The Push for Global Governance of Climate Engineering

In October 2018 the Academic Working Group on Climate  Engineering Governance Governing Solar Radiation Management released its report which explores the “governance needs and options for Solar Radiation Management(SRM) technologies.”

More specifically the report focuses on “feasible and needed actions” which can be achievedby 2025 at “the national, regional, and international levels and by non-state actors.” Meaning these actions will be managed by both regional and corporate powers and will undoubtedly involve United Nations forming a new ‘body’ responsible for the governance of global climate engineering technologies and programs, as recommendedon page 30 of the report.

“Who should take action? Established by the UN General Assembly, with members appointed by the UN Secretary-General” p.30. Read the entire document below. And please take the time to view and sign this petition.

Download the PDF here.

Finding Wally: Propaganda, Inner Circles & Deniability

Finding Wally

Media outlets and online scientific communities came alive this week, with headlines such as “Could an anti-global-warming atmospheric spraying programme really work?”,  “100 Special planes and $2.5 Billion per year for sulphate geoengineering” and “Solar geoengineering could be remarkably inexpensive”.

This buzz of activity surrounds findings of a ‘new’ study, “Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment”, by Wake Smith and Gernot Wagner. The study looks at the hypothetical possibility and costs of conducting a global geoengineering program. Interestingly, and perhaps in an attempt to deflect from questions surrounding ongoing aviation induced cloud cover being reported by citizens worldwide, the study also looks at  whether the SAIL (Stratospheric aerosol injection lofter) program could be deployed secretly, concluding that it could not. This conclusion will be explored by examining existing relevant documentation relating to SAI technologies and by comparing US air traffic statistics to the SAIL deployment statistics provided by Smith and Wagner.

I would also like to note, that when looking closely at many of the scientific papers relating to geoengineering, certain names and institutions keep popping up. As highlighted in the article “Harvard Science = Mad Science”, the pro geoengineering community appears to be dominated by a top down (vertical) hierarchy. Meaning a small group of people are using various types of capital to influence the many. Any observer has to wonder why Harvard  appears to have developed a propensity for publishing pageant articles related to ‘geoengineering and secrecy’.

Download >> Finding Wally: Propaganda, Inner Circles & Deniability

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gf4ONSETZQG5VDJQl1di0jtVF-Z14AnP/view?usp=sharing

Geoengineering: Psychology and Framing

A Chapter from the OpChemtrails Information Booklet

The Royal Society in the 2010 document titled “Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering “asserts that “public attitudes towards geoengineering should be a critical factor in considering the future of geoengineering.” It is well known that agencies have been perfecting ways to manipulate the public for some decades; incidents such as the Gulf of Tonkin preceding the Vietnamese War, the Nayirah testimony and programs such as Operation Mockingbird only further demonstrate a willingness to induce the general public.

Documentation detailing ways to better understand (and therefore control) public perception of geoengineering proposals are well recognised; including discussions, forums, information gathering, and networking between key stakeholders, all to determine the soundest ways to frame geoengineering programs when it finally comes time to inform the general public and begin the open implementation of said programs.

The document Public understandingof solar radiation management [3.4. Conspiracy theories], details findings that include “2.6% of the subjects believe that it is completely true that the government has a secret program that uses airplanes to put harmful chemicals into the air, and 14% of the sample believes that this is partly true.” “Conspiracy Theory” is a disparaging term used to vilify and ridicule the very people it is used to describe. By examining responses to different terminology and by using focused terminology in documentation they are “no longer lucidly [expressing] the nature of things, but rather [obscuring] and [distorting] them” (Chilton, 2); below is another example of this, taken from the same document [4. Discussion].

The word supporter has a positive connotation, whilst the word detractor has a negative connotation; when you search both words often (as below) supporters and shown in green and detractors in red.

Ultimately this conveys the message that supporters of geoengineering are more agreeable and those against or critical of geoengineering are defiant. This is further demonstrated when looking at the Cambridge Dictionary: synonyms, related words and phrases.

Nobody wants to be seen as opposition and many studies have determined that human beings do not like to be singled out, ostracized or socially rejected, this is a key component used to sway public opinion on the topic. Being labelled a conspiracy theorist or a ‘detractor’ will almost certainly influence whether or not people object to or consent to geoengineering.

What They Want to Know 
  • How widespread is public knowledge of geoengineering and SRM? 
  • How does the public perceive geoengineering and SRM? 
  • How the seriousness of climate change affects individuals views on geoengineering? 
  • What are key areas of concern, perceived trade-offs and risks (table 5 below)? I.e. what is the public more willing to accept. 
  • The role/opinions of specific groups/communities i.e. environmentalists, economists, media.

Beware the Geoengineering Salesman

Things we are hearing and seeing that show they are testing the waters with regards to public response include:

Sales pitch: Geoengineering may be one possible response to climate change.

What They Really Mean: They’re going to emit/spray us with chemical & metal particulates to save us [example: To Fix Climate Change, Scientists Turn To Hacking The Earth]

Sales pitch: Using media and imagery to depict apocalyptic version of climate change.

What They Really Mean: We need to geoengineer the planet or we are all going to die [example: COP21: Can we avoid climate apocalypse?]

Sales pitch: Saying that it is accidental rather than intentional.

What They Really Mean: Oops we didn’t realise it was happening [plausible deniability] [example: Airplane Contrails May Be Creating Accidental Geoengineering]

Sales pitch: Because YOU won’t change YOUR ways and YOU pollute the planet with Co2 we have to geoengineer the planet to save it.

What They Really Mean: We are just going to ignore the fact that aviation is having a detrimental and largely ignored impact on climate and weather systems and it is not adequately represented in any of our climate models [example: As the effects of global warming begin to frighten us, geoengineering will come to dominate global politics]

Documentation

Public Engagement on Geoengineering Research: Preliminary Report on the SPICE Deliberative Workshops https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-VlNHZzhSVVlCMmc/view

Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering (2010) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-OFU4SElkYTFvRTg/view

Opening up the societal debate on climate engineering: how newspaper frames are changing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-X053YzhMZzFGQ1k/view

A Review of Deliberative Public Engagements with Climate Geoengineering
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-d3lkRENxc2IxX2s/view

Cognitive Epistemic Lock-in and Geoengineering https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-U2NaX2x5SDFDd3c/view

Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists ‘open up’ appraisal of geoengineering https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-NnpjRzhfVHBheGM/view

Examining framings of geoengineering using Q methodology https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-bzZtWUNhOFk3TTg/view

Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-LWQ3R2VVU3hua2M/view

Appraising Geoengineering https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-RTI5czlfRUdDYWc/view

Geoengineering and its governance https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-NHNteEZKRHpseHc/view

Public understanding of solar radiation management https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-aFJJdmRvcXJha2s/view

The International Legal Framework for Climate Engineering https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxU9tnVzYv2-N0pEdUhMdEVQMHM/view

More reading available via the OpChemetrails Google+ Library https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxU9tnVzYv2-aFdpcmNXOUstS2s<

[This post was originally posted on the archived OpChemtrails website on 26 Jan 2017]

Disinfo

Disinformation
Definition of disinformation
: false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumours) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth

One aspect of Geoengineering Activism that many people don’t realize and that we would like to highlight is Disinformation; both the amount of disinformation and the sheer number of disinformationists (aka trolls, shills) that dedicate untold hours to harassing activists, posting hoax information, and promoting disinformation, is astounding.

Many of the sites below have been created by people who have a long term, thorough understanding of the ‘Good, Bad & Ugly’ side of Geoengineering Activism; we highly recommend visiting these sites to gain a better understanding of:
– how disinformationists work,
– who they are,
– why they do what they do, and
– how to best deal with disinformationists when confronted by one.

Informative Sites
The Anatomy of Political Slavespeak
https://climateviewer.com/2014/04/06/the-anatomy-of-political-slavespeak

The Rules of Disinformation

The Rules of Disinformation

Characteristics of the Vipers in the Anti-Geoengineering Movement
https://byebyebluesky.com/characteristics-of-the-vipers-in-the-anti-geoengineering-movement-by-greg-pallen/

Dispelling Internet Disinformation Tactics:
Dispelling Internet Disinformation Tactics – Debunking the Debunkers

Who Is Helping The Geoengineers To Sell Geoengineering?
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/category/geoengineering/disinformation-geoengineering/

Propaganda, The News, and Activism
https://climateviewer.com/propaganda/

Geoengineering: The End Game

Geoengineering: The End Game

Geoengineering Disinformation (various articles)
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/category/geoengineering/disinformation-geoengineering/

The Co-opting of a Movement
https://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=6369

The Secret Playbook of Internet Trolls

The Secret Playbook of Internet Trolls

Disinformation Strategies Exposed
Disinformation Strategies Exposed – Please Don’t Feed The Trolls

[This post was originally posted on the archived Opchemtrails site https://opchemtrails.blogspot.com/2015/12/disinfo.html]

Harvard Science = Mad Sciene

The thing that many people do not realize is not only have they already been geoengineering the atmosphere for decades, but they have also been researching how to best market this to the public. As briefly discussed in the chapter ‘Psychology and Framing‘ (from the OpChemtrails Information Booklet), they have held many talks, meetings, surveys, panels etc to gauge how best to sway public perception and/or concerns about dumping tonnes of toxic substances into the atmosphere.

For how long will academia, media, politicians continue making excuses? When will their constant state of ignorance and denial stop? What tactics we have seen from the geoengineering establishment so far.

Denial – its not happening, people are just imagining things
Ridicule – its just a crazy conspiracy
Its accidental – oops it was an accident
Silence – if we ignore the publics concerns they’ll just go away
Intimidation & Censorship – gag orders on environmental monitoring agences, censorship of hashtags and social media accounts
Word Play – let’s keep changing the terminology and jargon to confuse people further
Climate Change Saviours – even though we don’t know the true state of the climate, let’s tell the public that by polluting the atmosphere we can prevent climate catastrophe
To Save Humanity – we want to poison the air you breath to save you
It’s cheap and easy – just no! Anyone who believes this has failed to see the big picture.

Scariest of all is the small group of people driving this grand plan. Even they admit this will potentially be harmful to humans and the environment, however, they rationalize it by proclaiming that to not understand the science is ignorant, and that we need to understand the science ‘in case’ we are forced to use it. However, many people will argue this rational is exactly what gave us the atom bomb, biological terrorism and so on. This technology has the potential to cause global disruption to natural weather and climate systems, food sources, water sources and viable land, which will inevitably lead to global conflicts and power struggles.

As this Harvard experiment will potentially affect Mexico, the notion of accountability and governance becomes even more important. This technology indiscriminately crosses boarders, so the complexity of regulation and administration alone will take decades to hash out and finalize. The scientists know this, yet, they continue with their crazy plans in haste, so blinded by personal beliefs that they have wrongly convinced themselves they are doing the right thing (just like the scientists who made the abomb).

While the public, academia, media, and politicians debate the ifs and whens and hows of ‘future’ geoengineering programs, we are left with a sky that is already under direct assault by these white coat criminals. And, by Harvard Science portraying this as the first, large scale, outdoors geoengineering experiment they are intentionally averting public attention from the fact our sky is already laden with metals and chemicals directly linked to both military and commercial aircraft. Furthermore, given Trumps attitude towards ‘climate change’, one must wonder why on earth he would allow this experiment to take place?

How much money is being put into our species adapting to the climate rather than trying to control it? Is this even about the climate, or is it more about control? After all, he who controls the weather controls the world.

When you read the articles below, please keep in mind, the people advocating geoengineering technology have been studying public reaction and perception surrounding geoengineering for years. They know how to market things in a way that makes them seem appealing, even essential. And they know how to quell the publics very realistic fears.

~ @OpChemtrails

✈UCSanDiego https://scrippsscholars.ucsd.edu/gcroberts/content/eastern-pacific-emitted-aerosol-cloud-experiment-e-peace

✈HarvardScience https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/

✈HarvardScience https://www.healthnutnews.com/harvard/

✈HarvardScience https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603974/harvard-scientists-moving-ahead-on-plans-for-atmospheric-geoengineering-experiments/

✈HarvardScience https://mashable.com/2017/04/19/geoengineering-research-launches-harvard-solar-radiation/

✈HarvardScience https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2015/01/geoengineering-going-outdoors.html

✈HarvardScience https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/proposed-test-stirs-debate-solar-geoengineering-180962745/

✈HarvardScience https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2015/01/geoengineering-going-outdoors.html

✈HarvardScience https://undergroundscience.net/other/harvard-scientists-plan-chemtrails-experiment-on-public/

✈HarvardScience https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/harvard-scientist-say-its-time-to-take-bioengineering-seriously

✈HarvardScience https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/magazine/is-it-ok-to-engineer-the-environment-to-fight-climate-change.html

✈HarvardScience https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/24/us-scientists-launch-worlds-biggest-solar-geoengineering-study

✈HarvardScience https://principia-scientific.org/ominous-future-harvard-scientists-geo-engineer-stratosphere/

✈Trump https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/mar/27/trump-presidency-opens-door-to-planet-hacking-geoengineer-experiments

✈HarvardScience https://www.climate-engineering.eu/single/press-review-us-solar-geoengineering-field-study.html

✈Carnegie https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/programs/ccgg/index/_res/id=Attachments/index=1/C2G2%20Initiative%20.pdf

✈Trump https://www.etcgroup.org/content/trump-administration-inflates-geoengineers-balloon

✈Carnegie https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/programs/ccgg/leadership

✈HarvardScience https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=48631

✈Carnegie https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/programs/ccgg/index/_res/id=Attachments/index=0/The%20Carnegie%20Climate%20Geoengineering%20Governance%20Initiative%20Our%20Approach.pdf

✈HarvardScience https://cleantechnica.com/2017/04/03/will-geoengineering-plans-get-boost-trump-administration/

✈Carnegie https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/programs/ccgg

✈Trump https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/trump-administration-backs-geoengineering-full-disclosure-of-the-climate-engineering-atrocities-grows-near/

✈HarvardScience https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/files/geoengineering/files/forum_report.pdf

✈HarvardScience https://anonhq.com/solar-geoengineering-experiment-manipulating-climate-to-begin/

✈HarvardScience https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/Forum-US-Solar-Geoengineering-Research-DC-March-2017

✈HarvardScience https://www.facebook.com/GlobalMarchAgainstChemtrailsAndGeoengineering/posts/638221393052982

✈HarvardScience https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/about/funding

✈HarvardScience https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?96855-Harvard-pushing-Solar-GeoEngineering-2017-Chemtrails-coordinated-by-NATO

✈HarvardScience https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/about/people

✈HarvardScience https://philanthropynewyork.org/news/sloan-foundation-contributes-harvard-research-program-solar-geoengineering

✈HarvardScience https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu

✈HarvardScience https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-catastrophic-risks/miscellaneous/harvard-university-solar-geoengineering-research-program

✈HarvardScience https://www.ecowatch.com/harvard-geoengineering-study-2340292654.html

✈HarvardScience https://www.newstarget.com/2017-03-31-conspiracy-theory-no-more-harvard-reveals-big-oil-approved-stratospheric-injection-geoengineering.html

✈HarvardScience https://www.theinertia.com/environment/harvard-is-launching-the-largest-solar-geoengineering-study-ever/

✈HarvardScience https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2017/03/30/harvard-engineers-plan-new-real-world-geoengineering-experiment/

✈HarvardScience https://www.activistpost.com/2017/03/harvard-engineers-plan-new-real-world-geoengineering-experiment.html

✈ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/

✈SPICE https://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/09/spice_put_on_ice.html

✈SPICE https://www.nature.com/news/geoengineering-experiment-cancelled-amid-patent-row-1.10645

✈HarvardScience https://www.pnas.org/content/113/52/14910.abstract

✈HarvardScience https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/11/geoengineering-crazy-for-sure-but-with-a-big-but/

✈HarvardScience https://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/372/2031/20140059.full.pdf

✈HarvardScience https://gwagner.com/forum-on-u-s-solar-geoengineering-research-24-march-2017/

✈HarvardScience https://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2031/20140059

✈HarvardScience https://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/01/solar_geoengineering_is_not_a_quick_fix.html

✈HarvardScience https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603974/harvard-scientists-moving-ahead-on-plans-for-atmospheric-geoengineering-experiments/

✈HarvardScience https://yournewswire.com/harvard-scientists-chemtrails-experiment/

[This post was first published on the original OpChemtrails website on 19 May 2017]