Professor Tim Lenton (Chair in Climate Change/Earth Systems Science, University of Exeter) provided one of the many positive outcomes of this summer’s climate change conference in Paris.
You may have missed this major admission from Professor Lenton which we originally broke in our Paris Report, so we revisit it here and round off with a little more discussion.
His “revelations” occurred on day 2 of the climate change conference in Paris that ran from 7th to 10th July, 2015.
As you will see from the transcript and video excerpts, below, Professor Lenton initially denied that geoengineering activities were already occurring but, when pressed further, he threw in the towel and conceded that the geoengineering of our skies was indeed already happening.
For any newcomers to this topic, we are officially told by Her Majesty’s Government that geoengineering – which includes releasing vast amounts of toxic substances into the sky from aircraft in a supposed bid to block out the sun and reduce ‘global warming’ – is just a proposal, and that any current geoengineering “experiments” are being performed only on a “small scale.”
Transcript of Geoengineering-related Discussions
Olga Raffa, Chemtrails Project UK: My name’s Olga Raffa, from ClimateChangeSense.org. I represent a large group of people who are wondering why programmes such as weather modification and ongoing geoengineering programmes throughout the World have not been taken into consideration with a lot of the research done. And we notice, on a daily basis, that our environment is being tipped through the aerosols being dumped into the atmosphere blocking our sun. And there seems to be a lot of aluminium in the environment – within the bees now have aluminium, and it’s destroying their, well, there’s a bee collapse obviously with the insects and the biodiversity. Aluminium… found in whales. So we recognise this is a military programme. And the EMFs – so you’ve got your cell towers, your HAARP… which is putting heat into the atmosphere, into the ionosphere and seems to be moving the jet streams. Have you done any research and published on the tipping points that this is doing and will cause in the future. Thank you.
Prof. Tim Lenton, University of Exeter: Not precisely on those interventions, but I am someone who’s obviously worked on tipping points and also on trying to evaluate these… well, I would think of them more as proposed, existing proposals for geoengineering inverventions – either in the camp of sunlight reflection methods or large-scale carbon removal methods. I’ve been on my own journey with my thinking about that but, as I’ve said publicly and in the literature, I’m now of a view that the risks posed by large-scale attempts to reflect sunlight back to space… far outweigh the potential benefits in terms of reducing risk of higher temperatures and associated tipping points. So I still feel that there’s a space for and there’s a need, in fact, to look at the options for carbon removal as I think we may need that later this century. But that’s not what you’re most concerned about.
The next Q&A covers another subject raised by another attendee, before the geoengineering topic is rekindled by Dr. Colin Pritchard.
Dr. Colin Pritchard, University of Edinburgh: My question is again for Tim. Colin Pritchard, Edinburgh University. Hi, Tim. Thank you very much for your very cogent explanation. I would basically agree with you on geoengineering – except, may I infer that you prefer an enormous global-scale uncontrolled experiment in geoenginerring as opposed to a small-scale uncontrolled [sic] one. At the moment we are in the former. And it seems to be a little bizarre to prefer the former to the latter.
Prof. Tim Lenton, University of Exeter: I’m certainly not preferring carrying on with our current uncontrolled experiment. And I’m not – what’s the right word – I’m not monolithically set against things that are being discussed under the banner of geoengineering. So it’s quite a nuance… I think that’s quite a nuance discussion to have, perhaps over lunch, because it really depends on the options you’re considering. So you’ve got some things which would be reflective roofs and road surfaces that are very practical, local adaptation options against urban heat islands that, if you did on a large enough scale, could have some measurable effect on regional climate and I think are very sensible. So we have to just be… I think we have to be nuanced on specific proposals, specific technologies. But I think we can perhaps all agree that certainly none of us want to continue the current uncontrolled experiment. I guess, knowing the numbers, we realise that we would like the strongest mitigation efforts possible but we now know that additional things including carbon removal from the atmosphere may… we may want to develop that capability because we may need it as part of the risk management portfolio.
Lasting 4 minutes 24 seconds (if you cut out the interjecting question/answer by skipping from 1:26:16 to 1:29:59), here are the above exchanges from the official footage:
The original, full video from this session last 1 hour 39 minutes 43 seconds.
Geoengineers proposing to spray aerosols from aircraft to block out the sun when the same effects, we’re told, are already being achieved with “ordinary condensation trails” is the ludicrous scenario currently being served up by Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) – one that does not merit the vast amounts of taxpayers’ money that has already been invested in geoengineering.
It appears the fine line being walked by Professor Lenton and company is that, on one hand, they must not be seen emboldening ridiculous claims such as the “ordinary condensation trails” one made by HMG but, on the other hand, trying not to bite that same hand that is feeding them financially. I believe it is this dilemma that we witness Professor Lenton struggle with as it best explains his initial denial then later admission that geoengineering is already occurring.
It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that the money received by these establishments is adversely affecting the quality of their work. They are compromised.
So too the media, creating their nonsensical ‘pro-environmental’ fanfare for the IPCC as they set about hammering the final few nails into our New World Order coffin, with virtually no mention of the real scientists and the real campaigners who, with no financial incentive, continue to spread the truth about the underlying ‘phenomenon’ of global warming.
Such individuals – those with the intelligence, independence and decency to stand against the mainstream deception – are ensuring that the cracks of Agenda 21 and the NWO continue to progress…
…until the whole system is inevitably exploited for what it is.
It’s Being Ignored
The second major issue that is confirmed for us by Professor Lenton (and as confirmed elsewhere) is that these geoengineering activities – that we now agree exist – have not been taken into account in the IPCC’s climate models or in other mainstream climate research.
With the warming effects that persistent aircraft trails can have on surface temperatures already acknowledged by the IPCC but not included in their climate models, scientists such as Professor Lenton must realise that the geoengineering elephant in the room must now be addressed if these scientists – and their work – is to emerge with any credibility whatsoever.
The question we witnessed Dr Pritchard raising was especially helpful as it ultimately caused Professor Lenton to concede, but one is left wondering to what extent other institutions are benefiting from adopting the flawed stance that “the climate is changing due to human activity, but let’s ignore the climatic effects of years of geoengineering.”
More specifically, if UK universities are being ‘rewarded’ with vast amounts of research money to facilitate the nonsense of geoengineering, then how lucrative must be the benefits of upholding the underlying global warming alarmism that we already know to be flawed? To look at it another way, how many millions would it cost them if they allowed the wheels to come off the global warming bandwagon? Ethics aside, it is clear why their main incentive is to promote the paired issues of global warming and geoengineering. Money talks.
By way of contrast, consider the 30,000 independent US scientists (of which 9,000 had PhDs) that signed the Oregon Petition:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
With no financial motivation for these scientists, what prevailed was the opportunity for truth and transparency. No threat required. No spotlight required.
Learn more about the global warming deception that is facilitating the geoengineering crime at our sister site, Climate Change Sense.
There’s No Way Forward
For Professor Lenton himself, now that he has conceded geoengineering is contributing to climate change, is he going to continue his absurdly flawed promotion of geoengineering also being a solution to climate change?! Or will he find the necessary resources to investigate geoengineering and chemtrails as a causal factor of climate change – and maybe even reconsider his stance on global warming? With no financial incentive, such a change in direction may appear unlikely but, given his own admission, how else can his work be taken seriously?
The same questions, of course, apply to all mainstream climate scientists and the IPCC, because what Professor Lenton’s words have done is invalidate his work, his department’s work and that of the IPCC. This is because we now have official acceptance that geoengineering is happening and it’s effects are not being taken into account, which is rendering the whole ‘anthropogenic global warming’ claim an utter shambles.
For Professor Lenton and every other climate scientist now unable to plead ignorance, without the necessary change in direction, will their work eventually be subject to charges of fraud?
We know we live in a World rife in corruption and there is no reason to presume the scientists, politicians and journalists involved in the global warming and geoengineering scandals should be any exception to the rule. Shamefully, the only sacrifice they appear willing to make is to permit the current, growing threat to their own children and grandchildren’s physical health.
Such sacrifice appears to be made for the purpose of simply securing their own personal salaries and livelihoods. In today’s climate of financial hardship and debt, it can be understood how simply getting themselves over the line may be a priority for the ‘me’ generation, but any assumption that their offspring may enjoy a net benefit seems especially shortsighted.
Sadly, all too often, cash is king. But if their ultimate motive does boil down to financial security, you would expect these intelligent people to engage their foresight and acknowledge the imminent ramifications of being so closely associated with and facilitating what may deservedly go down as the greatest crime of modern history. A crime that, by their own admission, is now unfolding before us.
May this article serve as a call for these scientists to turn their attentions to the bigger picture and to change their course of action accordingly, so they are no longer:
- Damaging the health of themselves and their own families.
- Risking prosecution for accepting the known-fraudulent offerings of the IPCC whilst laying the foundations for and/or promoting geoengineering crimes.
- Paving the way for the One World Government / New World Order that permeates United Nations’ Agenda 21 and as promoted by the Pope.
- Standing by and watching the destruction of our wildlife, plant life, human life, our food, our water, our land and our oceans. Facilitating the attempted destruction of Mother Nature.
This article has been written to urge these scientists and others in positions of influence to make proper, responsible use of their opportunity – to no longer stand aside and facilitate but to stand strong, to break the hush and to do what they can to bring these disastrous geoengineering crimes to an end. Be the change the World so desperately needs.
The Bigger Picture
I’ve created this diagram to demonstrate the real incentives behind geoengineering.
It puts geoengineering into context and also shows why so many big institutions, even though they admit it’s already happening, have done nothing about it. So far, that is. And that must now change, as the current path is clearly no longer tenable.
Just as the SRMGI itself acknowledged: We, the people, have the power to stop this. The more people we get on board, the sooner this will happen.
So, where do you fit in? What can you do?
Help CPUK Bring Back Our Blue Skies
If you haven’t done so already, please consider donating to the development of our forthcoming “Contrails?” app.
This app uses official atmospheric data and thresholds to create reports to prove that what we’re experiencing cannot be “ordinary condensation trails.”
Via co-ordinated, global campaigns within the app, this project is destined to create major progress in exposing chemtrails and winning back our healthy, blue skies.
To learn more, contribute and become a part of this forthcoming project, please visit cpuk.org/app.
Update (4th November 2011)
This article has been subjected to a ‘debunking’ attempt by metabunk – with one or more of their members also posting in our comments section, below.
As you will see, what metabunk have conveniently done is trim down Dr Pritchard’s concerns of “an uncontrolled experiment in geoengineering” to just “an uncontrolled experiment,” thereby opening it up to misinterpretation. They have deliberately done that to try and convince their readers that the two academics weren’t really talking about “an uncontrolled experiment in geoengineering.”
Of course they would now deny it, but if there’s any doubt about what the academics meant by geoengineering, they are using the usual definition that is widely used in climate circles and as ubiquitously defined (i.e., the deliberate large-scale manipulation of an environmental process that affects the earth’s climate, in an attempt to counteract the effects of global warming.). We know this because this is the same definition that was clearly implied in Olga Raffa’s initial question, which was then continued by Lenton, then Pritchard, before being handed back to Lenton.
That the definition of geoengineering could have somehow changed (from the ubiquitos definition to some broader definition) during these exchanges is inexplicable and also implausible. We know this because Olga Raffa introduced her concerns about “weather modification and ongoing geoengineering programmes” and “aerosols being dumped into the atmosphere blocking our sun” so it was quite clear she was talking about actual geoengineering. And it was this (usual) definition of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering that we then witness propagate throughout Lenton’s and Pritchard’s subsequent statements on the matter.
It is also clear that the “uncontrolled experiment” that Lenton refers to is the same “uncontrolled experiment in geoengineering” concern raised by Pritchard. We know this because the former is immediately addressing the latter.
So what we are left with is a straightforward 3-way discussion about geoengineering as we all know it, as is ubiquitously defined. In case metabunk come back with an even more obscure argument, please bear in mind Ockham’s razor: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Read through the comments, below, and you will see that my claim stands up to logical scrutiny and that, unlike metabunk, I haven’t attempted to twist anything and I haven’t blocked any comments from appearing – postive or negative.
NB – I have now disabled comments on this article, but if anyone has anything new and relevant to add regarding my central claim that Dr Pritchard and Professor Lenton were indeed both talking about the current “uncontrolled experiment in geoengineering” (with geoengineering having its usual definition as the deliberate large-scale manipulation of an environmental process that affects the earth’s climate, in an attempt to counteract the effects of global warming) then please contact us via our Contact page and we will review accordingly. (But just give us time, because we clearly don’t have the resources that metabunk have…)