UK GOV FOI response to chemtrailsprojectuk.com "directive"

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Would be nice if this ends it, but somehow I don't think we should hold our breath. (Pun unintended).

The first PDF from the UK government in response to the FOIR is dated 21 March 2014. Did it just now come out? (It's 0340, 27 March UTC at present)
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Well if nothing else, this may might (did I actually write that?) be worthy of including into the "Max Bliss" thread? (Or another perhaps). Still, could be useful in future.
 
Last edited:

hemi

Senior Member.
Wow. That's a pretty thorough response from the Dept. of Energy and Climate Change. Kudos to the civil servant who took the time to put it together.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
I think it's a great response but I'd say the chances of this information satisfying the believers are about zero. It will be looked at as either evidence of a cover up or proof that the PTB has deceived the DECC.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Given that the people at CPUK are the same people that claim Mick has falsified old text books why would anyone think this would end things? I do wish the DECC would not have fudged things and rather than say "this is not our department" gotten in touch with the relevant ones to get all their questions answered, some of which are well balanced.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Wow. That's a pretty thorough response from the Dept. of Energy and Climate Change. Kudos to the civil servant who took the time to put it together.
Having been in a similar position, IMO it was probably the most interesting thing they did that day! :)
 

Balance

Senior Member.
Despite the response(s) linked in the OP, there's a "big event" tomorrow

https://www.facebook.com/events/1386327821635283/
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Despite the response(s) linked in the OP, there's a "big event" tomorrow

https://www.facebook.com/events/1386327821635283/
The spelling mistakes smack of amateur level.

Will this even be taken seriously?
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
Ok question.. if he wants to Publicly Reject.. etcetcetcetc.. is that saying he thinks its BS, or am I reading it wrong? The rest of that notice seems to indicate he believes in it and wants to raise awareness, not reject the notions of same.
 

Balance

Senior Member.
tbh, I've not fully read it all but a quick glance at their directive makes interesting reading.

Without putting too finer point on it, it could be quite a clever move, in a scatter-gun sort of approach.
3, 4 & 5 are interesting, dependant on future outcomes.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
To fully inform the Wider General public of the United Kingdom about all atmospheric aerosol injection and spraying programmes – whether they are weather modification, geoengineering activities, experimental, testing or otherwise – and to explain why such activities are being allowed to take place in UK airspace without our fully informed permission or consent.
Thats actually not a bad idea.. Most of the rest of it is batshit crazy/uninformed, but that very first point there isnt a bad.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
The CT community make very little mention that there is public consultation going on. This paper makes for an interesting read http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate change/Stratospherics/spice public views.pdf and was part of a wider consultation around the SPICE project, the idea of having a balloon thethered 1km up and spraying water and further examples of public engagement here http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/hose-experiment/spice-opposition-letter/

Organisations like Friends of the Earth have as policy statements that research needs to be done in proposals but the main objective needs to be carbon reduction. The issue for the CT community is that they are trapped in a rather small bubble and they do not seem to engage with the wider environmental protection community. Mind you when they do they railroad the discussion.
 
Top