Seemorerocks: A discussion DID happen between Dane Wigington and Guy McPherson but records of it were destroyed

I am more-or-less ready to let go of 7 years of unstinting support for Guy McPherson and his work and am quite happy so long as more stuff doesn't cross my bows that bothers me.

This bothered me a great deal and was hugely disillusioning.

I had always been under the impression that Guy was refusing to debate Dane Wigington but in fact, unbeknownst to me he had.

Now, I can understand why Dane literally drives Guy out of his mind because it must have been highly embarassing.

When Guy came to Chico, California Dane went along to the gathering and in fact paid for the venue so he could not be chucked out.

After an embarassing interaction where Guy showed himself of being at all magnaminous and had to admit that he did not know if geoengineering was going on he asked for a private conversation with Dane where he demanded that he gave over the embarrassing video footage (which Dane did) - presumably so it "didn't happen" which is presumably why I didn't know about this until today.

Inconveniently, someone in the audience filmed the whole thing and posted it onto You Tube.

What comes out (if one is at all objective and not caught up with the 'message') is that unlike Guy, who is petulent, passive-aggressive and (in my opinion) dishonest, Dane comes across as being gracious and reasonable.

His account below seems reasonable and factual and my recent bruising "interaction" with Guy McPherson bears this out.

If I had been in his place I would have bowed to Dane's greater knowledge of the subject and just said I was not going to talk about something that I had scant knowledge about and stick to my theme.

What would have been wrong with that?

To make it clear I still agree with the ideas of Guy at least up to 2017, since when he has had very little to add to the science.

For what it is worth, far from being a climate change denier Dane Wigington has out-Guyed Guy by saying that global temperature increases are more than 3 degrees Celsius

Other parts of the meeting are available HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE

A Meeting With Scientist Guy McPherson

Geoeengineering Watch,

21 March, 2015

On Friday, March 13th, 2015, I travelled to Chico California to attend a public presentation on "abrupt climate change" by internationally recognized scientist Guy McPherson. Before Guy's evening presentation, a "round table" discussion was scheduled with McPherson, myself, two retired highly credentialed biologists (USFS biologist Francis Mangels and California Dept of Fish and Game biologist Allan Buckmann who is also a former Air Force meteorologist) and retired aerospace engineer Steve Massaro (formerly with Raytheon, Boeing, and Hughes). I have had only very limited communication with Guy in the past. In 2012 I authored an article for Guy's web site "Nature Bats Last" titled "Geoengineering, Dangerous Proposal, Or Lethal Reality". I am grateful to Guy for having the courage to post this article and judging from the comments under the article, I believe he took plenty of heat for this posting (so sorry that Guy has just disabled this 3 year old link since this article came out. The article can still be read here, it is an updated version so the date is more recent).

Guy asked to meet with me privately just prior to the roundtable meeting in Chico. In this short exchange it became very clear Guy was now completely adverse to the subject of geoengineering. As we took our places for the start of this roundtable, and three cameras were set up to record, Guy's discomfort seemed to escalate considerably. A moderator got the discussion going and a number of subjects were briefly addressed, escalating global temperatures, radically increasing tree mortality, and the rapidly increasing solar obscuration (global dimming) that is occurring around the globe. The subject of climate engineering could not be kept out of this conversation of course and the more it was brought up, the more apparent Guy's discomfort became. The two biologists and myself briefly discussed the extensive lab testing we had each done which proved the fact that extreme levels of toxic heavy metals (matching the elements in climate engineering patents) were now present in precipitation. I made clear to Guy that the solar power production on my fully off-grid residence was being radically reduced as a result of the constant jet trails (more conclusive verification of "global dimming", the expressed goal of SRM geoengineering). Conclusions were increasingly voiced as to the reality of climate engineering from 4 of the 5 participating in the discussion (Guy being the clear exception). Guy challenged the validity of the the precipitation tests that were performed, even though all tests were processed at a State Certified lab, clearly there was no justification for Guy's dismissal of these lab tests. A final disagreement came when McPherson challenged any conclusion that geoengineering was an ongoing reality due to the fact that there were no "peer reviewed" studies to prove it. McPherson's position is perplexing when one considers the fact that Guy is himself not specifically a climate scientist and he refers to the opinions of AMEG members (Arctic Methane Emergency Group) as a basis for many of his conclusions (not peer reviewed study). In regard to the climate engineering issue, the AMEG group is also in total denial. Guy got up and left the room stating he was done with the discussion, it was clear that he had no interest whatsoever in examining any data or test results that related to geoengineering. One in attendance overheard McPherson's angry discussion with a member of his staff in another room. We were subsequently asked to give up our film of the "round table discussion". The camera chip was given over as without McPherson's permission to use the footage, it was of no use to us. If McPherson is after the truth, why was he so unwilling to examine any data relating to climate engineering no matter how credible it was? Why did Guy insist on taking our film footage of the discussion?

After driving around Chico to find a new video camera card to replace the one we had to give up, I and the videographer were headed back to the location of the evenings presentation when I got a call from Guy. He said he wanted to meet with me privately before his presentation, I agreed. I later connected with Guy outside the presentation facility were we had a short but alarming conversation. Guy seemed to be in a defensive stance when he stated the following to me "geoengineering isn't happening". After a moments pause I replied that there was no question of the geoengineering reality as we have film footage of numerous military tankers spraying at altitude, KC 10s, KC 135s, C-17 Globmasters, etc. In regard to the film footage I mentioned that we had, Guy responded "no you don't" (what kind of reply is this?). I reiterated that we absolutely do have film footage of jet tankers spraying taken up close at altitude (in addition to the lab tests and mountains of additional data, all of which McPherson refused to consider in any way). McPherson then said "If you choose to believe in the flying spaghetti monster, that does not mean I have to". This is word for word what he said. How completely astounding is this statement? I pointed out to Guy that the entire science community was openly and actively discussing the issue of geoengineering and the need to deploy these programs. Governments around the globe are doing the same. I asked how he could use the term "flying spaghetti monster" to describe what is the front line of discussion in science circles around the globe. I brought the exchange to an end by pointing out to Guy the fact that public was becoming increasingly aware of the geoengineering reality, and that the ongoing climate engineering could not be hidden in plain site for much longer. I encouraged him to consider the fact that once fully aware of the geoengineering crimes, the public would certainly be extremely upset with the "experts" that had helped to hide these crimes by their adamant denial of geoengineering.

Some anti-geoengineering activists came from as far away as the eastern US to see this presentation, I am sure they were disappointed when McPherson elected to just roll a prerecorded film of himself instead of doing a live presentation which all in the audience expected. After the film was over, the disappointment for all in attendance continued when Guy announced that there would be no open questions allowed. All were asked to write their questions on a card and turn it in to a moderator. What kind of truth seeking effort was this? Guy claims over and over to be motivated to do what he does in order to get the truth about the true state of the climate out to the public, his conduct shows otherwise. Guy's basic message is this, industrialized society has destroyed our planet (on this point I agree with McPherson), that there is nothing we can do, we are all as good as dead (I don't agree with these conclusions), and those that want assistance with coping can stay after his presentation for additional help. What kind of message is that? How is this kind of message of service to humanity when we still have options that could be implemented if enough people had an accurate understanding of the situation at hand? Still worse, how can McPherson claim to be about "telling the truth" when he is completely unwilling to look at or even consider any of the data which completely confirms the reality of climate engineering which is mathematically the single largest environmentally decimating factor of all? How can he paint a picture of certain and total doom, that there is absolutely nothing we can do, when he is in blatant willing denial of the single largest climate disrupting factor of all that could still be stopped, geoengineering. I do agree with Guy that the planet is in meltdown, and that the horizon looks very dim, but the issue Guy completely denies, climate engineering, is a major factor fueling the overall meltdown. McPherson's complete denial of climate engineering, and his complete unwillingness to look at any data whatsoever in regard to this subject, is I believe inexcusable. Guys unfortunate hypocrisy in regard to "exposing the truth" is undeniable. Again, he was not even willing to look at any evidence whatsoever in regard to the climate engineering reality. He refused to listen to highly credentialed biologists who travelled a considerable distant to share data with him, and then he has the film footage of a revealing roundtable discussion destroyed. Is this Guy's idea of exposing the truth?

As the meeting was about to wind up, I stood and posed a question to Guy in spite of his protocol of no open questioning. I reminded Guy that I paid for the use of the facility (in which his presentation was taking place) out of my own pocket, I had the right to ask him this, would he state on the record that he knew geongineering was NOT HAPPENING? After a bit of rambling, McPherson admitted he could not say this, he could not state on the record that he knew geoengineering wasn't happening. After Guy made a few more statements about how hopeless our reality was (due to our disintegrating climate system), I made a second and final comment to Guy and the audience. I simply made this point, that no matter how dire our situation is, we all have a responsibility to try and make a difference for the better. We have a responsibility to our children and to the common good. The moment we are born we are destined to die, does that mean we should not live in the meantime? Does that mean we should give up without trying our best to make a difference for the better? Before the meeting adjourned one of Guy's assistants (named "Malaty") got up and took the microphone. She then said exactly what Guy was denying, that climate engineering was real and ongoing. She went on for some time on this subject. I have since had private conversations with McPherson's other two assistants who both made it clear they were also well aware of the geoengineering reality. So how is it possible for Guy McPherson (a scientist who claims to be on a mission to share the truth for the common good) to completely deny the issue of climate engineering? How is it justifiable for McPherson to refuse any discussion of the climate engineering issue, even with other scientists? How can he justify his complete refusal to even look at lab tests or any other form of data that relates to the issue of climate engineering? What is the story with Guy McPherson? Is he too far in denial? Too afraid? Too sold out to the system that he claims to be against? I cannot know the answer to this question, but Guy McPherson's total refusal to examine any data and testing information related to the issue of geoengineering is not OK. The entire climate science community is in criminal denial of the climate engineering assault being waged on the world by those in power, this also is not OK. What kind of a world do we live in? How much more is the science community lying about? Lab tests from around the planet prove beyond any doubt that we are all breathing in massive amounts of heavy metals that are raining down from the sky. Materials that match climate engineering patents. Highly toxic elements that are having a hugely negative effect on all life including us. We have numerous films that clearly show military tankers spraying at altitude, skies around the world are so often painted white from the constant spraying. We have a mountain of documents, patents, and countless other forms of data. The blatant denial of facts without legitimate investigation (related to climate engineering) by the climate science community, mainstream media, "official agencies", and scientists like Guy McPherson, should be considered criminal. The amount of human mortality likely connected to 65 years of toxic spraying in skies around the world can never be quantified and is growing by the day. There is also the irreparable damage to the biosphere. When global geoengineering is finally exposed once and for all, perhaps then an enraged population will hold responsible all those that participated in the cover up of the climate engineering crimes of omnicide. Will we then have trials resembling those in Nuremberg? Time will soon enough tell that story. DW

Below is a direct quote from Guy McPherson, I hope Guy considers his own statement.

"No amount of evidence will convince deniers of anything, so I'll not waste my time."

On a final note, the message below was sent to Guy McPherson after his Chico presentation by the owner and editor of a Northern California Magazine (The Lotus Guide) that had previously published articles from Guy and done a radio interview with him (posted with permission from the author). It would seem I am not the only one that is gravely concerned over the willful denial coming from so many in the science community.

Hello Guy,

First thing to say is that it was a sad state of affairs the other night here in Chico. When we can't get highly intelligent people who have the best interests of the planet and are on the same path to gather…I have to wonder how we are ever going to get the uneducated masses to wake up. I've started compiling factual evidence for the chemtrails to send to you and quite honestly, there's a lot of it, although there's also a lot of disinformation out there also that you need to have enough interest, or at least curiosity, to go through. Which actually brings me to my main point, most anyone that has looked at the evidence is way past 'do chemtrails exists' and are on to the real questions like 'why and who' is doing it. What I found strange the other night is why, as a researcher, you weren't even curious enough to do some preliminary research to see what millions of people are talking about. But even more than that, the way you were patronizing to the audience and actually rude to Dane was so totally unprofessional that I felt a little sorry for you because you are pretty much all alone on this…but it's your choice.We are all trying to figure this out Guy and we need to work together. The appropriate response the other night would have been, "I've looked in to chemtrails and found no substantiating evidence but I know some of you feel there is so let's get Dane up here and maybe we can all learn something." You are doing the same thing that peers did with Emanuel Velikovsky, Galileo, Copernicus, and a long list of others who were put down by their peers to only find out later that they were on the right track. Anyway, this is some of my feedback and I will send you the evidence later.

Take care, Rahasya

Some of the comments are revealing.They can be read in the original HERE

https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/climate-engineering-dangerous-proposal-or-lethal-reality/

While being aggressively averse to debating Dan Wigington Guy seems quite happy to meet with (geo)- "engineers" to talk about "aerosol masking effect via technology"

He seems incapable of calling things by their names- whether 'chemtrails', "stratosphere aerosol injection" or anything else that has been dreamed up to describe the spraying of our skies.