Scientists Surveyed Unanimously Refuse To Deny Climate Engineering Reality
On Friday, October 7th, 2016, GeoengineeringWatch.org and the Legal Alliance to Stop Geoengineering (LASG) carried out a simple survey that involved 1518 climate scientists and experts. The survey message headline sent to the scientists/experts was titled "Legal Alliance to Stop Geoengineering Survey". Below is the very simple and straight forward survey statement sent out to 1518 climate scientists/experts by GeoengineeringWatch and the LASG team. This survey was worded in a specific fashion for a reason. The climate science community has systematically claimed that geoengineering prograns are only a "proposal". But what happens when this community is asked to state their denial on the record?
The subject of climate engineering has become a frontline conversation in countless circles of academia and with governments around the globe. You may be aware of the rapidly building controversy over climate engineering/geoengineering and whether or not these programs have already been deployed.
The Legal Alliance To Stop Geoengineering (LASG) is conducting a survey in an attempt to bring clarification to this controversial issue. With this objective in mind, we would be grateful if you could give a simple yes or no answer to the following question:
Can you confirm for us that geoengineering programs HAVE NOT yet been deployed by the United States government? Such programs would include (but not be limited to) solar radiation management (SRM), stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG), cloud albedo enhancement (CAE), or stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI).
We appreciate your consideration of the very important question posed in this survey. If we do not receive a response to the simple survey question we will assume (for the purposes of the survey) that as an expert/scientist on weather and climate you are not willing to state that climate engineering/geoengineering/solar radiation management programs have not yet been deployed by the US government.
Thank you for your consideration of this most important attempt to add clarification to the climate engineering/geoengineering controversy.
Of the 1518 academicians solicited, 970 of the scientists/experts did not open this survey/inquiry. Was thier reluctance due to the stated survey subject and their unwillingness to address the geoengineering issue publicly? Possibly because to do so would be at minimum a bad career decision? Or is the illegal federal "gag order" on all National Weather Service and all NOAA employees the bottom line with their silence? 34 of the scientists/experts immediately "unsubscribed" (possibly for the same reason that 970 did not even open the survey). Another 34 of the survey inquiries were not deliverable. But, 584 of the scientists/experts did open the climate engineering survey message. Of all 584, only one was initially willing to deny the climate engineering/geoengineering/solar radiation management reality on the record (he subsequently refused to confirm his initial answer, more on that below). So, the final summary is this, 100% of scientists/experts surveyed REFUSED to deny the climate engineering reality on the record. How much longer can the climate engineering atrocities be hidden from the public in plain sight? When will the so called "scientists and experts" show the courage to tell the truth to the population they claim to represent?
Geoengineered skies over Chippewa, Pennsylvania. Photo credit: Buddy Revell
When the hard science terms are used in a study or survey (such as the one that was just carried out), the willingness of academicians to lie or deny about the issue radically dissipates. Terms like solar radiation management (SRM), stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG), cloud albedo enhancement (CAE), or stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). Again, in the case of this survey, virtually none of the scientists surveyed were willing to deny the climate engineering reality on the record, none.
Internationally known climate scientist Alan Robock was one of a number of respondents to the survey. Below is a previous quote from Mr. Robock that is important to consider within the context of this article.
But there are at least 26 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. These include disruption of the Asian and African summer monsoons, reducing precipitation to the food supply for billions of people; ozone depletion; no more blue skies; reduction of solar power; and rapid global warming if it stops.
– Alan Robock, Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences,
Rutgers University, 2013
Now let's get to climate scientist Alan Robock's actual reply to the simple and straight forward GeoengineeringWatch survey question.
That's a ridiculous question. I don't know of any such programs, but how can I be sure that they don't exist. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist.
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA
Is Mr. Robock's reply believable? Are we really to accept that this world renowned climate scientist is completely unaware of "any such programs"? Having met Alan Robock at an AAAS international geoengineering science conference in 2010 (along with geoengineer David Keith), I have long since been convinced of his total lack of honesty.
What response did our simple and honest survey get from two UCAR scientists? (UCAR is the "University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. This organization gets almost 100% of its funding from the federal government).
UCAR scientist/expert Andrew Swartz said this:
As an expert/scientist I can confirm beyond a doubt that you people are idiots.
Andrew Schwartz: email@example.com
Another UCAR scientist/expert, Reid Doyle, said exactly the same:
As an expert/scientist I can confirm beyond a doubt that you people are idiots.
Reid Doyle: firstname.lastname@example.org
Anyone reading this post that takes issue with this kind of attitude from a "climate scientist/expert" (on such a critically important issue that is so drastically affecting us all) should take the time to let these scientists know what you think.
Another scientist/expert from the UK, Guy Gratton, said this:
I am not in the USA, and I do not support your group's objectives. Your approach to carrying out research is also superficial.
Gratton, Guy B.: email@example.com
Apparently Mr. Gratton needed a more complex question to make him feel better about his refusal to deny the climate engineering reality.
For the record, there was one UCAR scientist/expert (from the whole 1500 +) that initially sent back his survey question with a checked box for the following question:
Yes, as an expert/scientist I can confirm that global atmospheric geoengineering programs have not yet been deployed.
Roelof Bruintjes: firstname.lastname@example.org
LASG administration then sent the follow up message below just to confirm the survey answer from Mr. Bruintjes:
Hello Roelof, thank you for your reply to our survey on Geoengineering. Of the over 1500 academicians surveyed, you are so far the only scientist to state/claim that you can confirm global geoengineering/solar radiation management/stratospheric aerosol injection programs have NOT already been deployed. Before we publicly post your name and statement of record, we want to be sure this is your official posititon on the climate engineering issue. Can you please confirm with us that you know global geoengineering programs have NOT already been deployed.
Thank you in advance for your pending reply.
Administration, Legal Alliance to Stop Geoengineering
No confirmation response ever came from Roelof Bruintjes.
This survey was undertaken as a counter response to the completely illegitimate propaganda "science study" (conducted by geoengineer Ken Caldeira and "Carnegie Science") which claimed "Chemtrails Not Real". Geoengineering Watch easily and completely de-bunked Caldeira's baseless study (survey). Of course the power structure controlled corporate mainstream media empire published the Caldeira and "Carnegie Science" disinformation in all their mainstream media outlets, no questions asked. Since the "chemtrails" term has no validity or basis in any science context of forum, it was possible for geoengineer Ken Caldeira to find a few academicians that were willing to deny the subject of "chemtrails". For the record, 84% of the scientists Caldeira surveyed were unwilling to deny even the "chemtrail" term on the record and thus never responded to Caldeira. Caldeira and Carnegie Science surveyed 450 scientists about the validity of the non-science "chemtrail" term/issue, only 76 individuals (16%) responded that "chemtrails did not exist", one said he could not be sure. Again, "chemtrail" is not a science term, it means virtually nothing scientifically. Caldeira knows this and that is, of course, exactly why he and "Carnegie Science" used the term for their completely propagandistic false study. As should be expected, Caldeira and "Carnegie Science" never clearly disclosed the fact that 84% of the scientists they surveyed never responded. The Caldeira Carnegie study was simply power structure backed baseless disinformation. It is important to note that ALL of the climate scientists/experts that publicly denied "chemtrails" in the Caldeira Carnegie "study/survey" (76 total) were included with in this LASG survey. Not one of these scientists was willing to deny climate engineering when the science terms were used.
To verify the validity of the LASG survey/study that was just performed, we are posting the entire list of scientists and experts that were a part of the survey. Their names and official email addresses are in the PDF below. The public is encouraged to communicate with these scientists and experts about the climate engineering issue. The forwarding of credible climate engineering data to these scientists/experts will assist with the effort to fully expose the ongoing geoengineering atrocities. Sharing and forwarding credible information with these scientists/experts also helps to further eliminate their ability to ever publicly deny that geoengineering is already a reality.
Click the PDF file icon for the extremely extensive list of climate scientists and experts surveyed. We were not able to get a single one of the nearly 1500 scientists/experts shown in the file below (with their contacts) to deny the climate engineering reality. If anyone is able to obtain an on the record denial from any of them, please let us know.
Exposing and halting the ongoing climate engineering assault is the great imperative of our time. The unwillingness of the climate science community to tell the truth about climate engineering is inexcusable. Once the public is fully awakened to the geoengineering crimes (and the irreparable damage that has been done to them from these programs), will the scientists and experts that have helped to hide these crimes then be held legally and morally responsible? Will those in the corporate media who helped to perpetuate the deception also be held accountable? Time will soon enough reveal the answer to these questions. All of us are needed in the critical battle to sound the alarm, make your voice heard. Reaching a critical mass of public awareness is the only way forward in this fight.
May be freely reprinted, so long as the text is unaltered, all hyperlinks are left intact, and credit for the article is prominently given to geoengineeringwatch.org and the article’s author with a hyperlink back to the original story.