RE: [geo] Chemtrailers...

[Paul Beckwith]

Hello Andrew,

 

What is the best debunk website for this. I think there are about 3 or 4 peer 
reviewed papers that also debunk them.

 

It is a mistake to just ignore them, which has been the case for years, since 
their numbers grow large and what if one of them is elected to president?

 

Sincerely,

Paul

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:05 AM
To: Doug MacMynowski
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Chemtrailers...

 

Personally, I flatly refuse to engage professionally with chemtraillers. You'll 
get nowhere. I just block them.

 

You can direct people to a debunk website and say you'll block them if they 
contact you again. 

 

Personally, I get on with many of them fine. I'll happily chat to them socially 
at conferences and stuff. 

 

A

 

On 13 Nov 2017 13:16, "Douglas MacMartin" <macma...@cds.caltech.edu> wrote:

I don’t know if this was a good idea or not to respond bluntly to Dane.  The 
right answer is probably to just delete all of the garbage emails, since 
responding generally only brings more.  Though my inbox is kind of filled with 
crap from these folks anyway, so can’t get worse, right?  I guess some people 
thought that congress holding a hearing was proof that the US government was 
deploying geoengineering.

 

(Last time I interacted with Dane, he edited my emails to remove my answers to 
his questions, then posted them on his website to show that I refused to answer 
his questions.  And he also edited out all the hate-spewing nonsense from his 
own emails to make it look like he was charming and I was a jerk.  Which is why 
my conclusion is that he knows full well that he’s making stuff up.)

 

From: Douglas MacMartin [mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu] 
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 8:08 AM
To: Dane Wigington <da...@frontier.com>; ShadowsFall1 
<shadowsfa...@protonmail.com>
Cc: macma...@caltech.edu <mailto:macmardg@caltechedu> ; i...@garynull.com
Subject: RE: Geoengineering

 

Ah, Dane.  You are an odd character.  

 

Anyway, you have precisely the same odds of exposing me for a climate 
engineering coverup as I do of exposing you for starting world war one, and for 
precisely the same reason.

 

So, if you have any integrity left in you at all, you should actually post this 
on your website this time, unlike the last time where you deliberately removed 
any information from my emails that would expose you for what you are, and 
blocked me from commenting on your website to correct the information there.

 

1.  All aircraft exhaust contains water vapour (a byproduct of combusting 
hydrocarbons) and particulates.  In the right conditions these form contrails, 
as anyone with access to the internet can learn quickly (I think persistent 
ones are about 15% of the time, if I recall right).  Anyone who thinks that 
high bypass ratio engines are somehow immune to this doesn’t understand 
contrail formation (it’s about the same as saying red cars don’t need 
gasoline).  So, hypothesis #1 is that clouds are made of water, and hypothesis 
#2 is that there is some vast conspiracy involving a few hundred thousand 
people; I’ll let you judge for yourself which is more likely.  Further, taking 
pictures of contrails doesn’t prove that they aren’t contrails any more than 
taking pictures of a tree proves it isn’t a tree.  So… zero evidence presented 
here, lets move on.

2.  People have found contaminants in soil.  Ok… and the connection is?  If 
you claim that anything found in soil could only have come from a deliberate 
coverup and no other cause, you should apply your own logic to acorns.  I don’t 
know where things like barium come from, my guess would be industrial 
pollution, but I don’t know.  So… zero evidence presented here (and I’m not 
sure what this has to do with anything else anyway), lets move on.

3.  There are patents and previous programs in weather modification, which 
Dane has successfully found (they are all public, after all, so it doesn’t take 
much research to find them).  Yup, we all agree.  I have no idea if any of it 
still goes on in the US or not, I know China still does.  (Spraying things like 
silver iodide to seed clouds and make it rain, I’ve been told it doesn’t really 
work.)  So… nothing new here, and zero evidence presented that this has 
anything to do with climate engineering.  I’m not sure what the connection is 
supposed to be here, or what the point of finding these patents was supposed to 
be, since there’s never any connection made with climate engineering.  So lets 
move on…

4.  So finally, climate engineering.  The idea you appear to be trying to 
connect is the idea that you could put aerosols (most likely sulfate) into the 
stratosphere (say 6 feet, where the lifetime of aerosols is years instead 
of weeks) to cool the global climate.  Yup, I do research in cl

RE: [geo] Chemtrailers...

[Andrew Lockley]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory
Good for laymen

https://www.metabunk.org/contrails-and-chemtrails.f9/

On 15 Nov 2017 03:06, "Paul Beckwith" <phbeckw...@rogers.com> wrote:

> Hello Andrew,
>
>
>
> What is the best debunk website for this. I think there are about 3 or 4
> peer reviewed papers that also debunk them.
>
>
>
> It is a mistake to just ignore them, which has been the case for years,
> since their numbers grow large and what if one of them is elected to
> president?
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
> *Sent:* Monday, November 13, 2017 9:05 AM
> *To:* Doug MacMynowski
> *Cc:* geoengineering
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Chemtrailers...
>
>
>
> Personally, I flatly refuse to engage professionally with chemtraillers.
> You'll get nowhere. I just block them.
>
>
>
> You can direct people to a debunk website and say you'll block them if
> they contact you again.
>
>
>
> Personally, I get on with many of them fine. I'll happily chat to them
> socially at conferences and stuff.
>
>
>
> A
>
>
>
> On 13 Nov 2017 13:16, "Douglas MacMartin" <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>
> wrote:
>
> I don’t know if this was a good idea or not to respond bluntly to Dane.
> The right answer is probably to just delete all of the garbage emails,
> since responding generally only brings more.  Though my inbox is kind of
> filled with crap from these folks anyway, so can’t get worse, right?  I
> guess some people thought that congress holding a hearing was proof that
> the US government was deploying geoengineering.
>
>
>
> (Last time I interacted with Dane, he edited my emails to remove my
> answers to his questions, then posted them on his website to show that I
> refused to answer his questions.  And he also edited out all the
> hate-spewing nonsense from his own emails to make it look like he was
> charming and I was a jerk.  Which is why my conclusion is that he knows
> full well that he’s making stuff up.)
>
>
>
> *From:* Douglas MacMartin [mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 13, 2017 8:08 AM
> *To:* Dane Wigington <da...@frontier.com>; ShadowsFall1 <
> shadowsfa...@protonmail.com>
> *Cc:* macma...@caltech.edu <macmardg@caltechedu>; i...@garynull.com
> *Subject:* RE: Geoengineering
>
>
>
> Ah, Dane.  You are an odd character.
>
>
>
> Anyway, you have precisely the same odds of exposing me for a climate
> engineering coverup as I do of exposing you for starting world war one, and
> for precisely the same reason.
>
>
>
> So, if you have any integrity left in you at all, you should actually post
> this on your website this time, unlike the last time where you deliberately
> removed any information from my emails that would expose you for what you
> are, and blocked me from commenting on your website to correct the
> information there.
>
>
>
> 1.  All aircraft exhaust contains water vapour (a byproduct of
> combusting hydrocarbons) and particulates.  In the right conditions these
> form contrails, as anyone with access to the internet can learn quickly (I
> think persistent ones are about 15% of the time, if I recall right).
> Anyone who thinks that high bypass ratio engines are somehow immune to this
> doesn’t understand contrail formation (it’s about the same as saying red
> cars don’t need gasoline).  So, hypothesis #1 is that clouds are made of
> water, and hypothesis #2 is that there is some vast conspiracy involving a
> few hundred thousand people; I’ll let you judge for yourself which is more
> likely.  Further, taking pictures of contrails doesn’t prove that they
> aren’t contrails any more than taking pictures of a tree proves it isn’t a
> tree.  So… zero evidence presented here, lets move on.
>
> 2.  People have found contaminants in soil.  Ok… and the connection
> is?  If you claim that anything found in soil could only have come from a
> deliberate coverup and no other cause, you should apply your own logic to
> acorns.  I don’t know where things like barium come from, my guess would be
> industrial pollution, but I don’t know.  So… zero evidence presented here
> (and I’m not sure what this has to do with anything else anyway), lets move
> on.
>
> 3.  There are patents and previous programs in weather modification,
> which Dane has successfully found (they are all public, after all, so it
> doesn’t take much research to find them).  Yup, we all agree.  I have no
> idea if any of it still goes on in the US or not, I know China still does.
> (

Re: [geo] Chemtrailers...

[Gernot Wagner]

And, sadly, the numbers of those believing this stuff aren't small:
nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0014-3


*Gernot Wagner, Harvard University*
gwagner.com

*Climate Shock*
*, a Top 15 FT McKinsey Business Book of the Year 2015, now Austria’s
Natural Science Book of the Year 2017*climateshock.org


On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Personally, I flatly refuse to engage professionally with chemtraillers.
> You'll get nowhere. I just block them.
>
> You can direct people to a debunk website and say you'll block them if
> they contact you again.
>
> Personally, I get on with many of them fine. I'll happily chat to them
> socially at conferences and stuff.
>
> A
>
> On 13 Nov 2017 13:16, "Douglas MacMartin" 
> wrote:
>
>> I don’t know if this was a good idea or not to respond bluntly to Dane.
>> The right answer is probably to just delete all of the garbage emails,
>> since responding generally only brings more.  Though my inbox is kind of
>> filled with crap from these folks anyway, so can’t get worse, right?  I
>> guess some people thought that congress holding a hearing was proof that
>> the US government was deploying geoengineering.
>>
>>
>>
>> (Last time I interacted with Dane, he edited my emails to remove my
>> answers to his questions, then posted them on his website to show that I
>> refused to answer his questions.  And he also edited out all the
>> hate-spewing nonsense from his own emails to make it look like he was
>> charming and I was a jerk.  Which is why my conclusion is that he knows
>> full well that he’s making stuff up.)
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Douglas MacMartin [mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu]
>> *Sent:* Monday, November 13, 2017 8:08 AM
>> *To:* Dane Wigington ; ShadowsFall1 <
>> shadowsfa...@protonmail.com>
>> *Cc:* macma...@caltech.edu; i...@garynull.com
>> *Subject:* RE: Geoengineering
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah, Dane.  You are an odd character.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, you have precisely the same odds of exposing me for a climate
>> engineering coverup as I do of exposing you for starting world war one, and
>> for precisely the same reason.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, if you have any integrity left in you at all, you should actually
>> post this on your website this time, unlike the last time where you
>> deliberately removed any information from my emails that would expose you
>> for what you are, and blocked me from commenting on your website to correct
>> the information there.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.  All aircraft exhaust contains water vapour (a byproduct of
>> combusting hydrocarbons) and particulates.  In the right conditions these
>> form contrails, as anyone with access to the internet can learn quickly (I
>> think persistent ones are about 15% of the time, if I recall right).
>> Anyone who thinks that high bypass ratio engines are somehow immune to this
>> doesn’t understand contrail formation (it’s about the same as saying red
>> cars don’t need gasoline).  So, hypothesis #1 is that clouds are made of
>> water, and hypothesis #2 is that there is some vast conspiracy involving a
>> few hundred thousand people; I’ll let you judge for yourself which is more
>> likely.  Further, taking pictures of contrails doesn’t prove that they
>> aren’t contrails any more than taking pictures of a tree proves it isn’t a
>> tree.  So… zero evidence presented here, lets move on.
>>
>> 2.  People have found contaminants in soil.  Ok… and the connection
>> is?  If you claim that anything found in soil could only have come from a
>> deliberate coverup and no other cause, you should apply your own logic to
>> acorns.  I don’t know where things like barium come from, my guess would be
>> industrial pollution, but I don’t know.  So… zero evidence presented here
>> (and I’m not sure what this has to do with anything else anyway), lets move
>> on.
>>
>> 3.  There are patents and previous programs in weather modification,
>> which Dane has successfully found (they are all public, after all, so it
>> doesn’t take much research to find them).  Yup, we all agree.  I have no
>> idea if any of it still goes on in the US or not, I know China still does.
>> (Spraying things like silver iodide to seed clouds and make it rain, I’ve
>> been told it doesn’t really work.)  So… nothing new here, and zero evidence
>> presented that this has anything to do with climate engineering.  I’m not
>> sure what the connection is supposed to be here, or what the point of
>> finding these patents was supposed to be, since there’s never any
>> connection made with climate engineering.  So lets move on…
>>
>> 4.  So finally, climate engineering.  The idea you appear to be
>> trying to connect is the idea that you could put aerosols (most likely
>> sulfate) into the stratosphere (say 6 feet, where the lifetime of
>> aerosols is years instead of weeks) to cool the global climate.  Yup, I do
>> research in climate models to 

Re: [geo] Chemtrailers...

[Andrew Lockley]

Personally, I flatly refuse to engage professionally with chemtraillers.
You'll get nowhere. I just block them.

You can direct people to a debunk website and say you'll block them if they
contact you again.

Personally, I get on with many of them fine. I'll happily chat to them
socially at conferences and stuff.

A

On 13 Nov 2017 13:16, "Douglas MacMartin"  wrote:

> I don’t know if this was a good idea or not to respond bluntly to Dane.
> The right answer is probably to just delete all of the garbage emails,
> since responding generally only brings more.  Though my inbox is kind of
> filled with crap from these folks anyway, so can’t get worse, right?  I
> guess some people thought that congress holding a hearing was proof that
> the US government was deploying geoengineering.
>
>
>
> (Last time I interacted with Dane, he edited my emails to remove my
> answers to his questions, then posted them on his website to show that I
> refused to answer his questions.  And he also edited out all the
> hate-spewing nonsense from his own emails to make it look like he was
> charming and I was a jerk.  Which is why my conclusion is that he knows
> full well that he’s making stuff up.)
>
>
>
> *From:* Douglas MacMartin [mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 13, 2017 8:08 AM
> *To:* Dane Wigington ; ShadowsFall1 <
> shadowsfa...@protonmail.com>
> *Cc:* macma...@caltech.edu; i...@garynull.com
> *Subject:* RE: Geoengineering
>
>
>
> Ah, Dane.  You are an odd character.
>
>
>
> Anyway, you have precisely the same odds of exposing me for a climate
> engineering coverup as I do of exposing you for starting world war one, and
> for precisely the same reason.
>
>
>
> So, if you have any integrity left in you at all, you should actually post
> this on your website this time, unlike the last time where you deliberately
> removed any information from my emails that would expose you for what you
> are, and blocked me from commenting on your website to correct the
> information there.
>
>
>
> 1.  All aircraft exhaust contains water vapour (a byproduct of
> combusting hydrocarbons) and particulates.  In the right conditions these
> form contrails, as anyone with access to the internet can learn quickly (I
> think persistent ones are about 15% of the time, if I recall right).
> Anyone who thinks that high bypass ratio engines are somehow immune to this
> doesn’t understand contrail formation (it’s about the same as saying red
> cars don’t need gasoline).  So, hypothesis #1 is that clouds are made of
> water, and hypothesis #2 is that there is some vast conspiracy involving a
> few hundred thousand people; I’ll let you judge for yourself which is more
> likely.  Further, taking pictures of contrails doesn’t prove that they
> aren’t contrails any more than taking pictures of a tree proves it isn’t a
> tree.  So… zero evidence presented here, lets move on.
>
> 2.  People have found contaminants in soil.  Ok… and the connection
> is?  If you claim that anything found in soil could only have come from a
> deliberate coverup and no other cause, you should apply your own logic to
> acorns.  I don’t know where things like barium come from, my guess would be
> industrial pollution, but I don’t know.  So… zero evidence presented here
> (and I’m not sure what this has to do with anything else anyway), lets move
> on.
>
> 3.  There are patents and previous programs in weather modification,
> which Dane has successfully found (they are all public, after all, so it
> doesn’t take much research to find them).  Yup, we all agree.  I have no
> idea if any of it still goes on in the US or not, I know China still does.
> (Spraying things like silver iodide to seed clouds and make it rain, I’ve
> been told it doesn’t really work.)  So… nothing new here, and zero evidence
> presented that this has anything to do with climate engineering.  I’m not
> sure what the connection is supposed to be here, or what the point of
> finding these patents was supposed to be, since there’s never any
> connection made with climate engineering.  So lets move on…
>
> 4.  So finally, climate engineering.  The idea you appear to be
> trying to connect is the idea that you could put aerosols (most likely
> sulfate) into the stratosphere (say 6 feet, where the lifetime of
> aerosols is years instead of weeks) to cool the global climate.  Yup, I do
> research in climate models to better understand that.  As do a number of
> other people.  It’s all publicly available on my website.  Some great
> papers came out last week, in fact, anyone can go read them and learn what
> I do.  Not obviously a good idea, but depending on what happens with
> climate change, maybe it might help.  And the connection with the
> aforementioned weather modification is… ?  Unfortunately, Dane presents
> zero information on this and hopes his readers never notice.  Doesn’t
> comment on the fact that the low-lying 

[geo] Chemtrailers...

[Douglas MacMartin]

I don't know if this was a good idea or not to respond bluntly to Dane.  The
right answer is probably to just delete all of the garbage emails, since
responding generally only brings more.  Though my inbox is kind of filled
with crap from these folks anyway, so can't get worse, right?  I guess some
people thought that congress holding a hearing was proof that the US
government was deploying geoengineering.

 

(Last time I interacted with Dane, he edited my emails to remove my answers
to his questions, then posted them on his website to show that I refused to
answer his questions.  And he also edited out all the hate-spewing nonsense
from his own emails to make it look like he was charming and I was a jerk.
Which is why my conclusion is that he knows full well that he's making stuff
up.)

 

From: Douglas MacMartin [mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu] 
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 8:08 AM
To: Dane Wigington ; ShadowsFall1

Cc: macma...@caltech.edu; i...@garynull.com
Subject: RE: Geoengineering

 

Ah, Dane.  You are an odd character.  

 

Anyway, you have precisely the same odds of exposing me for a climate
engineering coverup as I do of exposing you for starting world war one, and
for precisely the same reason.

 

So, if you have any integrity left in you at all, you should actually post
this on your website this time, unlike the last time where you deliberately
removed any information from my emails that would expose you for what you
are, and blocked me from commenting on your website to correct the
information there.

 

1.  All aircraft exhaust contains water vapour (a byproduct of
combusting hydrocarbons) and particulates.  In the right conditions these
form contrails, as anyone with access to the internet can learn quickly (I
think persistent ones are about 15% of the time, if I recall right).  Anyone
who thinks that high bypass ratio engines are somehow immune to this doesn't
understand contrail formation (it's about the same as saying red cars don't
need gasoline).  So, hypothesis #1 is that clouds are made of water, and
hypothesis #2 is that there is some vast conspiracy involving a few hundred
thousand people; I'll let you judge for yourself which is more likely.
Further, taking pictures of contrails doesn't prove that they aren't
contrails any more than taking pictures of a tree proves it isn't a tree.
So. zero evidence presented here, lets move on.

2.  People have found contaminants in soil.  Ok. and the connection is?
If you claim that anything found in soil could only have come from a
deliberate coverup and no other cause, you should apply your own logic to
acorns.  I don't know where things like barium come from, my guess would be
industrial pollution, but I don't know.  So. zero evidence presented here
(and I'm not sure what this has to do with anything else anyway), lets move
on.

3.  There are patents and previous programs in weather modification,
which Dane has successfully found (they are all public, after all, so it
doesn't take much research to find them).  Yup, we all agree.  I have no
idea if any of it still goes on in the US or not, I know China still does.
(Spraying things like silver iodide to seed clouds and make it rain, I've
been told it doesn't really work.)  So. nothing new here, and zero evidence
presented that this has anything to do with climate engineering.  I'm not
sure what the connection is supposed to be here, or what the point of
finding these patents was supposed to be, since there's never any connection
made with climate engineering.  So lets move on.

4.  So finally, climate engineering.  The idea you appear to be trying
to connect is the idea that you could put aerosols (most likely sulfate)
into the stratosphere (say 6 feet, where the lifetime of aerosols is
years instead of weeks) to cool the global climate.  Yup, I do research in
climate models to better understand that.  As do a number of other people.
It's all publicly available on my website.  Some great papers came out last
week, in fact, anyone can go read them and learn what I do.  Not obviously a
good idea, but depending on what happens with climate change, maybe it might
help.  And the connection with the aforementioned weather modification is. ?
Unfortunately, Dane presents zero information on this and hopes his readers
never notice.  Doesn't comment on the fact that the low-lying clouds in
weather modification aren't at the same altitude as contrails and sure
aren't at the altitude of the stratosphere.  Doesn't comment on how we could
get things to the stratosphere (technically I think it is feasible, but no
aircraft today can get there and deliver a payload, so no-one needs to worry
that this is even feasible.)  Doesn't comment on the fact that contrails
actually warm the planet, and don't persist very long (nothing in the
troposphere does), so that would be a stupid way to do climate engineering,
so he must presume we're both 

[geo] (Chemtrailers put up advertising) Billboards Against Climate Engineering

[Andrew Lockley]

Poster's note : US residents on this list may wish to react to this news.
Maybe there's some public complaint mechanism for advertising in the US?
Personally, I think this is an example of the extent to which a small group
of deluded individuals is influencing the geoengineering debate.

http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/billboards-against-climate-engineering.html?m=1

Billboards Against Climate Engineering

These billboards, going up this week, come from group SKYDER, who describe
themselves as non-profit 501(c)4 dedicated to increasing public awareness
about the dangers of unregulated geoengineering, and petitioning lawmakers
for change. The group says these billboard are paid for by philanthropic
donations, which might include some crowd funding.In this video, the group
warns against chemtrails, HAARP, DARPA, etc and, in conspiratorial fashion,
warn they are causing all kinds of societal harm -- low fertility,
Alzheimers, autism, cancer, etc.

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] (Chemtrailers put up advertising) Billboards Against Climate Engineering

[Ken Caldeira]

Folks,

While David Appel has done a great job pointing out this insanity, his
headline is indeed unfortunate and adds to the confusion.

These are not billboards against climate engineering, they are billboards
against chemtrails -- in other words, they are billboards against what
deluded people believe they are seeing.  Being against a delusional object
believed to exist today is very different from being against a concept that
has no physical existence today.

The psychology of chemtrails is very interesting. Apparently, the brain
works such that if you believe A causes B (i.e., a chemtrails program
causes contrails) then every time you see B (i.e., a contrail) that is
taken as evidence for the truth of the statement A causes B.

There is also an interesting social component wherein people reinforce the
beliefs of co-believers.

This is an obvious psychological fallacy but our brains are apparently not
structured to be entirely logical. It would be good to have a good
psychological analysis of the psychological phenomena of chemtrails
conspiracy theories.

Not to be too controversial, but I think the chemtrails conspiracy theories
bear some resemblance to the foundations of religious belief. (I believe
that God causes X, so when I see X, that reaffirms my belief in God and my
co-believers reinforce my beliefs.)

Best,
Ken

___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira

Assistant:  Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu



On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comwrote:

 Poster's note : US residents on this list may wish to react to this news.
 Maybe there's some public complaint mechanism for advertising in the US?
 Personally, I think this is an example of the extent to which a small group
 of deluded individuals is influencing the geoengineering debate.


 http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/billboards-against-climate-engineering.html?m=1

 Billboards Against Climate Engineering

 These billboards, going up this week, come from group SKYDER, who describe
 themselves as non-profit 501(c)4 dedicated to increasing public awareness
 about the dangers of unregulated geoengineering, and petitioning lawmakers
 for change. The group says these billboard are paid for by philanthropic
 donations, which might include some crowd funding.In this video, the group
 warns against chemtrails, HAARP, DARPA, etc and, in conspiratorial fashion,
 warn they are causing all kinds of societal harm -- low fertility,
 Alzheimers, autism, cancer, etc.

 --
 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 http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.