Please find herewith our
observations and a small report on our interventions during the discussion
Geoengineering - taking control of our planet's climate
Organisers : Prof. Andy
Ridgwell, Prof. Chris Freeman, Prof. Richard Lampitt
Place : Royal Society,
6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London
Dates : 8 & 9 th of
In the attached pdf
file you will find the full program, abstracts, speaker biographies and
participants lists. John Shepherd was not on the list, but very present.
Blue sky fighters:
Claire Henrion, Saskia Messager ( ACSEIPICA, France) both days
Andrew Johnson (UK)
On arrival Monday
morning at the Royal Society, a few members of Hands Of Mother Earth had put up
a banner "stop geoengineering" and were handing out small papers with
statements "we are here to oppose geoengineering" and contesting the
role of the Royal Society. A part from this no other action has been conducted
by any other ONG.
opposing geo-engineering in the discussion meeting audience were Biofuelwatch
(on behalf of the ETC group (not present!)), EcoNexus, ACSEIPICA, Andrew
Johnson. Maybe some others but we haven't met them. There were about 200
attendees. Some more than on the participation list.
BLUE SKY INTERVENTIONS
There were 8
presentations per day. After each 2 presentations there was 30 minutes of
discussion, mostly only 4 to 5 questions were responded. So it has to be stated
that with 200 people present it was not easy to get ones turn to speak up.
Claire Henrion made an intervention
at the end of Day 1. She spoke up about the CO2 lie and about the according to
her real causes of climate change, meaning the use of HAARP facilities and the
ongoing geoengineering with chemtrails. There was no reaction of the speakers.
The chair Brian Launder suggested that she should sort this out in a one to one
discussion. Anyway Claire succeeded in drawing attention to the chemtrails. It
was the concluding statement of the day.
Saskia Messager made an intervention
the second day, after the presentation of David Keith on CO2 capture from the
air. He was here promoting his own company on carbon capture and storage. It
was a 100% business presentation. We learned more about the business cost of
his invention than its efficiency.
Although his subject
here was not the aerosol spraying, she thought, for pure impact reasons, that
an intervention at this point of time, would get some more (media) attention.
She started calmly to
not to be interrupted right away. She got this far, here is what she succeeded
"Today I speak up as a very concerned citizen. I got interested
in geoengineering when I was researching my health problems. Through
independent researcher's websites I was informed that some substances that were
found in my body, were actually falling from the sky.
I think we all have noticed that air traffic has gone up
tremendously over the past decades. And although the fuels are more and more
performing with little particles residue after combustion, we can notice in the
sky more and more abnormally persistent contrails. Deep blue summer skies have
become very rare. We mostly have a milky white haze in the sky, which haze is
certainly not due to the 0,04% presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As
those abnormally persistent contrails linger for hours at an altitude of 37.000
feet they end up creating high cirrus clouds.
Millions of people around the world are very concerned about this
phenomena for different reasons.
The persistence of those contrails seem to indicate the presence
of chemical particles. That's why many refer to them as chemtrails.
( Here she started to get interrupted, but
Lab analysis of soil and water samples in some even pristine areas
have shown high levels of alumina and barium. Which leads us to think that
geoengineering through injecting aerosol particles in the atmosphere is on
(Here they stopped
David Keith's answer:
- He started saying
that his life has been threatened by chemtrail activists and that he received
many threats to not to continue promoting SRM.
- He said that he was
willing to believe that governments are not always doing good things for the
people, but that such an enormous thing would not be possible
- He stated that if it
was true such a secret could never have been kept silent for so long.
- He stated that he has
looked in to the chemtrails issue but that he considers this issue as a
- He urges Saskia to
consider that chemtrails are not true (sounded like a warning !)
Saskia Messager addressed the meeting
- She asked if David
Keith could explain that in a pristine area like the Mt Shasta in California,
snow samples have shown levels of alumina of 60000 ppm. Sixty times the maximum
- he fell silent, did
answered ( one of the organizers):
- This is not true
" such a secret, could not have been kept secret, it's impossible"
At the coffee break
Saskia discussed again with David Keith. He told her that alumina is every
where on the earth; he told her to again check the lab results and to be sure
that it was done by a reliable laboratory.
Apparently the 60000
ppm result has made an impact on him. (Thank you for this Francis and Dane)
At another coffee break
Saskia has had the chance to address another time David Keith with questions
concerning the health aspects and consequences of SRM. She stated that
this issue was not addressed at all in the presentations and that alumina and
sulphates would affect live on earth in a very negative way.
David Keith got quite
upset stating that many of his colleagues have addressed those issues. And that
it was "not fair" to make such a statement.
It has to be noted that
David Keith changed somewhat his strategy. For over the past few years he has
been promoting very strongly the Solar Radiation Management trough aerosol
spraying being so easy and cheap to do. As where at this meeting he distanced
himself somewhat from his earlier statements. He said several times during those
two days that "he didn't thought that the climate situation was that
catastrophic, that aerosol spraying should be used". It would be more a
last resort issue.
After a presentation of
a fellow colleague, Naomi Vaughan from the university of East Anglia, where she
stated that "SRM has to be maintained for many centuries to
avoid rapid increases in temperature and corresponding increases in atmospheric
CO2 concentration", David Keith somewhat attacked her saying "Nobody
thinks about seriously using SRM".
==> Easy access
to all speakers and scientists
There was a very
informal and courteous ambiance. Everyone was willing to exchange views in an
open way. This might encourage others to participate more often in this type of
open discussion meetings. At least your voice will be heard.
==> Planes are
not an option for particle injection in the atmosphere....
_ Only two techniques
for injecting particles in the atmosphere to execute the SRM have been
presented at the meeting.
1. Marine Cloud
Brightening by Prof John Latham, National Centre for Atmospheric Research, USA
clouds with copious quantities of monodisperse sub-micrometre seawater
2. SRM through
stratospheric particle injection by (guess what...) ..balloons !!, Dr Matthew
Watson, University of Bristol, UK - SPICE project
Several balloons of 285 meters (!!!) floating at a height of 20 km
connected to a ship with a 20 km long tube. With pressure, sulphate or
aluminium particles, will be brought up through the tube to be dispersed at the
height of 20 km by the balloons. Absolutely crazy. Fortunately there were some
scientific engineers who stated that it was absolutely not possible. The
pressure needed to bring up the particles at this height is beyond feasibility.
Than Mr. Edwards from
the public asked why they wouldn't use commercial airliners to disperse the
particles, as many patents already outline this possibility. And as this
solution furthermore being cheap.
Dr Watson responded
that they don't think mixing particles with fuel will be feasible.....
Now isn't that
interesting that particle injection in the atmosphere by airplanes is just not
an option for the Royal Society ?
Here we are talking
tactics and media strategy. And might be a silent confession that they don't
need to do it, because it is already being done..
On the consequences of
Dr Carol Turley
(speaker) asked Dr Watson: "what will happen to those sulphate particles
up in the air
Dr Watson: They will
fall down on earth
Dr Carol Turley: So
what sulphate will do to the oceans and soil ? will the pH change ?
Dr Watson: yes pH will
Dr Carol Turley: so it
will affect life ?
Dr Watson: yes
==> Quality of
Most presentations were
very vague, hypothetical. A lot of catastrophic extrapolation based on
assumptions and not observations.
It was striking that
quite some scientific speakers presented graphs with no indications of
type of measures on the horizontal and vertical axes..
A lot of guessing with
a lot of uncertainties on which they want to enforce (their term) dramatic
decision making on the earth.
==> Mostly UK and
The main part of the
speakers, scientists, business people and the rest of the attendees were from
the Uk and North America.
So their views have
only a very narrow base. Scientists from other parts of the world where totally
absent ! Their views are not shared worldwide !
Only UK government DECC
(department of energy and climate change) involvement, US navy and US
At one hand all
speakers said that there are so many uncertainties and even inefficiencies in
the geoengineering techniques, that it should never be used. On the other hand
they are selling the whole concept to get funding for research and
implementation. It's all business.
They say the cure is
worse than the disease but still go on.
They are studying the
public to see what will them make to accept the geoengineering. They spent
quite some energy in this.
"Get the trust of
people and you can hack the planet" This has been said at the meeting.
By the way they
consider they are not the public ( scientists versus public).
- Climate science used
to be a science of observation, not very exciting. They probably had a lot of
trouble getting funds for their research.
Now there is this
climate change hype and money is flowing. suddenly they are in the spotlights.
They are making a living with all this.
- Pandora's box
- They are no longer
restricted to observation they can now engineer, change the world and leave
their footprint on this earth, the dream of every scientist.
This is where
scientists can be easily manipulated.
In conclusion : the
existence of the chemtrails and the ongoing geoengineering has been expressed
and discussed at the Royal Society discussion meeting. Our voice has been
There is a crack in
everything, through which the light can come in.
For the content of all
presentations please have a look at the attached pdf file.
We hope this
information is useful to you.
Report by Andrew Johnson
This was the Royal Society’s 7 Carlton House Terrace Building in the Wellcome
Trust Lecture theatre (so immediately we see a link to Big Pharma)
were perhaps 150-200 attendees seemingly mainly from
Universities and some businesses with a few lay people like myself (see back
pages of attached scanned version)
Thanks to Saskia for the scanned copy of
the programme – I have included another version, which is “text searchable”
(OCR’d), which gives you a pretty good overview of how narrow the coverage of
issues – almnost exclusively focused on ideas which assume that Man-Made CO2 is
the main reason for “climate change”.
Not surprisingly, no other conclusions
which challenge this assumption were presented.
There were only 3 people in the audience
who spoke up to challenge those “wearing the scientific blinkers”. One member
of the audience made reference to “denialists” towards the end of the day with
a comment to effect that their conclusions were “disproportionately
represented” in the press (not sure where he got that idea from).
David Keith seemed to be there to
compliment everyone and try to augment what presenters had said. To me, it felt
like he was guiding the event somehow - as if he was kind of “top of the tree.”
I was very interested to read what Saskia wrote about his presentation, as I
was not able to attend that day.
Below I have included a brief summary of
some of the talks and after that, my own “contribution” which was right at the
An Overview of Proposed Enhanced Weathering Methods
Tim Kruger of the University of Oxford (Martin School)
looked at the various methods for changing the balance of CO2 by various
“absorption” techniques. There are some surprising suggestions such as
spreading olivene powder, dumping limestone into the ocean (in regions of
(the speaker) reported that he had been investigating a technique proposed by
Kheshgi in 1995 through his company Cquesrate.
the Q & A at the end I asked him how this research was funded and he said
it was funded by Shell, but they weren’t claiming any IPR. He was also careful
to state this was all “Desk-based research”.
proposal discussed was the electrolysis seawater. All proposals were not
discussed in any depth and, without exception, they seemed to be impractical,
due to the energy expended in operating such schemes.
schemes aimed to “turn the clock back” in terms of claimed CO2 levels.
lecture introduced me to the concept of “CO2 removal cost” and one of the
“magic figures” seems to be 40 dollars per ton. So we get an idea of how
people are thinking in terms of CO2 and economics – all the terms and figures
have been decided so that the issue can be “packaged” into discussions neatly.
lecture also discussed “compensation issues” – how those adversely affected by
any CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal) Schemes should be compensated – directly, or
following some kind of assessment/appeal process
was said that CO2 is a fungible commodity (essentially one which affects everyone).
So this lead on to the concept of “carbon leakage”. An example was given of the
Drax Powerstation (Largest Coal Fired in the UK) which simply could not make
money if it had to pay the suggested CO2 removal cost (tax).
all built on the unproven premise that CO2 is the main problem.
Interaction Between GeoEngineering and Emissions
Naomi (Nem) Vaughan of the UEA
presented her modelling research which was based on simple modelling of CO2
levels which would result if CDR mechanisms along with SRM mechanisms (Solar
Radiation Management) were to be employed.
it assumed the global effects of the carbon cycle were well understood. It made
projections many years into the future (up to the year 3000 or so!). No feeling
was given as to what level of confidence these projections had - it seemed to
be a case of “let’s get a computer to produce all these nice graphs based on
some figures we think might be right” and let’s just talk about that for a bit.
mentioned “aerosols” in passing near the end.
the Q &A following this session, David Keith (interestingly) introduced the
notion of how things like attempts to do Solar Radiation Management could
cause wars. He introduced the basic concept of “turning the knob” – i.e. geoengineering
being something that people could war over.
the end of this session, one questioner – an engineer - talked about error bars
on the graphs – and how none of the graphs shown had them. He made a general
criticism of how difficult it is to find discussion of uncertainties throughout
all the field of geoengineering and he politely requested that researchers make
a greater effort to describe these.
of the other speakers acknowledged this, to some extent, but then argued that
some uncertainties had been discussed in some papers.
Geoengineering: preparations and options for governance
Margaret Leinen, Climate Response Fund, USA
was stated she had worked in government and had also been involved with venture
capitalist funded project.
presentation brought up points such as public involvement and consent – i.e.
how can they consent to something they don't understand.
were no photos or graphs in this presentation.
mentioned the next big summit is Rio 2012 – where broader principles of
governance would be discussed.
seem to be worried about research being limited or stopped.
Public perception of geoengineering- knowledge, risk and
Nicholas Pidgeon, Cardiff University, UK
presentation was about public perceptions – it steered clear of the notion of
“marketing” geoengineering to the public, but the sorts of information it
covered could be used by those wanting to market it to the public.
presentation was more engaging, though still troubling. It showed a Slovic
Fischhoff risk chart with regard to risk etc. An example is shown below. (I
include this as a way of showing you how some people are thinking about the
example given was image association and perception – e.g. a mountain scene
could be associated afforestation to increase support whereas aerosols would be
associated with a factory chimney scene.
presentation mentioned the ETC group (which I think are probably controlled
opposition in this matter – as, like these climate researchers, they suffer
from EDD – Evidence Denial Disorder) and showed a slide about them, which I
couldn’t read al the text on – but it was about moving the earth’s orbit to
counteract global warming – but I don’t know whether this was a spoof of what
ETC were saying or what it was.
presentation said the geoengineering issue is polarised with “hope and fear”
rather than “hype and hope”.
the survey this presentation was centred around, it was found that 50% of
people had not heard of geoengineering and more people learned about it, the
less happy they were.
surprisingly, it found that “natural processes” for geoengineering –
afforestation, particular types of crop growth (to change land albedo) were
Geo-governance: assuring the future
Porritt, Forum for the Future, UK
should be noted that Porritt, like UK wildlife documentarian, Sir David
Attenborough, is affiliated with the Optimum Population Trust:
presentation was very light hearted and poked fun at the whole issue. His
position whether he was “pro” or “con” wasn’t made clear though I was a little
surprised when he mentioned “climategate”, though he sadly did not go into any
detail. He said he trusted scientists more than he trusted politicians – as the
latter are only concerned with short term thinking (to get re-elected).
complimented the Royal Society for “taking on” Exxon, though I was not familiar
with this issue/matter
this looks like stoking the fires of fake-debate. He also mentioned the ETC
group and this enhanced my feeling was he was just “stirring the pot” more than
stated he was not in favour of moratorium on geoengineering.
also used the phrase “a wholly new world order” where geoengineering is
considered – it was rather an odd turn of phrase.
pointed out how businesses “play the game” very well. Porritt also noted the
title of conference and referred to the definition of “stewardship” (of the
earth) which apparently comes from the words “sty-ward” – as in someone who
looks after the pig sty.
Political dimension and perspectives
Robert Watson, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, UK
spoke of the vested interests in the issue as well as government. He noted that
the private sector in USA “leads” government and the reverse is generally true
in the UK. (But I would argue he simply has no idea of the extent to which he
is write about the USA, and he does not really understand that this does happen
in the UK too).
expressed a “pro-nuclear power” stance – with only a “possible role” for
Question and Answers
session lasted about 1 hour, but all the questions assumed that CO2 based
climate change was real.
said that should be a “world environment organisation”,
though no details of what he was proposing were discussed by him or panel
waited for about 30 minutes to speak and finally got my turn, just before the
stated that I ran http://www.checktheevidence.com/
and was apparently in a “minority of one” in the room (Claire and Saskia had
already had to leave by then). I said I had watched the AGW issue being
propagandised for 20 years and I was relieved that some people were speaking
out. I also said I knew Geoengineering was already in use. I then read out this
segment from Eisenhower’s speech – as a warning:
…the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas
and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of
research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract
becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old
blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of
domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations,
and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in
holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must
also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself
become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
then just said that if people were interested in what I’d found out, then they
could come and see me on the pavement outside.
then left the room and got my leaflets and other info ready.
I waited for about 1 hour, as
people left the building and I had a few conversations with people and gave out
about 20 leaflets or so - to those who were interested. I also gave out a
couple of DVDs. Some people were interested and stopped to talk for a couple of
minutes, but it was cold and dark by the time I came out.
cloud patterns near Bay of Biscay, 10 Sept 2010 – and other anomalies in a
Climate Data Challenge – Set to ALL
participants in the conference.
Is he right? I sent him a little more information (below that, but he has not yet responded).
Dear Mr Johnson,
We met (and shook hands) outside the RS this evening. Thank
you for the flyer and DVD – which I’ve not watched yet, but I
I’m afraid I’m not very convinced by the evidence on your
flyer – to address the questions posed in order:
1)What causes the grid
of trails? Condensation from jet engines.
2)Why does this happen
so regularly? Jets fly every day – lots of them. When no planes were flying
last April, it was noticeable how clear the skies were.
3)Why do these trails
appear on some days and not others? The temperature and humidity in the
atmosphere at c. 12000m are quite variable.
Environmental Groups talk about the real nature of these trails? They’re
quite busy dealing with more scientifically attested issues – but n.b.
WWF “Science now clearly shows that flying has an even greater impact
on climate change than was previously thought. Changes to cloud formation and
exhaust emissions at high altitudes mean aviation’s total impact is likely to be
two to four times that of its CO2 alone. Having analysed the latest
science, WWF multiplies CO2 emissions on all flights by 2.7. This is
a little higher than the government’s figure, but we believe it is justified
since the government takes no account of the impact of additional cirrus clouds
triggered by planes – potentially a large source of warming.” And
Greenpeace: “What's the problem with planes? Not only carbon dioxide
emissions, but also the vapour trails, the contrails. The contrails here look
rather nice, but these contrails generate into cirrus cloud and we actually know
from post-9/11 when all jets were grounded for a few weeks, that the
daytime/night time temperature difference changed by one degree centigrade,
which is exactly what the global warming calculations indicate because the
contrails disappeared, the cirrus disappeared, and that was keeping the United
States warmer at night. So there are real effects from planes. The big
difference between this and carbon dioxide, I quickly add, is that two days
after stopping flights over the United States the contrails had disappeared. So
water vapour disappears, carbon dioxide will hang around for centuries. Carbon
dioxide is the main driver of change.” (David King)
6)Why do they appear
everywhere in the UK (and globally), and not just near airports? (a) planes
fly over the UK, not just near airports, and (b) in my various travels (by
plane!) to e.g. central Brazil, central Africa, the Sahara, I have noted the
delightful complete absence of contrails.
7)Changes on ALL the
planets (question implied): not true – I know of no evidence for significant
changes in the atmosphere of Mercury, Venus, Mars etc. The gas giant planets
regularly show changes in their cloud surface morphology, as has been known for
as long as telescopes have been rained on them. E.g. the “Great White Spot” on
Saturn, co-discovered by the comedian Will Hay in 1933, and on other occasions
As for Pluto and Triton, “The warming on
Triton, for example, could be the result of an extreme southern
summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as
possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of
the Sun’s heat. Researchers credited Pluto’s
warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its
last close approach to the Sun in 1989.” (from http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html)
8)What causes circular
rainfall patterns? This looks very much like a radar anomaly to me, and thus
an artefact of surveillance, not an actual circular ring of rainfall. I found
the images on the website to which you referred me wholly unconvincing, I’m
9)Was it a coincidence
that a hurricane was at its closest to NYC on 9/11/01 (I prefer 11/9/01 –
it’s my birthday)? Yes. Hurricanes are commonest in the Atlantic in the late
summer, and this is an entirely typical date.
10)Why was it barely
reported? At 930km distance from NYC, the effects would hardly have been
noticed on land (as your satellite image shows – clear skies) – just a light
northerly breeze as the air circulated round the hurricane – as shown by the
dust plume from the WTC heading southwards. It was barely reported because
(frankly!) there were more newsworthy things happening that day, and anyway (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2001erin.html)
the storm never got above Category 3 on the Saffir-Simpson scale
(Katrina, while smaller, was much more intense – perhaps briefly a 5 – and of
course actually made landfall, as a severe Category 4 storm, right on New
Orleans.) And it was reported, anyway – see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1534284.stm,
11)Erin made a sudden right
turn. Yes – hurricanes regularly do that – see http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/atlantic/atl1958/tracks58.gif
[and note the one which does a crazy right turn on 27th just off the
Carolinas!], the oldest one I could find – but any of these maps from the NHC
show the same pattern. Hurricanes simply DO “turn right” once they reach about
25-30 degrees north, and come under the influence of the Gulf Stream and the
North Atlantic. The turn can be remarkably sudden
Sorry to be a bit of a curmudgeon, but I have to say I do
disagree with almost everything you allege, and everything you said in the
meeting, but as I said, I am prepared to take a look at the evidence and decide
for myself. Check the evidence, as they say!
Good luck for the future,
(P.S. I’m a Geography teacher!)
This is a very fast response - as I have just got back from
London - I live in Derby.
Would you like me to post your letter on my website? I can
post it as a response to my "data challenge" if you wish....
I too am a teacher - I teach on a computing course for the OU
(part time). I taught in FE (also computing) full time for 2 years, but left to
go back into industry (all this is on my "About" page).
Thank you for taking the time time to try to answer the questions I
raised. I think you misunderstood my "mode of presentation". The
leaflet was a starting point to additional research - there was only limited
space to present basic questions without much evidence. Oh how I wish the
questions could be adequately answered with a couple of google
Thank you for taking the time time to try to answer the
questions I raised. I am aware of the stock answers, thanks - but I am afraid
they only explain SOME of the evidence.
Changes on ALL
the planets (question implied): not true – I know of no evidence for
significant changes in the atmosphere of Mercury, Venus, Mars
This is exactly the sort of question that needs careful study
to answer well - and this sort of issue hardly ever makes into to discussions like the
one we saw today. Below are some links for you to review - which link to
articles (on .edu sites) covering this.
Eisenhower warned about the power of "big money"
intermixed with academic research. I think that Eisenhower's concerns should be
borne in mind more carefully, considering the lecture that took place in the
"Wellcome Trust" theatre. Hmmm .... here's a quick history
"Wellcome co-founded a multinational pharmaceutical
company that mastered modern techniques of advertising such as promotion, image
and branding. "
With regard to Hurricane Erin, it is the TIMING of
it's movement which is essential to study closely - and this will not make a
blind bit of sense unless you are prepared to fundamentally re-examine the
events of 9/11. (This is covered on the DVD I gave you) - and is primarily the
research of my friend Dr Judy Wood - a former professor of mechanical
I will try address your other points later if I get time, though there
are about 30 GB's of information on my website, which I have collected over the
last 7 years for those who have sufficient time and interest to review
Please again realise that my statements have been made following research
and correspondence as well as making my own measurements in some cases - all of
which can be found on my
Thanks for writing .
From: Andrew Johnson
] Sent: 10 November 2010
18:25 To: SW Subject: RE:
Coupla quickies. Here's another story about significant,
recent changes on Jupiter:
Also, you seemed to think my leaflet said Hurricane Erin
wasn't reported - if you check it says it was "barely reported". Please correct
me if you HAD heard of it before I told you about it on my leaflet. Here are 4
morning news reports from 9/11: