I guess it's reassuring that someone outside of the usual GE suspects is
reading this stuff (assuming it's not a bot). On the other hand, if
geoengineringwatch is the only group doing this, that might be concerning. Are
you able to find out who else bothered to read this report? Is there a reason
to be paranoid?
Greg
From: 'Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
To: "albert_kal...@hotmail.com" <albert_kal...@hotmail.com>; geoengineering
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] My Thoughts on the Motivation on Spying of Geoengineering
Researchers...
My guess would be that they're monitoring geoengineering research because they
can't distinguish it from chemtrails spraying, which I think is military
related spraying in the sky that at some level sounds a lot like aerosol
spraying in SRM. Many citizens are extremely concerned (and rightly so!) with
the health and environmental effects of chemtrail spraying, hence the watchdog
group monitoring anything and everything they could find related to it.
If a simple keyword in your publication automatically triggered some monitoring
by their method, then it's not surprising you got onto their watch list.
Maggie
On Sunday, June 4, 2017 12:18 PM, Veli Albert Kallio
<albert_kal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
#yiv7757401811 #yiv7757401811 -- P
{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv7757401811
|
|
| Veli Albert Kallio has shared a OneDrive file with you. To view it, click the
link below. |
|
|
| | Geoengineering Watch Monitoring.pdf | |
|
|
Dear Sirs,
RE: Thoughts on the Motivation on Spying of Geoengineering Researchers
Although I am just a very peripheral player in geoengineering research, and
that I have hardly published anything on this particular field, and that it is
just only couple of times I have posted into this geoengineering group (i.e.
can you yourself recall me making posts in this group, perhaps ever?). Despite
all the above it appears that an extensive monitoring operations about my
communications and publications are now being carried out byGeoengineering
Watch group - shown here by Academia.edu analysis website: see .pdf of web
traffic analysis of my site.
It was a virtually unrelated article about melting Arctic that related to the
evidence I was giving at the Houses of Parliament here in the UK, this April
for Sea Research Society. If you read through 47 pages of my evidence I gave,
you will come across just one solitary reference, a word 'geoengineering'
research therein. Nevertheless, this one solitary reference to 'geoengineering
research' in my Parliament evidence has drawn over dozen geoengineering queries
byGeoengineering Watch group - an astounding achievement by them in monitoring
me:
https://www.academia.edu/33000316/MPs_to_review_UKs_role_in_Arctic_sustainability_-_24th_April_2017.docx
| | MPs to review UK's role in Arctic sustainability - 24th April
2017.docxwww.academia.eduThe draft paper as at 24th April which is being
amended as the draft for the oral presentation session 5th April 2017 does not
contain any references and text errors needed corrections. The paper is still
being worked on with more sections being |
I deliberate here on the possible motivations of "reasons why" and backers of
those people who so activelymonitor geoengineering researchers that their radar
captures even mosquitoes like me (unless I have unknowingly become something of
a geoengineering research giant without really noticing what I had invented)!!!
So what are the 'reasons why' and the backers of those people who are
attempting to monitor geoengineering researchers and gather information about
anything and everything even as small as just one solitary word reference to
geoengineering in a fairly long 47-page Parliamentary evidence document?
Several possibilities and motivations of these people and other similar groups
are coming to my mind. These kind of extensive monitoring efforts almost
certainly point to an indirect organised interests and perhaps utilitarian
purposes to carry out (help) campaigns against geoengineering research and so
to monitor the researchers meticulously.
My foremost thought here is that the very idea of someone researching or citing
about geoengineering - even briefly - implies (indirectly) that there would be
an evidence about changing climate which then justifies an investment in such a
research (that threatens the interests of the patrons of the campaigns against
geoengineering research). So, if geoengineering research can be refuted
(killed), it means that there is also neither climate change and so no need to
mitigate any such a climate change. Thus, by killing geoengineering research,
"the Plan B", this would also kill all argument for any climate change
happening in the first place.
According to BBC, during his election campaign, Donald Trump stated recently
that climate change was 'a hoax' and, implicitly reconfirmed this by his
announcement on Thursday, 1st June 2017, stating that the United States will
now withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Agreement. President Trump has since
avoided questions on the subject likewise his White House press secretary Sean
Spicer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40128026
| | Will Paris pull-out hurt Trump? - BBC Newswww.bbc.co.ukThese are external
links and will open in a new window In the end the collected pressure from
environmentalists, diplomats, major US corporations, foreign ... |
I would like to have your reflections what you think about the motivations of
those who want to stifle geoengineering? Do you think like I am starting to
think that it is partly arising as a fear of admission of climate change
happening in the first place. I just think that my Parliament evidence was very
thin in geoengineering indeed and there seems to be a paranoia that even one
single word justifies attack by a dozen or more people from the said
organisation to peer through all 47 pages. Have you had experiences like this
or any harassment as a geoengineering researcher? What do you think about my
paper and how you see it relevant here?
Yours sincerely,
Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS
Vice President, Sea Research Society
Environmental Affairs Department
https://exploresrs.academia.edu/VeliKallio
| Veli Albert Kallio | Sea Research Society -
Academia.eduexploresrs.academia.eduVeli Albert Kallio, Sea Research Society,
Environmental Affairs Department, Faculty Member. Studies Climate Change,
Climatology, and Meteorology. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Research_Society
| | Sea Research Society - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.orgThe Sea Research Society
(SRS) is a non-profit educational research organization founded in 1972. Its
general purpose is to promote scientific and educational ... |
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
