Social media discussions - one spur to creativity
This essay is based on
a conversation on social media which commenced with this article, 'The Solar GeoEngineering Regime Designed To Block Out Your Sun' with
an image of a particular cloud formation. I've had a few of these previously and followed a similar line of providing evidence to identify inconsistency in the 'chemtrail conspiriacy.' I'm further motivated to this creative effort, as I'll be able to share the link whenever I strike similar threads and chemtrail disinformation. As new information comes in it can be commented upon or edited.
I have not reproduced the
full discussion, more I attempt to focus on the salient points. I scatter a few additional observations to flesh out the the reality of the scientific geoengineering discourse.
My
offering is not the end of the matter in relation to geoengineering
proposals to technologically provide a band-aid solution to the
accelerating level of greenhouse gases emitted to our atmosphere,
more it attempts to explore what force, interest or groups might be
keen to advance geoengineering and the reasons why.
Weird
clouds and weirder minds
The following is a link
to the article, my concern
was with the image at the top of the webpage and the implications of
what it attempts:
I've noticed that
web-pages promoting the reality of geoengineering often embed images
of natural cloud formations. I assume, they presume their
target audience are not atmospheric scientists and unaware of the
diversity of natural cloud formations. My conversation with my
interlocker then pursued a course of attempting to identify that the
clouds in the photo were a natural formation, which the
geoengineering proponents were utilising out of context..
I
said 'you may or not be happy to see me here'
Re clouds, long
before folks even thought about geoengineering, clouds have come in
all shapes and sizes...
It's all about
atmospherics, air and its currents, temperature, pressure, water vapour
and geography, including oceanography. We are dealing with a large
and complex system which has lots of potential outcomes.
Sometimes the
weather systems provide interesting effects such as that
represented in the photo of the Opening Post on Chemtrails. The idiot (or cunning disinformation agent) who put that photo together with the story is
deliberately manipulating folks to think that human caused climate
change is bullshit. It isn't, it's real, and getting systemically
worse!
The image in the
above photo is of a naturally occurring phenomena called "Roll
Clouds" a subset of "Arcus Clouds" see the wikipedia.
They weren't invented by geoengineering!
I also offered, Here's
a google search for "Roll Clouds" go and look for
yourself..
And made a further
comment, this one on the 'breaking wave' cloud formation over
Palmerston North February 2017.
There's all sorts of
formations. My suggestion to those who want to know more is to do a
bit of study into natural cloud formations so that one doesn't get
duped by those placing disinformation in the public space.
Here's the wave
breaking clouds from Palmy North Sunday morning 19 February:
Another
commentator came in with...
There isn't any doubt
over naturally occurring cloud formations. There is doubt over
'vapour trails' turning into unnatural formations. Enlighten us
further.
To which I answered;
Good day,
At this point I was
sharing about how the opening post url used the photo of roll clouds
out of context. Why would a webpage that purports to establish truth
misrepresent cloud formations as chemtrails in its headline image?
I suggest you
consider that for a moment.
Greg's
endeavours to find the strontium, barium and aluminium
Re chemtrails I've
been attempting to get to bottom of the swamp, and are still digging.
I've made a series of comments below that outline my researches thus
far on the motives of parties, see the question and answer comment. As to checking for facts see the post about my OIA (Official
Information Act) questions to the NZ spooks!”
I asked OIA
questions of the NZ Government about aerosol spraying, along with a
number of matters – see linked dropbox for full list of 35
questions, in December 2015. Questions #26, 27 and 28 dealt with
Aerosol spray programs in NZ and elsewhere - dropbox link of their
response.
The answer provides
that they do not have any official information on the matter of
aerosol spraying. Now one might be entitled to be sceptical, however
I adopt a fact based approach to reality, and are digging.
Pictures of clouds are just that pix, they tell us bugger all, unless
you have sampled the content of the agents that comprise the clouds!
Dropbox link to the OIA;
Screen capture of the relevant OIA questions re aerosol spraying and answer;
Section 18(g) of the OIA informs that the agency does not hold the information requested.
Whether the spy
agencies are honest in their response is a serious and large
question. I will when time permits follow all these questions to
discover what I am able – I am currently pursuing question #19 in
respect to the 2003 Iraq War, to whatever finality I am able.
Then
there's the official geoengineering project
The challenge of
climate change causes the academy to investigate in a variety of
directions, one of which is geoengineering with a few proposals out
in the public space. According to the academy none of these have been
deployed.
The Royal Society
The Royal Society undertook a study in 2009, which was
updated in 2012. From the study;
The findings of the
review of geoengineering carried out by the UK Royal Society in 2009
are summarized here, including the climate effects, costs, risks and
research and governance needs for various approaches. The possible
role of geoengineering in a portfolio of responses to climate change
is discussed, and various recent initiatives to establish good
governance of research activity are reviewed.
Key findings include
the following.
— Geoengineering
is not a magic bullet and not an alternative to emissions reductions.
— Cutting global
greenhouse gas emissions must remain our highest priority.
(i) But this is
proving to be difficult, and geoengineering may be useful to support
it.
— Geoengineering
is very likely to be technically possible.
(i) However, there
are major uncertainties and potential risks concerning effectiveness,
costs and social and environmental impacts.
— Much more
research is needed, as well as public engagement and a system of
regulation (for both deployment and for possible large-scale field
tests).
— The
acceptability of geoengineering will be determined as much by social,
legal and political issues as by scientific and technical factors.
Some methods of both
types would involve release of materials to the environment, either
to the atmosphere or to the oceans, in areas beyond national
jurisdiction. The intended impacts on climate would in any case
affect many or all countries, possibly to a variable extent. There
are therefore inherent international implications for deployment of
such geoengineering methods (and possibly also for some forms of
research), which need early and collaborative consideration, before
any deployment or large-scale experiments could be undertaken
responsibly.
2009 report:
Harvard
The Keith Group from
Harvard University appear to concentrate on research into
geoengineering:
From the webpage an
explanation of what they are the about;
Geoengineering
refers to a set of emerging technologies that could manipulate the
environment and partially offset some of the impacts of climate
change. It could not be a replacement for reducing emissions
(mitigation) or coping with a changing climate (adaptation); yet, it
could supplement these efforts.
Geoengineering is
conventionally split into two broad categories: The first is carbon
dioxide removal (CDR). The other is ‘albedo modification’, often
called solar radiation management (SRM) or ‘solar geoengineering’.
CDR aims to remove
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which would address the root
cause of climate change — the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. It may become an important part of addressing climate
change. But it is currently still expensive and relatively slow.
Albedo modification
seeks to reflect a small fraction of sunlight back into space to cool
the planet. The principle is simple. It is the same reason we wear
white in the summer and black in the winter. Lighter colours reflect
sunlight and cool what’s underneath. Darker colours absorb light
and heat. Albedo modification is no substitute for cutting carbon
dioxide pollution. It is a potential supplement.
New Zealand's Royal Society
The implications of geoengineering schemes were studied in New Zealand on Tue, 8 Mar 2011, at Science House, 11 Turnbull Street, Thorndon, Wellington, where participants examined;
The 2010 Cancun climate change conference recognised that deep cuts in net greenhouse gas emissions are required, yet any global legally binding agreement that delivers that requirement continues to be difficult to reach. Against this political backdrop the media reports growing interest in using geoengineering to offset increasing emissions. A dizzying array of geoengineering proposals has now been publicised, but virtually none have been tested. In New Zealand, approaches have been made by a US geoengineering company interested in obtaining carbon credits via large-scale fertilisation of the Southern Ocean. In contrast, the UN Convention on Biodiversity placed a moratorium on large-scale geoengineering this October.
Hence, it is time for both our scientific community and policy-makers to familiarise themselves with the underlying principles behind geoengineering and to discuss its regional implications.
This workshop will be interactive, and each participant will use complex decision-making software to explore the many issues – from safety to economics – that must be considered when discussing the merits of any geoengineering scheme.
The workshop is aimed primarily at government and private sector agencies that have an interest in climate change and those researching geoengineering. It is also an opportunity to become familiar with using decision-making software that may be relevant for other complex policy issues.
And here for the workshop details and papers:
Chemtrail conspiracy theory
The Keith Group of Harvard also have a
specific webpage on the chemtrail conspiracy theory. Please note, I do not like
the term 'conspiracy theorist' employed pejoratively. In order to
know anything one has no alternative but to study the matter of concern;
On the subject of conspiracies - fool me once, but once only
Professor of Philosophy
Charles Pigden of Otago University wrote a paper, 'Conspiracy
Theories and the Conventional Wisdom' which states in the abstract;
Conspiracy theories
should be neither believed nor investigated - that is the
conventional wisdom. I argue that it is sometimes permissible both to
investigate and to believe. Hence this is a dispute in the ethics of
belief. I defend epistemic ‘oughts’ that apply in the first
instance to belief-forming strategies that are partly under our
control. I argue that the policy of systematically doubting or
disbelieving conspiracy theories would be both a political disaster
and the epistemic equivalent of self-mutilation, since it leads to
the conclusion that history is bunk and the nightly news
unbelievable. In fact (of course) the policy is not employed
systematically but is only wheeled on to do down theories that the
speaker happens to dislike. I develop a deductive argument from
hard-to-deny premises that if you are not a ‘conspiracy theorist’
in my anodyne sense of the word then you are an ‘idiot’ in the
Greek sense of the word, that is, someone so politically purblind as
to have no opinions about either history or public affairs. The
conventional wisdom can only be saved (if at all) if ‘conspiracy
theory’ is given a slanted definition.
I know we are lied to
about many events - One big lie is 9/11 where the Neo Con US deep state created the pretext for the George W Bush
Administration War on Terror. I have been down the rabbit hole
seeking the truth. I outlined the fruits of my researches to the NZ Parliament on a few
occasions including to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade (FADT) select
committee Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty examination. This is one of
many papers on aspects of TPP, 'US – Aotearoa NZ Values -
Do These Correlate'
My question is who
or what interest initiated the chemtrail conspiracy – what is the
deep agenda?
What
chemtrail activists are doing with geoengineering science
The following was
offered to me recently as proof of geoengineering. Matt Landman has
been a chemtrail activist and proposes to do a speaking tour through
the US exposing the geoengineering program proposed by climate
scientists, dates are 16 April – 18 May. From the article;
A group of climate
scientists are currently advocating a ‘strike first’ pre-emptive
move against climate change and global warming although you probably
won’t have heard much about it. The plan is to block the sun, akin
to mimicking a volcanic eruption, which is why it’s called The
Mount Pinatubo Effect which would implement an ongoing aerosol
injection campaign in the atmosphere in order to veil incoming
SUNLIGHT.
Three
extraordinarily naive assumptions form the basis of this approach:
1) We know
everything there is to know about global warming
2) We can fix the
problem
3) We should fix the
problem
Matt Landman states
this in his article;
Climate
scientists, however, are very divided as to what causes global
warming. Similarly, it is not understood what the effects of
geoengineering intervention are or will be, nor how nature will
react. The level of unpredictability calls for risk assessment
analysis that focuses on the probable outcomes.
Interestingly in the
comments at the foot of the page a Colin King wisely asks;
OK I am puzzled,
Mr Landman. You say that this will be happening this year, and yet
you and numerous other chemtrail activists claim that it is ALREADY
going on and has been for years/decades (depending who you believe).
Which is it?
Chemtrail
imagery in cartoons and popular cultural media
Then another social media commentator offered
the following photo image, portraying chemtrails in various popular
cartoons that are consumed by our youth;
The relevant question
to ask is, 'who creates popular media for mass consumption and who
might be seeking to establish chemtrails as a valid technological fix
to climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions?'
However I took
the approach of going through a sequence of questions and answers to
provide a rational approach to consider the matter.
Who
Controls the World and the products for popular consumption?
Whilst I didn't offer
it in the social media conversation the TED talk by James Glattfelder
of PlusOne entitled, 'Who Controls The World' exposes the network of
global control at the heart of trans national corporation ownership:
James Glattfelder
studies complexity: how an interconnected system — say, a swarm of
birds — is more than the sum of its parts. And complexity theory,
it turns out, can reveal a lot about how the world economy works.
Glattfelder shares a groundbreaking study of how control flows
through the global economy, and how concentration of power in the
hands of a shockingly small number leaves us all vulnerable.
Question
and Answer thought exercise
Question - who has
known about the greenhouse gas effects of fossil fuel emissions?
Answer - scientists,
governments, civil society gradually, and fossil fuel industry since
at least the 1970s as admitted by Exxon Mobil in well documented
disclosures!
Question - what is
the primary purpose of chem-trailing?
Answer - reflect
sunlight back to space, because of the build up of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere.
Question - who is
advantaged by chem-trailing?
Answer - Fossil fuel
industry, as it might allow business as usual, that is to burn more
fossil fuels who's emissions would otherwise cause runaway climate
change.
Question - Who is
behind promoting the efficacy and logic of chem-trailing?
Answer - Fossil Fuel
corporations because absent a technological solution to the increase
of greenhouse gases, most sane humans would shut the industry down.
Question - when one
wishes to discover something, what is the general advice?
Answer - follow the
money!
Question - who
profits from society accepting chem-trailing as a technological
solution to greenhouse gas caused climate change?
Answer - fossil fuel
corporations, as they can continue to profit without consequence for
emissions.
Question - Will
chem-trailing work?
Answer - probably
not!
Question - What is
the eventual outcome?
Answer - an
overheated, screwed up planet with a less than abundant biosphere,
and a lot of grumpy people, all pointing the finger of blame.... at
anybody else except their own stupidity.
Question - What
happens then?
Answer - War and
Armageddon - and a thank you note from your grand kids
Question - What is
the current epoch of man?
Answer
- the Age of Stupid!
I had provided the
conversation with the link to the 2009 Spanner Films, 'Age of Stupid' a
dramatic futuristic documentary set in 2050. It attempts to describe
the world as it might be if we fail the challenge to respond
adequately to climate change.
How
do greenhouse gases work?
I followed that with
the next link to an informative video that describes how greenhouse
gases work, what is the property that makes a molecule of gas a
greenhouse gas?
How do greenhouse
gases work to trap heat in our atmosphere?
Mind,
logic, science and theories
Where we are able to
persuade an individual to the scientific theory about greenhouse
gases, it means that they possess a mind open to facts and logic, hopefully these are a majority:
“A scientific theory
is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural
world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed
through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are
not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.”
… it then becomes a
question of what to do with the information? Bury one's head in the
sand like an ostrich, run around screaming that the sky is falling
in, or some other measured and consider course of action that targets
the root of the problem. I offered the following as a first
attempt...
Try this thought
exercise, just park your bias for a moment and think on what a
logical individual might do when confronted with rational choices
about how to move forward - apply it to your own life - how do you
make rational choices?
Greg Craven has done the thought exercise and
here's the result; "What's the Worst That Could Happen? A
Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate." The following
video presents a simplified version of risk management using a 2x2
grid to sketch out possible scenarios based on:
a) whether we choose
to take action or not, and
b) whether global
warming turns out to be a threat or not.
Using the grid,
Craven concluded that taking action to combat climate change was the
better choice, given the relative risks - video:
And here is Greg's
Wikipedia entry which also references the resulting book:
Conclusions,
consequences and what to do about it
I'll leave my
perspective on the chemtrail question stand there for the moment. The
critical question is how to tackle the enormous challenge of
refocusing our social and political economy toward sustainability
and long term resilience, given we have already locked in an enormous
level of greenhouse emissions for the foreseeable. There's a variety
of ideas about that. I'll explore these on another occasion – the
key thing in regard to the challenge, is that I'm optimistic of
solutions provided the people who will be most affected (all of us)
cohere around strategies and tactics that target the root of the
cause – fossil fuels and the support they receive in the economy
from our governments.
.
