Resume Blue sky interventions at the Royal Society Discussion meeting on Geoengineering

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

ONG presence

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. Apart 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 ETCgroup (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 one’s 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 issue of 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:

"Today I speak out as a very concerned citizen. I got interested in geoengineering when I was researching my health problems. Through independant researchers’ websites I was infomed that some substances that were found in my body, were actually falling from the sky. 

I think we all have noticed that air traffic has gone up tremendously over the past decades. And although the fuels are more and more performing with little particles residu after combustion, we can notice in the sky more and more abnormally persistant contrails. Deep blue summer skies have become very rare. We mostly have a milky white haze in the sky, which haze is certainly not due to the 0,04% presence of carbondioxide in the atmosphere. As those abnormally persistant contrails linger for hours at an altitude of 37.000 feet they end up creating high cirrus clouds.

Millions of people around the world are very concerned about this phenomena for different reasons.

The persistance of those contrails seem to indicate the presence  of chemical particles. That's why many refer to them as chemtrails.

( Here she started to get interrupted, but she continued)

Lab analysis of soil and water samples in some even pristine areas have shown high levels of alumina and baryum. Which leads us to think that geoengineering through injecting aerosol particles in the atmosphere is an ongoing event.

(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 (Solar Radiation Management).

- 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.

David Keith:

- 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 coffeebreak Saskia discussed again with David Keith. He told her that alumina is everywhere 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)

Saskia has had the chance to adress another time David Keith with questions concerning the health aspects and consequences of SRM. She stated that this issue was not adressed at all in the presentations and that alumina and sulfates would affect live on earth in a very negative way.

David Keith got quite upset stating that many of his colleagues have adressed 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 think 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, Noami 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".

INTERESTING POINTS

==> 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 Center 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, sulfate or aluminum particles, will be brought up through the tube to be dispersed at the height of 20 km by the balloons. 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.

Then 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 sulfate particles up in the air

Dr Watson: They will fall down on earth

Dr Carol Turley: So what sulfate 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 energie 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 unefficiencies 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).

==> Psychology

- 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.