Dane Wigington has posted an episode of the Go Green radio where he and George Barnes talks to Greenpeace scientist David Santillo about geoengineering.
It's not very interesting because they almost completely avoided any argument.
However, I searched for this episode on the radio's web site and found that it is from January 2014, more than 2 years ago. Dane posted it like it was something new or recent.
I was just listening to that. Incredibly frustrating that David Santillo totally failed to call out the nonsense about "ongoing spraying". Surely that should have been the very first thing that he said after George Barnes and Dane said their piece.
Instead he waffled and said many things that could be seen as an "admission" that deployment has already occurred.
The scientists really need to understand what they are arguing against. I think the problem is that there is such a gulf between the two sides' understanding of "geoengineering" that they don't even realise what is being said.
I was just listening to that. Incredibly frustrating that David Santillo totally failed to call out the nonsense about "ongoing spraying". Surely that should have been the very first thing that he said after George Barnes and Dane said their piece.
Instead he waffled and said many things that could be seen as an "admission" that deployment has already occurred.
The scientists really need to understand what they are arguing against. I think the problem is that there is such a gulf between the two sides' understanding of "geoengineering" that they don't even realise what is being said.
I think part of the problem is that the CT claims are so outrageous that the logical response is just to call it what it is - utter nonsense. BUT.. that tends to feed the CT that you are attacking the proponents. On the other hand, if you allow that the CT even might be possible, you lend it credence that way too. There may be no way to win in such discussions, really. The ONLY way might be to have specific factual challenges at the ready, which most people do not have.
It's the fact that Santillo was saying things like "you're raising very valid points" when in fact Wigington and Barnes kept on talking about "seeing grid patterns of geoengineering in the sky".
These experts need to spell it out clearly and unambiguously: "No, what you are seeing is persistent contrails, which are nothing at all to do with geoengineering proposals." He should have taken the opportunity to tell them that the lines they see in the sky are not and cannot be "evidence of geoengineering".
Any scientists who engage with the public on geoengineering need to make themselves familiar with the chemtrail narrative, and refute it effectively, because if the public search online for geoengineering, the top hits they will find are mostly chemtrail propaganda.
The term has been very effectively hijacked by Dane and co, and it needs to be reclaimed.
Dane Wigington has posted an episode of the Go Green radio where he and George Barnes talks to Greenpeace scientist David Santillo about geoengineering.
It's not very interesting because they almost completely avoided any argument.
However, I searched for this episode on the radio's web site and found that it is from January 2014, more than 2 years ago. Dane posted it like it was something new or recent.
Lee says: June 13, 2016 at 9:15 pm
I called Greenpeace and the Sierra Club in my area about chemtrails. They had no idea what I was talking about – certain proof they are on the payroll. We just have to reconcile ourselves to that reality – for what the heck else could be going on? Ya'll see the trails. Just single out Greenpeace and make a mockery out of it with chemtrail memes and derisive video. If you teach Greenpeace a lesson, you will teach everybody a lesson. It's the same strategy our enemies use all the time.
Wow... Dane directly challenges Greenpeace about denying ongoing geoengineering and Santillo doesn't respond to it at all. I guess it was because the host always turned to him with another question which he could answer in a different context than what George and Dane were saying. Still... kinda odd that he would just let it go by.
I think part of the problem is that the CT claims are so outrageous that the logical response is just to call it what it is - utter nonsense. BUT.. that tends to feed the CT that you are attacking the proponents. On the other hand, if you allow that the CT even might be possible, you lend it credence that way too. There may be no way to win in such discussions, really. The ONLY way might be to have specific factual challenges at the ready, which most people do not have.
Precisely. When fielding claims about, say, "chemtrails", for example. One must already be familiar with the overall claims and talking points and the debunks of same. It's just not common for people to be that prepared to demonstrate the utter fallacy of the claims.
Dane Wigington claimed in March that there was no orographic rain enhancement in Northern California because the atmosphere is so laden with geoengineering particulates that it prevents rainfall. But the actual rainfall data say otherwise, as shown in this video.
The claim is ridiculous. Even a cursory glance at rain fall totals expose this lie.
My local NorCal "mountain" ~2500 ft - and about 5 miles away as the crow flies and always gets more rain than I do- typically 2-3 times more and depending on the direction of incoming moisture sometimes much more. Its the main reason my local reservoirs are at capacity and have been for months despite CA still being in a significant drought.
Dane Wigington claimed in March that there was no orographic rain enhancement in Northern California because the atmosphere is so laden with geoengineering particulates that it prevents rainfall. But the actual rainfall data say otherwise, as shown in this video.
He has been promoting the idea that there is "no natural weather" for the last few years. Actually, it is pretty clever, since now he can never be wrong (in his own way) about any type of weather across the spectrum from drought to downpours.
I have a friend who subscribes to this thinking. I am tempted to ask her just what formula the global power structure uses for a day when they decide to set their diabolical weather machine to "snow" or "cloudy." How much barium do they use? What is the HAARP frequency? You would think geoengineering would come with a specific recipe book. Patents can only go so far.
I have a friend who subscribes to this thinking. I am tempted to ask her just what formula the global power structure uses for a day when they decide to set their diabolical weather machine to "snow" or "cloudy." How much barium do they use? What is the HAARP frequency? You would think geoengineering would come with a specific recipe book. Patents can only go so far.
I am not saying that it’s worth spending time to change the minds of these people about the science of climate engineering. But we do need to recognize them as a potentially political force, given this media ecology and political climate. I do think it would be smart to proceed with communication about research and governance in a way that acknowledges some of their underlying concerns: about inequality of income and opportunity, about extinction and separation from nature. We must set the frame of geoengineering so that it can acknowledge and not occlude the human and non-human pain of these times. This will likely go contrary to the specialization and narrow foci that define our academic comfort zones.
Three things make the potential political role of “chemtrailers” today quite different than in the pre-Trump era:
The Move from Chemtrails towards an Anti-Geoengineering movement
...
The Purveyors of Fake News are Getting Smarter
...
The Trump Effect on Civil Discourse and Facts
I am not saying that it’s worth spending time to change the minds of these people about the science of climate engineering. But we do need to recognize them as a potentially political force, given this media ecology and political climate
why?
i havent been paying attention to "news" in the geoengineering circles, are they starting to seriously consider implementing SRM in the next decade?
I am not saying that it’s worth spending time to change the minds of these people about the science of climate engineering. But we do need to recognize them as a potentially political force, given this media ecology and political climate
why?
i havent been paying attention to "news" in the geoengineering circles, are they starting to seriously consider implementing SRM in the next decade?
Most geoengineering researchers consider it very unlikely to happen, as far as I can tell. I think what Buck is talking about there is the continuation of research in an environment where people like Alex Jones are given more credibility than before.
I am not saying that it’s worth spending time to change the minds of these people about the science of climate engineering. But we do need to recognize them as a potentially political force, given this media ecology and political climate. I do think it would be smart to proceed with communication about research and governance in a way that acknowledges some of their underlying concerns: about inequality of income and opportunity, about extinction and separation from nature. We must set the frame of geoengineering so that it can acknowledge and not occlude the human and non-human pain of these times. This will likely go contrary to the specialization and narrow foci that define our academic comfort zones.
Labelling the belief in chemtrails as a ‘conspiracy theory’ is a powerful means of discrediting the narrative as irrational and unfounded, and may be a means of dismissing outright the concerns central to the narrative. However this analysis suggests a number of ways in which the chemtrail narrative may contain important insights and implications for the emerging politics of geoengineering that cannot be dismissed out of hand as ‘paranoid’ or ‘pathological’. For example, the importance of trust in the justification of beliefs is underscored by the chemtrail belief, and signals what is likely to be a perennial problem with any solar geoengineering program in the international sphere, where trust is often lacking. The chemtrail belief hints at the probability that a program of solar geoengineering would have destabilising regional political effects, resonating with local political realities and suspicions of global economic powers. Likewise the moral outrage accompanying the chemtrail belief, based on the revulsion at the idea of powerful elites controlling the climate, is not something that can be dismissed as ‘irrational’.
More simply - even though the chemtrail belief is unfounded, it's based on real fears which geoengineering researchers need to be aware of.
I do think it would be smart to proceed with communication about research and governance in a way that acknowledges some of their underlying concerns: about inequality of income and opportunity, about extinction and separation from nature.
I consider Dane somewhat of an outlier though. Through his passion, rhetoric, and communication skills, he can attract lots of people. In countries where there is no similarly charismatic figure in the chemtrail movement, the chemtrail theory has remained much more marginal. The personality of the leading chemtrailists matters a lot. Of course, Dane also has some impact in other countries, but the local people are more imporant.
I came across a Dane Wigington radio interview from last December. A radio host from North Dakota invited him on his show after Dane posted that an engineered blizzard was used to disrupt the Dakota pipeline protests:
“The Dakota pipeline protests have become the frontline representation of the critical struggle against a completely out of control totalitarian power structure,” Wigington wrote. “Those in power cannot afford to allow this justifiable protest to continue or succeed. Geoengineering/weather warfare has now been added to the already long list of criminal assaults that have been hurled at the peaceful pipeline protesters. In the coming days and weeks, weather warfare will likely be the most deadly and effective weapon that the power structure will wield against the pieceful Dakota pipeling protesters.”
It's a fairly entertaining back-and-forth, Dane reminded me of a seasoned politician in a debate never directly answering a question. In the end the radio host remained unconvinced, noting that blizzards in North Dakota in November are not unusual and that he didn't hear anything from Dane that indicated that it was a man-made creation targeted specifically at the pipeline protestors.
Yes. He criticizes people for not doing their own research, yet he makes comments that he seems to expect his followers to believe without question. The latest example is in yesterday's Global Alert News, where he remarks:
A National Geographic Magazine article suggests nuclear war could fix our global warming problem, is that what the power structure is pushing for?
In recent years ever larger numbers of deciduous trees can be found fully foliated with stone dead leaves, even in the middle of winter. Why? (cont'd)......
This phenomenon is taking place both in urban and wilderness settings alike. While some are claiming that trees fully foliated with dead leaves is normal or natural, such a claim does not hold up to objective investigation of the leaf abscission process. Abscission means that a plant will cut away, various parts of its organism. (typical leaf falling) (cont'd)..... Again, living trees that are covered in dead hanging leaves are a recently recognized phenomenon. Are the dead leaf foliated trees any more "normal" than the "official" false narratives about "condensation trails"?
Well, there is a well-known term for this "phenomenon". It is a horticultural term called "marcesence".
Marcesence is when deciduous trees occasionally do not always drop their leaves, typically in the Fall.
Marcescence is the retention of dead plant organs that normally are shed. Trees transfer water and sap from the roots to the leaves through their vascular cells, but in some trees as autumn begins, the veins carrying the sap slowly close until a layer of cells called the abscission layer completely closes off the vein allowing the tree to rid itself of the leaf.
Leaf marcescence is most often seen on juvenile plants and may disappear as the tree matures. It also may not affect the entire tree; sometimes leaves persist only on scattered branches.
Also, this is not a "recently recognized phenomenon"....definitions occur as far back as the 1911 Enc. Britannica.
I easily found reasonable explanations for deciduous trees that sometimes (or often) retain their dead leaves throughout part or all of winter; usually because of the young age of the tree, or the tree's defense from chewing deer, or because of recent unseasonable weather events during the Fall that can disrupt the normal abscission leaf-fall/shedding.
It is really common in oak trees too. The neighborhood I grew up in was mainly large oaks and we spent more time raking leaves in the early spring than the fall.
I have avenues of Pin oaks Quercus palustris under my care that display Marcesence & im a long long way from Dane and the USA with very few contrails over head in Melbourne Oz
file pictures to illustrate
All oak trees may display foliage marcescence, even species that are known to fully drop leaves when the tree is mature. Marcescentleaves of pin oak (Quercus palustris) complete development of their abscission layer in the spring. The base of the petiole remains alive over the winter.
Lee says:
