GEOENGINEERING - SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT
Be A Signatory To A Submission to Object to IT
DEADLINE 02 DECEMBER 2010
I attended this meeting at the Royal Society: http://royalsociety.org/Geoengineering-taking-control-of-our-planets-climate/
You can read a report on the related Royal Society Meeting below:
I was sent a document about the proposed submissions for SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT GOVERNANCE (i.e. HOW CAN WE BLOCK THE SUN'S RADIATION, OR REDUCE ITS EFFECTS) and thought it was necessary to "send them a message" that they do not have "free range" here - WE DO NOT AGREE IT IS EVEN NEEDED as there is much which is being wilfully ignored. You can read about the submission suggestions here:I have prepared submission regarding objection to Solar Radiation Management "Governance Initiative" - which assumes manmade CO2 is the cause of "global warming"/climate change and we need to do things to reduce the effects of solar radiation. It is 34 pages long, but there are quite a few photos/pictures.
http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/SRM%20Submission2.pdf (also attached to this e-mail)
Yes, this really is having money spent on it! NO SRM governance is required because IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE!
Alternatively, if you want to make your own submission, you can use this link:
PLEASE BE POLITE. Make a referenced submission, as I have tried to do.
PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH OTHER PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THE CLIMATE CHANGE FRAUD AND ASK THEM IF THEY WISH TO SIGN - BE AWARE, BEFORE SIGNING YOU MAY FIND MY SUBMISSION "CHALLENGING" IN IT'S OWN WAY!
If you wish to be a signatory to this submission, please include as many contact details as possible/as you wish below:
Script and Guestbook Created by: Matt Wright.
Please find herewith our observations and a small report on our interventions during the discussion meeting.
Discussion meeting: Geoengineering - taking control of our planet's climate
Organisers : Prof. Andy Ridgwell, Prof. Chris Freeman, Prof. Richard Lampitt
Place : Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London
Dates : 8 & 9 th of November 2010
In the attached pdf file you will find the full program, abstracts, speaker biographies and participants lists. John Shepherd was not on the list, but very present.
Blue sky fighters: Claire Henrion, Saskia Messager ( ACSEIPICA, France) both days
Andrew Johnson (UK) 11.9.2010
On arrival Monday morning at the Royal Society, a few members of Hands Of Mother Earth had put up a banner "stop geoengineering" and were handing out small papers with statements "we are here to oppose geoengineering" and contesting the role of the Royal Society. A part from this no other action has been conducted by any other ONG.
Different groups opposing geo-engineering in the discussion meeting audience were Biofuelwatch (on behalf of the ETC group (not present!)), EcoNexus, ACSEIPICA, Andrew Johnson. Maybe some others but we haven't met them. There were about 200 attendees. Some more than on the participation list.
BLUE SKY INTERVENTIONS
There were 8 presentations per day. After each 2 presentations there was 30 minutes of discussion, mostly only 4 to 5 questions were responded. So it has to be stated that with 200 people present it was not easy to get ones turn to speak up.
Claire Henrion made an intervention at the end of Day 1. She spoke up about the CO2 lie and about the according to her real causes of climate change, meaning the use of HAARP facilities and the ongoing geoengineering with chemtrails. There was no reaction of the speakers. The chair Brian Launder suggested that she should sort this out in a one to one discussion. Anyway Claire succeeded in drawing attention to the chemtrails. It was the concluding statement of the day.
Saskia Messager made an intervention the second day, after the presentation of David Keith on CO2 capture from the air. He was here promoting his own company on carbon capture and storage. It was a 100% business presentation. We learned more about the business cost of his invention than its efficiency.
Although his subject here was not the aerosol spraying, she thought, for pure impact reasons, that an intervention at this point of time, would get some more (media) attention.
She started calmly to not to be interrupted right away. She got this far, here is what she succeeded to say:
( Here she started to get interrupted, but she continued)
(Here they stopped her).
David Keith's answer:
- He started saying that his life has been threatened by chemtrail activists and that he received many threats to not to continue promoting SRM.
- He said that he was willing to believe that governments are not always doing good things for the people, but that such an enormous thing would not be possible
- He stated that if it was true such a secret could never have been kept silent for so long.
- He stated that he has looked in to the chemtrails issue but that he considers this issue as a conspiracy theory.
- He urges Saskia to consider that chemtrails are not true (sounded like a warning !)
Saskia Messager addressed the meeting again:
- She asked if David Keith could explain that in a pristine area like the Mt Shasta in California, snow samples have shown levels of alumina of 60000 ppm. Sixty times the maximum authorized levels.
- he fell silent, did not answer
Richard Lampitt answered ( one of the organizers):
- This is not true " such a secret, could not have been kept secret, it's impossible"
At the coffee break Saskia discussed again with David Keith. He told her that alumina is every where on the earth; he told her to again check the lab results and to be sure that it was done by a reliable laboratory.
Apparently the 60000 ppm result has made an impact on him. (Thank you for this Francis and Dane)
At another coffee break Saskia has had the chance to address another time David Keith with questions concerning the health aspects and consequences of SRM. She stated that this issue was not addressed at all in the presentations and that alumina and sulphates would affect live on earth in a very negative way.
David Keith got quite upset stating that many of his colleagues have addressed those issues. And that it was "not fair" to make such a statement.
It has to be noted that David Keith changed somewhat his strategy. For over the past few years he has been promoting very strongly the Solar Radiation Management trough aerosol spraying being so easy and cheap to do. As where at this meeting he distanced himself somewhat from his earlier statements. He said several times during those two days that "he didn't thought that the climate situation was that catastrophic, that aerosol spraying should be used". It would be more a last resort issue.
After a presentation of a fellow colleague, Naomi Vaughan from the university of East Anglia, where she stated that "SRM has to be maintained for many centuries to avoid rapid increases in temperature and corresponding increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration", David Keith somewhat attacked her saying "Nobody thinks about seriously using SRM".
==> Easy access to all speakers and scientists
There was a very informal and courteous ambiance. Everyone was willing to exchange views in an open way. This might encourage others to participate more often in this type of open discussion meetings. At least your voice will be heard.
==> Planes are not an option for particle injection in the atmosphere....
_ Only two techniques for injecting particles in the atmosphere to execute the SRM have been presented at the meeting.
1. Marine Cloud Brightening by Prof John Latham, National Centre for Atmospheric Research, USA
seeding stratocumulus clouds with copious quantities of monodisperse sub-micrometre seawater particles.
2. SRM through stratospheric particle injection by (guess what...) ..balloons !!, Dr Matthew Watson, University of Bristol, UK - SPICE project
Several balloons of 285 meters (!!!) floating at a height of 20 km connected to a ship with a 20 km long tube. With pressure, sulphate or aluminium particles, will be brought up through the tube to be dispersed at the height of 20 km by the balloons. Absolutely crazy. Fortunately there were some scientific engineers who stated that it was absolutely not possible. The pressure needed to bring up the particles at this height is beyond feasibility.
Than Mr. Edwards from the public asked why they wouldn't use commercial airliners to disperse the particles, as many patents already outline this possibility. And as this solution furthermore being cheap.
Dr Watson responded that they don't think mixing particles with fuel will be feasible.....
Now isn't that interesting that particle injection in the atmosphere by airplanes is just not an option for the Royal Society ?
Here we are talking tactics and media strategy. And might be a silent confession that they don't need to do it, because it is already being done..
On the consequences of spraying particles:
Dr Carol Turley (speaker) asked Dr Watson: "what will happen to those sulphate particles up in the air
Dr Watson: They will fall down on earth
Dr Carol Turley: So what sulphate will do to the oceans and soil ? will the pH change ?
Dr Watson: yes pH will change
Dr Carol Turley: so it will affect life ?
Dr Watson: yes
==> Quality of the presentations
Most presentations were very vague, hypothetical. A lot of catastrophic extrapolation based on assumptions and not observations.
It was striking that quite some scientific speakers presented graphs with no indications of type of measures on the horizontal and vertical axes..
A lot of guessing with a lot of uncertainties on which they want to enforce (their term) dramatic decision making on the earth.
==> Mostly UK and US scientists
The main part of the speakers, scientists, business people and the rest of the attendees were from the Uk and North America.
So their views have only a very narrow base. Scientists from other parts of the world where totally absent ! Their views are not shared worldwide !
Only UK government DECC (department of energy and climate change) involvement, US navy and US government researchers.
==> Double language
At one hand all speakers said that there are so many uncertainties and even inefficiencies in the geoengineering techniques, that it should never be used. On the other hand they are selling the whole concept to get funding for research and implementation. It's all business.
They say the cure is worse than the disease but still go on.
==> Marketing strategy
They are studying the public to see what will them make to accept the geoengineering. They spent quite some energy in this.
"Get the trust of people and you can hack the planet" This has been said at the meeting.
By the way they consider they are not the public ( scientists versus public).
- Climate science used to be a science of observation, not very exciting. They probably had a lot of trouble getting funds for their research.
Now there is this climate change hype and money is flowing. suddenly they are in the spotlights. They are making a living with all this.
- Pandora's box
- They are no longer restricted to observation they can now engineer, change the world and leave their footprint on this earth, the dream of every scientist.
This is where scientists can be easily manipulated.
In conclusion : the existence of the chemtrails and the ongoing geoengineering has been expressed and discussed at the Royal Society discussion meeting. Our voice has been heard.
There is a crack in everything, through which the light can come in.
For the content of all presentations please have a look at the attached pdf file.
We hope this information is useful to you.
Report by Andrew Johnson
Venue: This was the Royal Society’s 7 Carlton House Terrace Building in the Wellcome Trust Lecture theatre (so immediately we see a link to Big Pharma)
There were perhaps 150-200 attendees seemingly mainly from Universities and some businesses with a few lay people like myself (see back pages of attached scanned version)
Thanks to Saskia for the scanned copy of the programme – I have included another version, which is “text searchable” (OCR’d), which gives you a pretty good overview of how narrow the coverage of issues – almost exclusively focused on ideas which assume that Man-Made CO2 is the main reason for “climate change”.
Not surprisingly, no other conclusions which challenge this assumption were presented.
There were only 3 people in the audience who spoke up to challenge those “wearing the scientific blinkers”. One member of the audience made reference to “denialists” towards the end of the day with a comment to effect that their conclusions were “disproportionately represented” in the press (not sure where he got that idea from).
David Keith seemed to be there to compliment everyone and try to augment what presenters had said. To me, it felt like he was guiding the event somehow - as if he was kind of “top of the tree.” I was very interested to read what Saskia wrote about his presentation, as I was not able to attend that day.
Below I have included a brief summary of some of the talks and after that, my own “contribution” which was right at the end.
An Overview of Proposed Enhanced Weathering Methods
Dr Tim Kruger of the University of Oxford (Martin School)
This looked at the various methods for changing the balance of CO2 by various “absorption” techniques. There are some surprising suggestions such as spreading olivene powder, dumping limestone into the ocean (in regions of upwelling current).
Kruger (the speaker) reported that he had been investigating a technique proposed by Kheshgi in 1995 through his company Cquesrate.
In the Q & A at the end I asked him how this research was funded and he said it was funded by Shell, but they weren’t claiming any IPR. He was also careful to state this was all “Desk-based research”.
Another proposal discussed was the electrolysis seawater. All proposals were not discussed in any depth and, without exception, they seemed to be impractical, due to the energy expended in operating such schemes.
Some schemes aimed to “turn the clock back” in terms of claimed CO2 levels.
This lecture introduced me to the concept of “CO2 removal cost” and one of the “magic figures” seems to be 40 dollars per ton. So we get an idea of how people are thinking in terms of CO2 and economics – all the terms and figures have been decided so that the issue can be “packaged” into discussions neatly.
This lecture also discussed “compensation issues” – how those adversely affected by any CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal) Schemes should be compensated – directly, or following some kind of assessment/appeal process
It was said that CO2 is a fungible commodity (essentially one which affects everyone). So this lead on to the concept of “carbon leakage”. An example was given of the Drax Powerstation (Largest Coal Fired in the UK) which simply could not make money if it had to pay the suggested CO2 removal cost (tax).
Again, all built on the unproven premise that CO2 is the main problem.
Interaction Between GeoEngineering and Emissions Mitigation
Dr Naomi (Nem) Vaughan of the UEA
She presented her modelling research which was based on simple modelling of CO2 levels which would result if CDR mechanisms along with SRM mechanisms (Solar Radiation Management) were to be employed.
Again, it assumed the global effects of the carbon cycle were well understood. It made projections many years into the future (up to the year 3000 or so!). No feeling was given as to what level of confidence these projections had - it seemed to be a case of “let’s get a computer to produce all these nice graphs based on some figures we think might be right” and let’s just talk about that for a bit.
Nem mentioned “aerosols” in passing near the end.
In the Q &A following this session, David Keith (interestingly) introduced the notion of how things like attempts to do Solar Radiation Management could cause wars. He introduced the basic concept of “turning the knob” – i.e. geoengineering being something that people could war over.
At the end of this session, one questioner – an engineer - talked about error bars on the graphs – and how none of the graphs shown had them. He made a general criticism of how difficult it is to find discussion of uncertainties throughout all the field of geoengineering and he politely requested that researchers make a greater effort to describe these.
One of the other speakers acknowledged this, to some extent, but then argued that some uncertainties had been discussed in some papers.
Geoengineering: preparations and options for governance
Dr Margaret Leinen, Climate Response Fund, USA
It was stated she had worked in government and had also been involved with venture capitalist funded project.
This presentation brought up points such as public involvement and consent – i.e. how can they consent to something they don't understand.
There were no photos or graphs in this presentation.
She mentioned the next big summit is Rio 2012 – where broader principles of governance would be discussed.
She seem to be worried about research being limited or stopped.
Public perception of geoengineering- knowledge, risk and acceptability
Professor Nicholas Pidgeon, Cardiff University, UK
This presentation was about public perceptions – it steered clear of the notion of “marketing” geoengineering to the public, but the sorts of information it covered could be used by those wanting to market it to the public.
This presentation was more engaging, though still troubling. It showed a Slovic Fischhoff risk chart with regard to risk etc. An example is shown below. (I include this as a way of showing you how some people are thinking about the issue.)
One example given was image association and perception – e.g. a mountain scene could be associated afforestation to increase support whereas aerosols would be associated with a factory chimney scene.
This presentation mentioned the ETC group (which I think are probably controlled opposition in this matter – as, like these climate researchers, they suffer from EDD – Evidence Denial Disorder) and showed a slide about them, which I couldn’t read al the text on – but it was about moving the earth’s orbit to counteract global warming – but I don’t know whether this was a spoof of what ETC were saying or what it was.
The presentation said the geoengineering issue is polarised with “hope and fear” rather than “hype and hope”.
In the survey this presentation was centred around, it was found that 50% of people had not heard of geoengineering and more people learned about it, the less happy they were.
Not surprisingly, it found that “natural processes” for geoengineering – afforestation, particular types of crop growth (to change land albedo) were favoured.
Geo-governance: assuring the future
Jonathon Porritt, Forum for the Future, UK
It should be noted that Porritt, like UK wildlife documentarian, Sir David Attenborough, is affiliated with the Optimum Population Trust:
Porritt’s presentation was very light hearted and poked fun at the whole issue. His position whether he was “pro” or “con” wasn’t made clear though I was a little surprised when he mentioned “climategate”, though he sadly did not go into any detail. He said he trusted scientists more than he trusted politicians – as the latter are only concerned with short term thinking (to get re-elected).
He complimented the Royal Society for “taking on” Exxon, though I was not familiar with this issue/matter
But this looks like stoking the fires of fake-debate. He also mentioned the ETC group and this enhanced my feeling was he was just “stirring the pot” more than anything else.
Porritt stated he was not in favour of moratorium on geoengineering.
He also used the phrase “a wholly new world order” where geoengineering is considered – it was rather an odd turn of phrase.
He pointed out how businesses “play the game” very well. Porritt also noted the title of conference and referred to the definition of “stewardship” (of the earth) which apparently comes from the words “sty-ward” – as in someone who looks after the pig sty.
Political dimension and perspectives
Professor Robert Watson, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, UK
He spoke of the vested interests in the issue as well as government. He noted that the private sector in USA “leads” government and the reverse is generally true in the UK. (But I would argue he simply has no idea of the extent to which he is write about the USA, and he does not really understand that this does happen in the UK too).
He expressed a “pro-nuclear power” stance – with only a “possible role” for geoengineering!
Question and Answers
This session lasted about 1 hour, but all the questions assumed that CO2 based climate change was real.
Sir Crispin Tickell, a leading environmentalist
said that should be a “world environment organisation”, though no details of what he was proposing were discussed by him or panel members.
I waited for about 30 minutes to speak and finally got my turn, just before the end.
I stated that I ran http://www.checktheevidence.com/ and was apparently in a “minority of one” in the room (Claire and Saskia had already had to leave by then). I said I had watched the AGW issue being propagandised for 20 years and I was relieved that some people were speaking out. I also said I knew Geoengineering was already in use. I then read out this segment from Eisenhower’s speech – as a warning:
I then just said that if people were interested in what I’d found out, then they could come and see me on the pavement outside.
I then left the room and got my leaflets and other info ready.
Odd cloud patterns near Bay of Biscay, 10 Sept 2010 – and other anomalies in a slide show:
Climate Data Challenge – Set to ALL participants in the conference.