ConspiracyAnalyst.org

Exposing the Globalists and their World Order

Climate Engineering Disinformation, How To Respond To The Source

Geoengineering Watch
by Dane Wigington

 

The global climate engineering assault is becoming all but impossible to hide in plain sight as the climate and biosphere collapse accelerates. In response, the power structure’s propaganda puppets are doing all they can to continue their attempt to cover up the critical climate engineering issue with carefully crafted disinformation. How do we counter the climate engineering cover-up campaign of disinformation? By knowing the building block data and facts relating to this issue, by sharing credible data with others, and by holding the propagators of propaganda publicly accountable for their criminal disinformation campaigns. “Earther.com” has just published a climate engineering cover-up article of disinformation authored by Gernot Wagner (further down in this post). Below is my response to Mr. Wagner which was forwarded to his email contact hello@gwagner.com

Hello, Mr. Wagner,

In regard to your recent article “Chemtrails Aren’t The Geoengineering Debate We Should Be Having Because Chemtrails Aren’t Real” yes, “chemtrails” (the term you chose to rely on in your article) is not a science term, and thus not “real”.  This being said, Mr. Wagner, geoengineering / climate engineering / solar radiation management / stratospheric aerosol injection / cloud albedo enhancement, etc., are verifiably (semantics matters) ongoing realities. This fact / conclusion becomes apparent to any who have the courage to do an honest investigation of available data / documents / lab tests / film footage / photographic evidence, etc. In your article your denial of climate engineering relies on a survey conducted by geoengineer Ken Caldeira in which scientists were asked if “chemtrails” were “real”. Were you aware, Mr. Wagner, of a similar survey (of the very same scientists and 1430 more) which used the science terms in the survey? When the actual science terms were utilized, “climate engineering”, “geoengineering”, “solar radiation management”, “cloud albedo enhancement”, 100% of the scientists surveyed refused to deny the climate engineering reality on the record. A legal team working directly with GeoengineeringWatch.org is actively pursuing legal avenues to force public disclosure of the illegal climate engineering operations. In addition to our legal action in Canada, our ongoing lawsuit against the US Department of Commerce (the overseeing agency for NOAA) will soon produce thousands of documents relating to the weather / climate modification / engineering operations (documents which the DOC / NOAA have been ordered to release to us). Mr. Wagner, your strategy of obscuring the climate engineering reality by attempting in your article to associate this subject with fringe theories is nothing new in disinformation circles. In your article you correctly address the grave dangers posed by atmospheric particulate pollution, yet you do all you can to divert your readers attention from climate engineering as a major source of atmospheric particulate pollution. In a 2011 report NOAA admitted on the record that atmospheric aerosols have skyrocketed since 2000 and the source of this escalation could not be identified. Why wouldn’t (or couldn’t) NOAA acknowledge geoengineering atmospheric aerosol dispersions as a source of particulate pollution? In addition to US government scientists having no first amendment protection, and in addition to confidentiality agreements being standard for so many government positions and posts, now there is the illegal federal “gag order” on all National Weather Service and NOAA employees to consider. Why no mention of these facts, Mr. Wagner? Whatever your motive for participating in what can only be considered a campaign of climate engineering cover-up, rest assured that we, at GeoengineeringWatch.org, will do our best to publicly expose you (and all those like you who are participating in the climate engineering cover-up) to populations that deserve to know the truth about the ongoing highly destructive and dangerous geoengineering programs that were long ago deployed without public knowledge or consent. 

Sincerely
Dane Wigington
GeoengineeringWatch.org

The “earther.com” climate engineering disinformation article authored by Gernot Wagner is below. Inserted in red are my responses to Wagner’s false statements.

Solar geoengineering is controversial, and for good reason. It describes a set of technologies that seeks to reflect a small fraction of sunlight back into space to cool the planet. The most prominent such technology involves deliberately injecting tiny reflective particles into the stratosphere.

There’s a serious debate worth having, both on the science and technology itself and on the societal and policy implications. Unfortunately, in some corners of society valid concerns over the impacts of solar engineering have been overtaken by a different set of fears—various versions of the so-called chemtrails conspiracy theory. 

Authors of disinformation articles (like Gernot Wagner) utilize the non-science “chemtrails” term as much as possible, this is a part of their disinformation strategy.

GeoengineeringWatch.org 5583

Geoengineered skies in Antioch, Tennessee. Photo credit: Brent Rodriguez

According to that conspiracy, solar geoengineering has been happening at scale for years or even decades.

The conspiracy isn’t exactly small. Around 60 percent of all social media discourse on geoengineering is conspiratorial, according to co-authored research I published last year. A representative poll of the U.S. public reveals that 10 percent describe the conspiracy as “completely true,” another 20 to 30 percent say it is “somewhat true.” Belief in the conspiracy appears across party lines, and it can get rather personal, too—death threats and all. 

Most versions of the conspiracy involve planes crisscrossing the skies spraying toxins, turning ordinary contrails into “chemtrails.”

Mr. Wagner is simply parroting the official narrative regarding “contrails”. Wagner is apparently completely ignorant of the high bypass turbofan jet engine design characteristics which make actual “contrail” production nearly impossible, except under the most rare and extreme of circumstances. High bypass turbofan jet engines are standard on all commercial carrier aircraft and all military tanker jets.

Motivations range from weather modification (and yes, there are serious research efforts on that topic, too) to mind control or worse. No surprise, Twitter and other largely anonymous online fora allow this community of conspiracy to flourish—necessitating responses showing that no, NASA does not have a “cloud machine” but is instead testing its rocket boosters.

Mr. Wagner attempts to associate fringe and non-credible claims with legitimate data that confirms the climate engineering reality. In regard to the particular subject Wagner cites, NASA’s “cloud making machine”, Geoengineering Watch has also exposed the same disinformation. Citing this type of disinformation is Wagner’s attempt to distract his readers from the hard facts that confirm the climate engineering reality.

I have no doubt that some who have stumbled upon the chemtrails conspiracy are earnestly looking for the truth. Much like some who believe that vaccinations cause autism, despite all evidence to the contrary, are motivated by having a close relative suffer from autism, chemtrail conspirators sometimes appear to be looking to learn why a loved one suffers from a respiratory illness. The real answer, sadly often, is indeed air pollution, which kills some 3 to 6 million people a year globally. Decreasing that pollution clearly ought to be a global priority.

Internationally recognized award winning medical professionals have already acknowledged the dire health threat from climate engineering particulate pollution, yet Wagner ignores such information. Why?

A blatant example of geoengineering operations over Mesa, Arizona (Video #8) (3/21/18). Video footage credit: Joni Davis

It is also clear that some of those peddling the conspiracy do so for mercenary reasons—selling ads on their website, or using it to grow their brand and drive page clicks.

Accusations from Wagner like the one above are yet another standard form of distracting readers from credible data.

Whatever the motivation, the “evidence” presented in favor of the conspiracy does not add up. Conspirators often argue that all one needs to do is look up. Scientists have. What they see are contrails: trails largely made up of condensed water vapor. It is the same effect that occurs when you breathe out on a cold day.

Mr. Wagner, if a person walks a mile in very cold conditions (when their breath is seen condensing), have you ever seen an expanding long lingering cloud resulting from this condensation? Or from an automobile under the same conditions? No, never.

If the air is sufficiently cold and moist, a plane’s mere turbulence can cause a contrail to form. Adding exhaust from a jet engine aids the process.

Contrails have been with us since the dawn of aviation. The earliest explanation of the science I could find in the popular press is a March 1943 article in Popular Science explaining what was then called “vapor trails.”

GeoengineeringWatch 3345

Geoengineered skies have become the norm, all over the world. Photo credit: Rayangely Evaleigh

Mr. Wagner, of course, does not mention other historical publications from Popular Science (and other sources) that fully acknowledge the weather warfare reality and the greats posed by it (going back nearly 7 decades).

The number of contrails, of course, has since increased dramatically, in line with the number of planes in the sky. And yes, those planes pollute. Each roundtrip flight from New York to San Francisco emits around 1 ton of CO2 per economy-class passenger. Sadly, CO2 is invisible. Were it a smelly pink goo, the world would have acted much sooner on CO2 pollution. It hasn’t, despite amazing progress slashing other kinds of air pollution.

In fact, some of the progress reining in air pollution, such as the sulfur dioxide (SO2) coming out of smoke stacks, leads to serious climate tradeoffs. While outdoor air pollution kills, it also—inadvertently—counteracts some of the warming effects of CO2. Removing all such air pollution, while clearly positive for human health, could indirectly cause a lot of harm, as the planet warms even further. The result is what Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen, in 2006, described as a “Catch-22.”

It is also, to me personally, the best moral case for solar geoengineering research in the first place.

And with the statement above, Mr. Wagner reveals his real motives, lobbying for climate engineering operations. Like geoengineer Dr. David Keith, it seems Wagner does not consider geoengineering to be a “moral problem”.

This is precisely where the real solar geoengineering debate ought to be had. What are its potential risks and benefits? Would mere talk of solar geoengineering distract from the need to cut CO2 emissions? Or would such talk be a clarion call to prompt more action on climate mitigation? Reasonable people can disagree and, ultimately, can come down on different sides of the question of whether solar geoengineering could—or should—play a role in an overall climate policy portfolio.

But these arguments are a far cry from claims that contrails are really “chemtrails,” that thousands of commercial planes aren’t “merely” emitting massive amounts of CO2 but, for example, are deliberately spraying alumina. Aluminum oxide, in one’s soil, is presented as “evidence” for chemtrails. It isn’t. Aluminum is the third-most abundant element in the Earth’s crust, and aluminum oxide is its most common form.

First, Mr. Wagner, if jets are not intentionally dispersing materials into the atmosphere, why have they been retrofitted with spray nozzles aimed directly into the jet exhaust stream? This chosen location for spray nozzle mounting gives the desired appearance of the jet engine emission being “condensation”, which it is absolutely not. 

Other supposed explanations are even odder and wholly unbelievable to scientists having looked at the topic.

Wagner’s reference to an orchestrated “chemtrails” survey, of course, does not acknowledge the complete absence of willingness of the same scientists to deny the climate engineering reality when the science terms were used.

All that, of course, raises the question of why to trust scientists in the first place. Wouldn’t they have an incentive to hide evidence if there were a global “chemtrails” program operating somewhere? Well, no—that’s just not how science works. Does any one institution have incentives to keep secrets? Sure. But would individual scientists across the world keep some sort of vast “chemtrails” conspiracy a secret? 

Mr. Wagner fails, yet again, to mention the fact that US government scientists have no first amendment protection, are generally required to sign confidentiality agreements, and now have an illegal federal gag order placed on them.

Scientists aren’t all that good at lots of things. Polite, social interactions might be one. But the one thing they are good at is pointing out why others are wrong, and improving on prior knowledge. Pointing out why the broad scientific consensus that the planet is warming and humans are the cause of it is wrong would clearly make a scientific career. The fact that this hasn’t happened makes me comfortable to trust the consensus science on climate change. The fact that in decades no scientist has shown that ordinary contrails aren’t just that makes me similarly confident that there isn’t anything to the “chemtrails” conspiracy.

Mr. Wagner makes clear he sees no reason to actually investigate the climate engineering reality since the official “contrails” narrative has not yet been challenged by institutionally funded scientists for reasons already stated.

The world faces a serious pollution challenge. That goes for SO2 killing scores today, and it goes for the impacts of CO2 both today and in the future. There are some serious tradeoffs between the two. That’s the debate to have, and anyone I know who does research on solar geoengineering is happy to have it. It’s also the kind of debate that anyone with an earnest interest in the future of our planet should want to participate in. 

Gernot Wagner is research associate and lecturer at Harvard, co-director of Harvard’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program, and co-author of Climate Shock.

Radio show host Geoff Brady (from Pacifica radio station WBAI in New York) formally invited Mr. Wagner to discuss / debate the geoengineering issue on air with me, Dane Wigington, from GeoengineeringWatch.org (WBAI has hosted other debates with experts on the critical climate engineering issue). Mr. Wagner promptly declined the invitation to discuss relevant facts related to the ongoing climate engineering operations (in spite of what he stated in the closing statement of his geoengineering disinformation “article” in the quote shown directly above).

Hi Mr. Wagner,

Yes, I did see the article. I think it would be important to open this dialogue. 
I would moderate to ensure no one talks over each other and the full viewpoints are expressed in the time given.
This opportunity is granted by the listenership of WBAI. They want to hear differing opinions. 
thanks for considering. 
Geoff

Gernot Wagner’s response:

Dear Mr. Brady,

Many thanks for the invitation. I will have to decline.

Best,

Gernot

Those who wish to let Gernot Wagner know his campaign of criminal public deception is not OK, can do here: hello@gwagner.com

We must collectively stand against the power structure’s well organized and funded disinformation organizations and individuals. We must work collectively in the effort to expose the same. Sharing credible data from a credible source is key, all of us are needed in the critical battle to expose and halt the ongoing global geoengineering operations.
DW

Geoengineering Watch

%d bloggers like this: