Re: [geo] My Thoughts on the Motivation on Spying of Geoengineering Researchers...

[Greg Rau]

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 
 To: "albert_kal...@hotmail.com" ; geoengineering 
 
 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 
 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 

Re: [geo] My Thoughts on the Motivation on Spying of Geoengineering Researchers...

['Maggie Zhou' via geoengineering]

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 
 wrote:
 

  
| 
| 
| 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 

[geo] My Thoughts on the Motivation on Spying of Geoengineering Researchers...

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Veli Albert Kallio has shared a OneDrive file with you. To view it, click the 
link below.



[https://r1.res.office365.com/owa/prem/images/dc-pdf_20.png]

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 by Geoengineering 
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 
by Geoengineering 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
[http://a.academia-assets.com/images/open-graph-icons/fb-paper.gif]

MPs to review UK's role in Arctic sustainability - 24th April 
2017.docx
www.academia.edu
The 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 actively monitor 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
[https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/7725/production/_96310503_trump2_afp976.jpg]

Will Paris pull-out hurt Trump? - BBC 
News
www.bbc.co.uk
These 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