchok


    Exactly how large of a developed area would have to be on the Moon for it to be observable from Earth?

    Remember that its a myth that the Great Wall can be seen from orbit so something will have to be larger than that.

  • wayne

    Good stuff!
    (“eureka” Vs. “that’s funny.”)

    Very good stuff.
    (I’m not a Vet, but give me solid target confirmation, permission to fire, and some backup, and I’ll stand right along side everyone and pull the trigger, once and forever.)

    “These are the times that try men’s souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”
    “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

  • Edward

    pzatchok asked: “Exactly how large of a developed area would have to be on the Moon for it to be observable from Earth?

    Less area would have to be developed if the lights of the development are visible on Earth. Think of it as “light pollution” on the Moon.

  • Andrew_W

    Edward, I think that’s cheating, if the artificial light source is bright enough it’s size is virtually irrelevant.

    The Moon has a low average albedo and is mostly a dull grey, if the area developed were to be a transparent doom with the interior nice shades of green and blue, a person with good vision might be able to see such a dot on the Moon if it were 40 km across, equivalent to being able to see a colorful 1 mm dot against a dark background from 10 meters. Or would that be too optimistic?

  • pzatchok

    I can not see lights on the day side Earth from orbit why would I see them on the day side of the Moon?

    And if we are using solar power for the Moon why would we build in shadow most of the time?

    Plus we all know that we will not be building transparent domes on the moon for anything other than a tourist observatory room. We will be living underground for protection. Any lights outside will be on vehicles or used for mining and working.

    Any light that escapes is wasted energy.

  • wayne

    it’s all part of the “De-Growth” movement. (The intention is to reduce economic activity back to the levels of the 1950’s.)
    It’s all for our own good, dontachaknow.

  • Andrew _W

    Pzatchok, if a development area looks just like the rest of the lunar surface, even if it covered the entire near side of the moon it wouldn’t be recognizable as a development area.

  • Edward

    pzatchok asked: “I can not see lights on the day side Earth from orbit why would I see them on the day side of the Moon?

    You probably wouldn’t, but as on Earth the real estate on the moon will be on the night side half the time. Even on Earth, there may not be enough lights turned on during the day for the lights to be seen from orbit, anyway.

    And if we are using solar power for the Moon why would we build in shadow most of the time?

    Most of the Moon is not in shadow most of the time (parts of craters just inside the rims would be this way), only half the time, so very little would likely be built in such conditions. However, there are no places on the Moon that always get sunlight, but there are a few places that never see sunlight, and those places are thought to contain water in the form of ice. Since a major strategy for planetary settlements is to use the local resources as raw material, that ice is going to be very valuable (somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 kps delta v). This gives great incentive to put a few buildings and equipment in or near the permanent shadows.

    Any lights outside will be on vehicles or used for mining and working. Any light that escapes is wasted energy.

    If the purpose of that light is for seeing the acreage being worked, then light that escapes is necessary and purposeful.

    Andrew_W wrote: “a person with good vision might be able to see such a dot on the Moon if it were 40 km across, equivalent to being able to see a colorful 1 mm dot against a dark background from 10 meters. Or would that be too optimistic?

    Probably not too optimistic, as I think your math is correct. You might be able to simulate this on your own computer by turning off all the pixels but one and viewing it from across the (darkened) room. How bright does that pixel need to be in order for you to see it?

    Building a see-able dome may not be as difficult as many may believe. Putting a dome on a rill (e.g. Hadley Rille, made famous by Apollo 15) may not be difficult and could provide quite a length of lighted area.,_Lunar_Rover,_Scott.jpg

    On the other hand, domes on the Moon may not be nearly as desirable as building underground, but building underground would not answer pzatchok’s original question.

    Returning to Robert’s original topic:
    If these scientists were to pollute the atmosphere with particles that reflect the energy of the sun, how would that affect solar power collection here on Earth?

    The article mentions that the experiment may mess up crops or cause severe climate changes. Talk about anthropogenic climate change! But I suppose that droughts in agricultural areas, floods in other areas, and starvation are preferable to turning up the air conditioner and having longer growing periods — periods as long as they had been, a thousand years ago.

  • Max

    There is so many things wrong with this proposal I hardly know where to start.
    First a quick comment about where the topic has turned.

    Agreed, won’t need lights during the day, night on the moon, the area they’ll be working in will need minimal lighting, headlights from 200,000 miles away. The majority of any lights seen will be a reflection from solar panels and mirrors collecting energy. And as you stated anything reflected towards earth is wasted energy/resources. Can’t be seen during new moon or full moon. (I wouldn’t put it past money hungry politicians to allow a Coke banner or something during the sliver moon if you get up before sunrise or see it just before sunset…)
    Living on the surface will require a considerable amount of energy for heating/cooling making surface dwelling prohibited in the first decade or so. We will be more comfortable underground in pre-made structures with walls made of TV screens of earth and other favorite scenery while operating robotic mining equipment so that wearing a space suit is unnecessary.
    Mine tailings will probably be heaped up to mimic craters in circular patterns rather than rectangle or square’s.
    With the core of the moon so close to the surface, mining will happen on the earth side. Lunar regulith and mine tailings are so similar that no one will ever notice the difference.

    From the article last paragraph;
    “SCoPEx will be valuable — if only because it pushes the conversation forward. “Not talking about geoengineering is the greatest mistake we can make right now.”
    Smug hypocrites they are, by any other name it would be called;

    “catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling”.
    Another man made catastrophe, playing god thinking whatever happens, that’s OK because they are smarter than everybody else and have the only true politics with good intentions.

    “Scientists and some environmentalists believe nations might have to mimic volcanic gases as a last-ditch effort to protect Earth from extreme warming.”

    Can you understand what this means? The idiots are going to try to re-create natural disasters on a scale that will cool surface the earth for tens maybe hundreds of years…

    The only power that can rival the energy of a storm or the power of force of a volcano is nuclear weapons…. They know this but they cannot dump it on you at once, they must let you get used to the idea of dust in the air

    “to save the planet” they must create a “nuclear winter”
    The dumping of calcium carbonate to see what it does from the balloon is a experiment in finding out the best material to put the nuclear weapons in for the proper dust cloud. Calcium carbonate (lime stone) covers approximately 10% of the earth surface. It neutralizes acid rain, hydrogen sulfide, natures fertilizer, emitted by the ocean plankton. Without it we do not have clouds, just humidity. The result would be global warming… Idiots.
    Congress passed a law in the late 80s to remove regular fuel, and put unleaded fuel as our standard to clean the air of “photochemical smog” (sulfur dioxide, the kissing cousin of hydrogen sulfide, just heavier and supercharged)

    It had an unintended consequence;

    what to do with the sludge which was mostly sulfur from the process? The thicker sludge went into the tar which is road base and in asphalt shingles. They intended to put the rest back into the ground in spent oil wells. The cost was high, so they went the easy route of creating “red off road fuel” for farm equipment/construction trucks. Most of the sulfur was dumped into jet fuel in because it added thrust efficiency by pre-longing the burn at no extra cost. The EPA allowed it because the sulfur dioxide was distributed at high-altitude across the world at low parts per million. What we call contrails/chemical trails. Sulfur would mix with humidity form clouds. In a high pressure zone with no humidity, the Chemtrails would dissipate.

    This is the current form of Geo engineering, they plan to step up their game. What could go wrong?

  • Max

    The article fails to mention other sources of pollution which blocks sunlight that commonly occur. Volcanoes are exotic and their Sulfur/dust emissions are legendary… there are around 50 active volcanoes on the planet on average. For their purposes, that’s just not enough to destroy our planet…
    There is also the dust from the Sahara desert, globy desert, pollution that drifts over from China/India to California, fires burning in Indonesia, chlorine in salt spray whipped up by the southern polar vortex, and the most persuasive sky covering of all, “clouds”. As seen from space, covering 30% of our planet on average. If these arnt enough what to they hope to accomplish? There must be a different goal they have in mind, something that we just aren’t seeing, to come up with such a diabolical plan…

  • Edward

    Max wrote: “There must be a different goal they have in mind, something that we just aren’t seeing, to come up with such a diabolical plan…

    Maybe, but back in the 1960s, they (the mysterious “they”) were telling us that air pollution and man-generated particulates were causing global cooling and that we had to have environmental laws regulating pollution or else we might enter the next ice age. We controlled pollution, cleaned up the air (at least in the U.S.) and now they are telling us that we need those particulates back or we will have droughts and floods.

    This experiment seems to be a throwback to 1960s thinking.

    Wouldn’t it be nice to have climate science settled enough to determine whether the anthropogenic climate change that our policy makers insist upon is good for the Earth or bad for it?

  • Cotour


    What is the conclusion we can draw from this intellectual self immolation and example of self hate?

    The millennial mind must be dealt with as it relates to politics and base issues that they have come to some conclusion about through the conditioning. The Conservatives of today must learn and adapt in order to 1. Re instruct them into a more rational and reality based perspective. And 2. Give them an alternative political choice that they can tell their friends about that is based in identifying the Socialist and Leftist dangers of their thought process but addressing their core belief system of preservation and conservation.

    I have pointed out previously that the issue is not so much “Climate change”, which is only a word / term manipulation adjustment of the former “Global warming” proponents and political operatives. Q: When does the climate not change? A: Never. A ridiculous term for the political simpleton who is unaware of the difference or that they are being manipulated.

    The issue is pollution in general and offering real and measurable actions in accomplishing the control and or mitigation of it and properly communicating those actions to this millennial audience / voter.

    This is how the Republican party must modify and adapt to the now and future voter in America. This deficit is the Lefts best weapon against the more rational Conservative thinker who is yoked with the Republican / mercenary capitalist moniker. This Conservative self created weapon must be denied to the Left. Without it all the Left has are the ridiculous and self serving lies that they must tell each other and the voting public.

    Adapt and survive, refuse and perish.

  • wayne

    the conclusion we can draw— “professor” Todd May should commit suicide, and leave the rest of us alone.
    Green is the new Red, and it’s never been about the “weather,” it’s about totalitarian, Marxist, de-growther’s who want to micromanage your life while remaining immune from the consequence’s of their positions.

    Jordan B Peterson: 12 conservative principles in 12 minutes
    cued to #9

  • Cotour

    Im not arguing any of that, my point is to once again to relieve the Left of the political weaponry that we ourselves provide them.

    Rational, reasonable thought and action that in reality addresses real world situations that is demonstrable and not to be argued with.

    Maybe easier said than done, but it is essential that it be accomplished.

Readers: the rules for commenting!


No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.


However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.


Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.