The Geoengineering Debate

Because there has been so much discussion on the Internet, I can't ignore this any more, so I am presenting two sides of the geoengineeing debate - first a talk by Dane Wigington on Climate Engineering Weather Warfare, and the Collapse of Civilization; on the other side a "debunking" of the theory by scientist, David Suzuki.

I do not believe for a moment that either one of these two gentlemen is lying - they are simply seeing things through their own prism.

I do take exception to this sort of 'debunking'. It would be better to take people a little bit more seriously than Suzuki does and to address, point-by-point their concerns.

There are quite genuine reasons for concern - what about the sicknesses that are arising and seem to coincide with high levels of aerosols and aluminium, and what are those phenomena that sometimes crisscross the sky, and what are those bizarre cloudforms that those of us that have been around for a while know are not natural?  Why are all the trees dying?

He comes with all the bias of a scientist who says, "I know because I am a scientitst"

Yet on the other hand, he is right about so much, such as 

"endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories ... predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings."

and 

human-caused climate change "provokes self-defensive biases" and its politicization "fosters ideological polarization."

My experience is certainly that people who follow chemtrails, HAARP, weather wars etc. almost invariably are climate change deniers of one sort or another. It seems to me that blaming "them" is a great way of avoiding complexity, as well as uncertainty.

When I started watching Mr. Wigington, I was initially quite impressed.

He presented a lot of the material on just how dire the situation with global warming is. He presented all the graphs and information we are so familiar with. He correctly pointed out how this information is being suppressed and is not supported by "mainstream science"

So far, so good.

He even evokes the Arctic Methane Emergency Group's maps to show the increase of methane in the atmosphere.

But then comes the logical jump.

This is all due to geoengineering, he says.

He shows weather maps showing the distortion of normal jet stream movements and the temperature anomalies we are used to seeing here just about every day.

He says. "these are not natural movements of the Jet Stream". That is because they are cooling the atmosphere and distorting the Jet Stream.

He's right - these are not "natural" movements of the Jet Stream (ie. they are not the usual movement.

It's a pity he didn't go a wee bit further into the Arctic Blog without quoting them out of context - he would then have seen that the strange behaviour of the Jet Stream is due something he appears to have previously acknowledged (ie. global warming). 

And the evidence for that comes with a lot more weight and evidence.

It is a common thing, I have found, with these sorts of "analysis' they start with something at least connected with science or logic, but then there comes the twist, or the jump, where conclusions are made that don't follow from the original premise - and before we know it we are talking about the Rothschilds and which organisitons they own.

Don't get me wrong.

I don't reject the possibility that a program of this nature is going on, and there certainly are questions to be answered.

I don''t embrace "chemtrails" largely for these reasons:

• There does not appear to be any prima facie evidence of a program large enough to make the difference to the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, as CO2 and other greenhouse gasses (including aerosols)

• The whole obsession with chemtrails and HAARP is associated, one way or another with climate change denial and is often associated with reductionism, and with a lack of connection with nature

• It is a red-herring, and takes us away from the immediate issue of abrupt climate change that threatens to end life on earth.

To the climate- change deniers - I know that there is no way on earth that I am going to persuade you because your minds are already made up and not easily swayed by facts or logical discourse.

These are indeed very confusing times, so, I say, let's stick to the knitting.

Seemorerocks

PS. I will freely admit that I only watched the first one-third of Dane Wigington's talk. I may go back and see if he pulls something a bit more convincing in the last third.  If someone can clarify what Dane's qualifications are, I would be interested to know

Planet Earth is under an all out weather warfare assault.
In this video, Dane Wigington gives another presentation in Northern California on the harmful effects of Geoengineering, declaring that there is virtually NO NATURAL WEATHER due to the massive global climate engineering. 

The very essentials needed to sustain life on earth are being recklessly destroyed by these programs. This is not a topic that will begin to affect us in several years, but is now already causing massive animal and plant die off around the world, as well as human illness. 



The debate over whether geoengineering programs are going on is now a moot point. We have more than enough data to confirm it. 

We have actual footage showing tankers spraying. The materials showing up on the ground are exactly the same materials mentioned in the numerous geoengineering patents and documents. 

Visit our website for a list of these government patents and documents.

Our skies today are simply not normal. Upon examination this cannot be denied. They are filled with nanoparticulates of heavy metals. 

But the skies have been filled with grid patterns for so long now that we are used to them and do not see them anymore. Sadly, the fact is that people do not look up. 

To be clear, what we are seeing is not cloud seeding to increase rainfall. 

These particulates are designed to block the sun and move the jet stream. Dane explains how this is causing the drought and deluge being experienced around the globe.



Our atmosphere is nothing but a massive physics lab to geoengineering scientists who have no concern whatsoever about the consequences to humanity or any living thing, including themselves. The experiments are literally tearing the planet apart and destroying life on earth.



Dane reports, among other things, on:


• Geoengineering related climate disruptions, extreme drought and deluge


• Ozone depletion

• Methane release


• Drastic reduction in arctic sea ice 


• Global oxygen content reductions


• Oceans on the brink of collapse
• Massive fish die offs


• 200 species becoming extinct every single day


• A drastic rise in Autism, Alzheimer's, and Dementia


• Crisis level forest reductions


• The sterilization of soils making it impossible for plants to grow without Monsanto's aluminum resistant seeds



Dane Wigington presents hard data which reveals what these catastrophic programs have done to our planet to date and what they will do if they are allowed to continue. 

Please take the time to watch this video, follow up with some investigation of your own on our site -- ‪http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org, and share this information far and wide.



Thank you,


GeoengineeringWatch Staff


Conspiracies fuel climate 

change denial and belief in 

chemtrails

By David Suzuki

with contributions from Ian Hanington, Communications Manager

I'm a scientist, so I look at credible science — and there is none for the existence of chemtrails. They're condensation trails, formed when hot, humid air from jet exhaust mixes with colder low-vapour-pressure air

David Suzuki,

5 February, 2014

I recently wrote about geoengineering as a strategy to deal with climate change and carbon dioxide emissions. That drew comments from people who confuse this scientific process with the unscientific theory of 'chemtrails'. Some also claimed the column supported geoengineering, which it didn't.

The reaction got me wondering why some people believe in phenomena rejected by science, like chemtrails, but deny real problems demonstrated by massive amounts of scientific evidence, like climate change.

Chemtrails believers claim governments around the world are in cahoots with secret organizations to seed the atmosphere with chemicals and materials — aluminum salts, barium crystals, biological agents, polymer fibres, etc. — for a range of nefarious purposes. These include controlling weather for military purposes, poisoning people for population or mind control and supporting secret weapons programs based on the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, or HAARP.

Scientists have tested and used cloud and atmospheric seeding for weather modification and considered them as ways to slow global warming. With so many unknowns and possible unintended consequences, these practices have the potential to cause harm. But the chemtrails conspiracy theory is much broader, positing that military and commercial airlines are involved in constant massive daily spraying that is harming the physical and mental health of citizens worldwide.

I don't have space to get into the absurdities of belief in a plot that would require worldwide collusion between governments, scientists and airline company executives and pilots to amass and spray unimaginable amounts of chemicals from altitudes of 10,000 metres or more. I'm a scientist, so I look at credible science — and there is none for the existence of chemtrails. They're condensation trails, formed when hot, humid air from jet exhaust mixes with colder low-vapour-pressure air. This, of course, comes with its own environmental problems.

But what interests me is the connection between climate change denial and belief in chemtrails. Why do so many people accept a theory for which there is no scientific evidence while rejecting a serious and potentially catastrophic phenomenon that can be easily observed and for which overwhelming evidence has been building for decades?

To begin, climate change denial and chemtrails theories are often conspiracy-based. A study by researchers at the University of Western Australia found "endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories ... predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings."

Many deniers see climate change as a massive plot or hoax perpetrated by the world's scientists and scientific institutions, governments, the UN, environmentalists and sinister forces to create a socialist world government or something.

Not all go to such extremes. Some accept climate change is occurring but deny humans are responsible. Still, it doesn't seem rational to deny something so undeniable! In a Bloomberg article, author and Harvard Law School professor Cass R. Sunstein points to three psychological barriers to accepting climate change that may also help explain why it's easier for people to believe in chemtrails: People look to readily available examples when assessing danger, focus "on risks or hazards that have an identifiable perpetrator", and pay more attention to immediate threats than long-term ones.

Researchers Ezra Markowitz and Azim Shariff of the University of Oregon Psychology and Environmental Studies departments add a few more, including that human-caused climate change "provokes self-defensive biases" and its politicization "fosters ideological polarization."

People who subscribe to unbelievable conspiracy theories may feel helpless, so they see themselves as victims of powerful forces — or as heroes standing up to those forces. Whether it's to deny real problems or promulgate imaginary ones, it helps reinforce a worldview that is distrustful of governments, media, scientists and shadowy cabals variously referred to as banksters, global elites, the Illuminati or the New World Order.

The problem is that science denial is, in the case of chemtrails, a wacky distraction and, in the case of climate change denial, a barrier to addressing an urgent, critical problem. Science is rarely 100 per cent certain, but it's the best tool we have for coming to terms with our actions and their consequences, and for finding solutions to problems. The science is clear: human-caused climate change is the most pressing threat to humanity, and we must work to resolve it. We don't have time for debunked conspiracy theories.

Shutting down science

Canada revenue may shut down up to 7 climate scientists

The Canada Revenue Agency is currently conducting extensive audits on some of Canada's most prominent environmental groups to determine if they comply with guidelines that restrict political advocacy, CBC News has learned..

Huffington Post,

7 February, 2014

If the CRA rules that the groups exceeded those limits, their charitable status could be revoked, which would effectively shut them down.

Many of the groups are among the Conservative government's fiercest critics. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty signalled clearly in his budget of 2012 that political activity of these groups would be closely monitored and he allocated $8 million to the effort. The environmental organizations believe they have been targeted with the goal of silencing their criticism.

“We’re concerned about what appears to be an increase in audits around political activity and in particular around environmental organizations” said Marcel Lauzière, president of Imagine Canada, an umbrella organization for charities.

“There’s a big chill out there with what charities can and cannot do.”

The list of groups CBC has now confirmed are undergoing audits reads like a who’s who in the environmental charity world. They include:

- The David Suzuki Foundation

- Tides Canada

- West Coast Environmental Law

- The Pembina Foundation

- Environmental Defence

- Equaterre

- Ecology Action Centre

“This is a war against the sector,” says John Bennett, of Sierra Club Canada. His group is not yet being audited, but he said he is prepared.

"In the 40-year history of the Sierra Club Canada Foundation, it's been audited twice in 40 years" so there are more audits than usual, Bennett said.

CBC has confirmed that at least one group, Environmental Defence, has received its report back from the CRA and they are appealing it. Sources said their report threatened to revoke their charitable status. Another group, West Coast Environmental Law, had auditors fly in from Ottawa to enhance the work of the local CRA team. One source said the Ottawa CRA people called themselves “The A team.”

Most groups on this list would not talk on the record, but sources say executive directors of these groups are meeting regularly by phone to discuss a united response to the government.

By law, charities are allowed to use a maximum of 10 per cent of their resources for political activity or advocacy, but the guidelines are clear that it cannot be partisan activity. That has been interpreted for years to mean that a group can oppose a government policy but cannot back a specific candidate in an election.

During a pre-budget consultation in December, Flaherty said he is considering making even more changes to rules for charities that have a political aspect.

“We're reviewing that,” Flaherty said. “We spent some time on it last year and we're looking at it again now as I prepare the budget."

He went on to warn charities: “If I were an environmental charity using charitable money, tax-receipted money for political purposes, I would be cautious."

Bennett said the rules seem to be constantly changing.

“We don't know what rules we're playing by. The problem with this is that they gave the power to CRA to walk in and shut you down. And then if you want to complain, you can go to court afterwards."

The government insists it does not target certain charities, nor does it tell CRA to do so. Auditors alone determine whether they investigate a charity.

"I assume they receive all sorts of information from all sorts of Canadians, in terms of who they should or should not audit. Ultimately it is up to them as an independent agency who they audit or not,” Alberta Conservative MP James Rajotte said.

CBC News contacted the CRA several times to ask how auditing targets are chosen. Spokespeople suggested responses could be found on their website. There it states some of the reasons a charity could be selected for an audit including random selection, to review specific legal obligations under the law and to follow-up on possible non-compliance or complaints.

According to lawyer Mark Blumberg, who specializes in charity law, the CRA often audits charitable organizations based on complaints.

“If there are a number of complaints about a charity and its political activities, that could trigger an audit by CRA,” he said. That assessment is echoed by a number of groups currently undergoing audits.

“I believe our audit was complaint driven,” said Ross McMillan, the president and CEO of Tides Canada.

“I am confident of a positive outcome as we take seriously our responsibility to act in compliance with the Income Tax Act and Canada Revenue Agency guidelines,” he said.

Pro-oilsands group has filed complaints

McMillan goes on to cite complaints from Ethical Oil, a group that has formally submitted complaints to the CRA about Tides Canada, the David Suzuki Foundation and Environmental Defence.

The complaints are all filed through legal counsel and are part of a campaign Ethical Oil has started to strip these environmental groups of their charitable status.

Ethical Oil is a registered non-profit non-governmental organization that describes itself as an “online community” to empower people to become grassroots activists in defence of the oilsands development.

The group was founded by Alykhan Velshi, who is currently the director of issues management in the Prime Minister's Office. Environmental groups say Ethical Oil is funded by the oil and gas industry to try to undermine their work

CBC News has repeatedly asked Ethical Oil to reveal who their funders are but no specific list has been made public.

Environmental groups are not the only ones who have been audited. Social justice groups like Amnesty International Canada are also currently undergoing an audit about their political activities. CBC News contacted them but they declined to comment.

All the groups say they will be watching Tuesday's budget for new rules that may affect their charitable status.

"We have an important role to play in our society and we want to play that role," said Bennett. " But we need a governing system that actually welcomes public dialogue instead of discouraging it."

David Suzuki

A Smartypants Scientist Makes An Easy Analogy About Our Planet, And Now I'm Scared

Red Flag News,

22 December, 2013

Upworthy

A good analogy can go a long way. What's great about this clip is that it starts out all cheery and hypothetical. Then here comes the punch line and BAM you're sort of kind of terrified. I know I am.

David Suzuki speaks out on Fukushima

Amazing that Suzuki,a geneticist, should adopt such a different position on nuclear from James Hansen, an expert in planetary atmospherics.

Big quake near Fukushima would ‘decimate Japan, lead to US West Coast evacuation’

The stricken nuclear plant at Fukushima in northern Japan is in such a delicate condition that a future earthquake could trigger a disaster that would decimate Japan and affect the entire West Coast of North America, a prominent scientist has warned.

RT,

6 November, 2013

Speaking at a symposium on water ecology at the University of Alberta in Canada, prominent Japanese-Canadian scientist David Suzuki said that the Japanese government had been “lying through its teeth” about the true extent of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.

He attributed the cover-up to the Japanese government’s collusion with the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) that administers the plant.

“Fukushima is the most terrifying situation that I can imagine,” Suzuki said, adding that another earthquake could trigger a potentially catastrophic, nuclear disaster.

“The fourth [reactor] has been so badly damaged that the fear is if there’s another earthquake of a 7 or above then that building will go and all hell breaks loose,” he said, adding that the chances of an earthquake measuring 7 or above in Japan over the next three years were over 95 percent.

“If the fourth [reactor] goes under an earthquake and those rods are exposed, then it’s bye, bye, Japan and everybody on the west coast of North America should be evacuated. And if that isn’t terrifying, I don’t know what is,” Suzuki said.

‘Too proud’

Addressing the Japanese government’s attempts to bring the crisis under control, Suzuki said the scientists charged with the plant’s safety “don’t know what to do.”

“The thing we need is to let a group of international experts go in with complete freedom to do what they suggest,” Suzuki said, adding that the only thing impeding this was the “pride” of the Japanese government that was refusing to admit this was necessary.

Suzuki referred to the current scheme of freezing the soil around the reactor to prevent radioactive leaks as “cockamany.”

TEPCO has accepted the US government’s help in undertaking the risky cleanup operation of the Fukushima site. Teams of experts will begin the removal of fuel rods from the fourth reactor in mid-November in a decommissioning process that is likely to take decades. One wrong move in the delicate operation could result in horrific quantities of radiation being released into the atmosphere or trigger a massive explosion.

Dr Helen Caldicott described the risks of removing the rods to RT as “terribly serious” because of the danger of releasing a large amount of radiation.

“Two rods could touch each other in this process which has been done before and there could be a fission reaction and a very large release of radiation.”

Suzuki, a prominent environmental campaigner and scientist from the University of British Columbia, whose television science programs and books have gained a wide international audience, has been very vocal in his criticisms of Japan in its handling of the disaster.

Despite his prominence in Canada, Suzuki has been criticized in the past by the media for double standards and his credentials as a scientist have been queried. While his television programs encourage society to consume less fossil fuel and adopt a more sustainable lifestyle, Suzuki reportedly lives in one of Vancouver’s most exclusive areas and has faced criticism over his globetrotting airplane travel.

However, with regard to the current situation at Fukushima, a number of scientists have echoed Suzuki’s concerns. Nuclear technology historian Robert Jacobs told RT that there could easily be more destruction at the plant’s fourth reactor.

“If this building were to collapse, which could happen, it would spill these spent nuclear fuel rods all over the ground which would make the 2020 Tokyo Olympics impossible and could threaten all kinds of health problems throughout northern Japan and Tokyo itself,” Jacobs said.

David Suzuki and Fukushima

David Suzuki is not going to be calling for more nuclear power

David Suzuki's Fukushima Warning Is Dire And Scary

Huffington Post,

4 November, 2013

David Suzuki has issued a scary warning about Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant, saying that if it falls in a future earthquake, it's "bye bye Japan" and the entire west coast of North America should be evacuated.

The "Nature of Things" host made the comments in a talk posted to YouTube after he joined Dr. David Schindler for "Letting in the Light," a symposium on water ecology held at the University of Alberta on Oct. 30 and 31.

An excerpt of the talk shows Suzuki outlining a frightening scenario that would result from the destruction of the nuclear plant.

"Fukushima is the most terrifying situation I can imagine," he said.

"Three out of the four plants were destroyed in the earthquake and in the tsunami. The fourth one has been so badly damaged that the fear is, if there's another earthquake of a seven or above that, that building will go and then all hell breaks loose.

"And the probability of a seven or above earthquake in the next three years is over 95 per cent."

Suzuki said that an international team of experts needs to go into the Fukushima plant and help fix the problem, but said the Japanese government has "too much pride to admit that."

"I have seen a paper which says that if in fact the fourth plant goes under in an earthquake and those rods are exposed, it's bye bye Japan and everybody on the west coast of North America should evacuate," he said.

"If that isn't terrifying, I don't know what is."

Suzuki's warning came as radiation from the Fukushima plant has been detected in northern Alaska and along the west coast, CBC News reported.

Radiation in Alaskan waters could reach Cold War levels, said Douglas Dasher, a researcher at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, although John Kelley, a professor emeritus at the same university, doesn't seem as certain that it will reach dangerous levels for humans.

"The data they will need is not only past data but current data, and if no one is sampling anything then we won't really know it, will we," he told the network.

David Suzuki: Fukushima Nuclear Lessons: “Coexisting With Nature”

Japanese Canadian science broadcaster and environmentalist David Suzuki meets Japanese environmental and energy researchers who are showing the way to an environmentally sustainable future after the March 2011 natural and nuclear disasters.

 

The threat of Fukshima

David Schindler and David Suzuki talk about the threat of Fukushima.

David Suzuki lashes out at PM Abbott

David Suzuki accuses Tony Abbott of ‘wilful blindness’ to climate change

'It's a crazy, dangerous situation if we're going to marginalise science in favour of political priorities,' says environmentalist

the Guardian,

24 September, 2013

Environmentalist David Suzuki has attacked the Coalition’s climate change policies, calling for a legal penalty to be imposed for “wilful blindness” in leaders who commit the “crime” of ignoring climate change.

Suzuki, a Canadian academic visiting Australia, told the ABC’s Q&A on Monday night that the government’s decision to disband The Climate Commission – which has since been resurrected as a privately funded body – was “very dangerous”.

“Human beings have become so powerful that we are altering the physical, chemical and biological properties of the Earth on a global scale,” he said. “In a time when we have become so powerful, how are we best making decisions for the future? I would think the best source of advice would be science.

“If we don’t listen to science, what are we going to turn to – the Bible? the Qur’an? An advertising agency? Australians are at a very critical time. You had a mechanism where science could be provided, with no commitment one way or the other, so that you could make up your own mind. By shutting that down, what does that tell you?

“I think it’s a crazy, dangerous situation if we’re going to marginalise science in favour of political priorities. I think that’s very, very dangerous.”

Suzuki said he didn’t regret comments made to the University of NSW on Saturday which accused the prime minister, Tony Abbott, of “criminal negligence” over his policies, which include the dismantling of the carbon price and scrapping various climate change agencies associated with it.

“I don’t think I went too far – what we are seeing is a crime against future generations,” he said. “There ought to be a legal position on intergenerational crime. If you stand out for a role of leadership and ignore the science on climate change, I think that’s wilful blindness.”

In Suzuki’s UNSW speech he also attacked “outrageously rich” people, such as mining magnate Gina Rinehart, for helping create a “campaign of confusion” over climate change.

“Environmentalism is a way of seeing our place within the biosphere,” he said. “That’s what the battles were fought over. The barbarians – that is, many of the politicians and corporate executives that environmentalists have been fighting all these years – are driven by a totally different set of values – by the drive for profit, for growth and for power.”

He added that Australians should be “at the ramparts” over climate change because of the impact it is already having in terms of drought and damage to the Great Barrier Reef.

“Mother Earth is giving you the signals in Australia, loud and clear,” he said.

Economics

"Conventional economics is a form of brain damage." 
- David Suzuki

David Suzuki explains the fallacy of conventional economics, in an interview done for the BBC.

"Conventional economics is a form of brain damage." ~ David Suzuki

Anytime any being takes an action, there are both intended and unintended consequences, also called externalities. When a forest is cut for lumber, the intention is to use that wood to build houses, boats, etc. (oh yeah, and make a profit). This is the intended consequence and these usually are far fewer in number than the unintended consequences. This action of clear cutting an entire forest has huge numbers of devastating externalities such as soil erosion, disruption in rainfall patterns, desertification, species and habitat destruction, as well as a loss of something intuitively sacred.

Conventional economists do rightly speak of externalities in textbooks and how serious they can be. But many have ignorantly assumed an inexhaustible supply of natural resources to fuel economic growth indefinitely. They also assume the Earth has an infinite capacity to absorb externalities. In such a world of infinite resources and infinite capacity to absorb pollution, externalities have little consequence. It is when the cumulative effect of all those externalities begins to erode the capacity of the planet to support life that we start to see the real threat externalities pose to all of life on Earth.

This inspiring video points out the fallacy of conventional economics - a belief that there are no limits - and provides a hopeful model with which to frame our vision for the future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Se55CCdfaOA

The End of Growth

Jeff Rubin and David Suzuki on CBC

Economist Jeff Rubin and environmentalist David Suzuki might seem an unlikely pairing. But they've been touring Canada together, talking about the natural limits to growth from their very different perspectives. We listen in as they try to convince a Calgary audience that we've already exceeded the capacity of the planet.

Jeff Rubin is a former Chief Economist and Chief Strategist at CIBC World Markets. His book, The End of Growth is a follow-up to his earlier book Why Your World Is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller.

David Suzuki is a geneticist, environmentalist, broadcaster and the co-founder and chair of the David Suzuki Foundation. He has written over 50 books, including The Legacy: An Elder's Vision for Our Sustainable Future.

For radio program GO HERE

David Suzuki Interviewed at Occupy Montreal

Interview with well-known Canadian geneticist and environmental activist David Suzuki