Jim Lee used to be a fairly hardcore conspiracy theorist, deep into things like Chemtrails and doomsday comets. Now he’s less deep down the rabbit hole, but has managed to create one of his own. He’s convinced there’s something going on involving chemicals in the air or modifying contrails. Not exactly chemtrails, but still something nefarious. He spends a lot of time researching what it might be.  He’s also concerned about the effects of potential future geoengineering, pollution, and nuclear leaks, and his large website Climate Viewer, is where he educates people on those issues, and other things he finds important.

Unfortunately a lot of people in the chemtrail community think of him as a supporter of the conventional chemtrail conspiracy theory, even though he thinks that’s implausible, and prefers his own version. He still uses the language of “chemtrails”, even though he will qualify it later in the article. I think he’s wrong about a secret geoengineering plot, but even if he was not, I think he’s not helping with pandering to the hardcore chemtrail folk.

We discuss all those things.

Jim’s web site: https://climateviewer.com/


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 comments on “Episode 11: Jim Lee – Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Conspiracies, and Semantics

  1. Jim Phelps Aug 23, 2019

    There are many bloviators on the theme of Chemtrials. Lee, Wiggington, Carnicom and many other Dunning-Kruger types.

    Chemtrails are Manna from Heaven used to protect the planet

    Learn in place of blundering


  2. Jesse Sep 24, 2020

    There are three issues that I think got brushed over in this podcast that I would have liked to hear discussion on:
    1.) “Accidental _______ engineering” is a contradiction in terms. Accidents are by definition not the product of engineering. This seemed to be an intentional semantic confusion strategy.
    2.) In public conversation, manipulating semantics with full knowledge that there is no platform to clarify for the majority of viewers/listeners is unethical. Any deviation from the commonly understood connotations of a word is unjust unless you legitimately think there is a forum that is all-inclusive that can clarify the terms.
    3) Words cannot be effectively understood based solely on their etymology. When “chemical trail” became “chemtrail” it started to mean something different and have a different definition. Avoiding this is, once again, seemed to be an intentional semantic confusion strategy.