Nice find, Isard. This was a big story. I'm not seeing it having gotten any coverage by mainstream newspapers. Back in January The Guardian
reported on it being scheduled but did no follow up. The only folks who ever seem to cover these types of things are science blogs. Here's
a piece done by Wired.com. They report that the founder of the Climate Response Fund has a financial interest in a geoengineering company. Not surprising.
Looking at the PDF, a few things stand out. Basically, these people want to play God. There is no doubt that they want to disperse aerosols into the stratosphere. They admit it. Mostly I see this all as propaganda. They want to astroturf that this type of geoengineering is the way to go, and that they are scientists with ethics who will not hide anything. They say the funding will come from the governments, yet that the militaries will not be involved. Yeah, right, give me a break. And NASA is a civilian agency.
I'll put up a few screenshots.
Don't be a stranger. You're the only one left it seems. Zapp has disappeared. The only other people who ever sign up tend to be nutjobs, fake or otherwise. I've kind of given up on blogging about the ptb's messing with the atmosphere. I've been blogging in other areas at DFQ2
. You're more than invited to participate there. I even made one chemtrail entry there. I'll link to this one also.
I try to make a post at AAANI now and then just to let the forum host know we are still ticking.
I saw some chemtrails the other day. The conditions needed for cirrus aviaticus yet again were not present. But this is not anything new. I'd also like to repeat that chemtrails appear to be different from geoengineering. That can't be emphasised enough. Chemtrails are about blocking out uv radiation, imho after research and reflection. Geoengineering is about keeping the temperatures down.
Climate change has been classified as an issue of national security. Thus we will never be informed of what's truly going on, despite what these Dr. Frankensteins say.
They made it seem like the conference was an open house for the media.
The Conference was open to the media,* and there was significant participation
Total media participation included 19 individuals, representing:
•The American Scholar
•Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, documentary (3)
•Chemical and Engineering News
•Monterey County Herald
•University of California
•Independent writers, local and freelance journalists, filmmakers (6)
* In addition to the press attending the plenary and breakout group sessions, there were interviews outside of the Conference sessions, and there was also a conference call/briefing for the press at the end of the meeting
But check this out. The quack scientists told them no names could be applied to quotes, and that only one part of the conference could be recorded. Wtf?
This conference was all about putting lipstick on a pig. They said it wasn't about deployment but rather all about working on "legal, ethical, societal, economic, and governance issues." These were to be the only things the media would be allowed to record, and even then quotes could not be attributed to the individuals making them. Hmmm. This conference was all about spreading propaganda about psychotic geoengineering.
These are the creeps who make up the Scientific Organizing Committee:
Dr. Michael MacCracken, Climate Institute (Chair), Dr. Paul Crutzen, Max Planck Institute, and Scripps Institution of Oceanography (corresponding member), Dr. Scott Barrett, Lenfest Professor of Natural Resource Economics, Columbia University, Dr. Roger Barry, Director of the World Data Center for Glaciology and Distinguished Professor of Geography, University of Colorado, Dr. Steven Hamburg, Chief Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund, Dr. Richard Lampitt, Senior Scientist, National Oceanography Center and Professor, University of Southampton, Dr. Diana Liverman, Director of the Institute of the Environment and Professor of Geography and Regional Development, University of Arizona, US. Senior Fellow in the Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University, Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, Heinz Center Biodiversity Chair at the Heinz Center for Science and the Environmen,t Dr. Gordon McBean, Professor, Departments of Geography and Political Science and Director of Policy Studies at the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, The University of Western Ontario, Dr. John Shepherd, Professorial Research Fellow in Earth System Science, School of Ocean and Earth Science, National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, and Deputy Director (External Science Coordination) of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Mr. Stephen Seidel, Vice President for Policy Analysis and General Counsel at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Dr. Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, Dr. Tom M.L. Wigley Professor, University of Adelaide and Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research
The participants came from 14 nations:
Australia 6 Austria 1 Brazil 2 Canada 3 Germany 3 India 2 Israel 1 Japan 1 The Netherlands 3 South Africa 2 Spain 2 Sweden 2 United Kingdom 16 United States 137
Presentations were given on "approaches to climate intervention for which research is being proposed."
John Shepherd FRS, University of Southampton: Introduction and Overview of Proposed Approaches to Climate Intervention, Phil Rasch, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: Model Analyses of the Potential for Aerosols in the Troposphere or Stratosphere to Limit Incoming Solar Radiation, David Keith, University of Calgary: Experimenting with Solar Radiance Engineering: Possibilities, Limits and their Policy Implications, Richard Lampitt, National Oceanography Centre: The Potential for and Challenges of Enhancing Ocean Uptake of Carbon, Jerry Melillo, Marine Biological Laboratory: The Potential for and Challenges of Storing More Carbon in the Terrestrial Biosphere, David Keith/Rob Socolow (subbing for Klaus Lackner), University of Calgary/Princeton University:Status of Air Capture Techniques
Wow, I highlighted above the word troposphere. Could that be a smoking gun for chemtrails?
For the propaganda part, presentations were given "on the social science context for research on potential climate intervention."
Catherine Redgwell, University College, London: The International Legal Framework for Climate Intervention, Oran Young, University of California Santa Barbara: Governing Climate Intervention: Lessons from the Study of International Institutions, David Morrow, University of Chicago: Ethical principles for trials of climate intervention technologies, Steve Smith, PNNL: The economic context for climate intervention, Scott Barrett, Columbia University: Geoengineering: Incentives and Institutions, David Victor, University of California San Diego: Regulating the Testing of Geoengineering Systems, Granger Morgan, Carnegie-Mellon University: Decision-making Frameworks for Geoengineering Policies
Now that I think about it, these fockers say one of their goals is to have temperature averages drop. Perhaps chemtrails have been about trying to do so. I say chemtrails are about blocking out uv radiation because of ozone depletion. But there could be some other reasons. But, and here's the rub, they are Frankensteinian rationales. This has nothing to do with aliens, mind control, weather wars (enmod), or any other stupid, kooky ideas that the major chemtrail websites have pushed.
You asked folks to take a special look at the end of the pdf. Here it is. Thanks again for your efforts, Isard. It's nice to know there are others out there who understand wtf is going on. They do say no national security exemptions in regards to disclosure. Yeah, right. The nature of national security secrecy is that we never know about it without whistleblowing. That's a hollow declaration to make.