Section 18(g) of the OIA informs that the agency does not hold the information requested.
Saturday, 11 March 2017
On what I say to folks in respect to geoengineering – (chemtrails) and its relation to greenhouse gases
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;
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.
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.