CRACKED! Top Climate Scientist Admits to Ongoing Geoengineering
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.
Professor Lenton’s U-turn on whether geoengineering activities are already underway, although spectacular, is actually quite understandable.
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…)
Biggest #Ponzi scheme, #CO2 #finance #bubble will blow You away!
Designed like a #religion, #dangerous like the #mafia!
Warmists, give up, Yr silly #globalwarming & #climatechange #propaganda is failing!
They want to tax the #air #water #sunlight & #life!
Only idiots welcome the return of #Fascism/#Corporatism now global!
#War in #Syria, #Iraq, #Yemen is war on #water & #energy!
#SRM in the #Troposphere by pricing of #oil & #gas.
Breaking the backbone of the monster! Thank You #Russia! Devil machine!
Weird coalition! Unity of enemies! Domino Effect!
Open Yr mind for the truth about #CO2!
WAKEUP, LOOKUP and LEARN about #Geoengineering! #COP21
Real scientists say NO ACCGW!
#IPCC is for #Geoengineering not science.
Don’t be fooled!
See the difference!
The air is polluted & the #water #sunshine stolen!
90% Luft, 7% CO2, 2,8% Wasserdampf.
#smoking gun of #crime. #chemtrails
Artificial #aerosol clouds.
#HAARP as trimming tool of tropospheric #SRM:
Geoengineering risks are bigger and more dangerous than legacy fossil fuels, for investments & health!
#Propaganda makes the victim think he/she has decided! Don’t be a victim!
The opposite of lie is the truth! Mann, Hansen, Schellnhuber, Rahmsdorf are liars!
#WATER for #DESERT #FARMING & #FRACKING
How the #water #lift of #SRM with #chemtrails works.
See how the #water #conveyorbelt by #SRM with #chemtrails works.
See how #water, stolen by tropospheric #SRM, is delivered!
#Chemtrails are made with #coal #ash & other industrial #trash.
Russia doesn’t fear to talk about its own globalwarming program for drilling into the Arctic ice shield!
#VitaminD #deception & #SRM #chemtrails!
Blaming wild fires on the HOAX of #CO2 caused #globalwarming & #climatechange !
#SRM #chemtrails & #HAARP make aviation very dangerous, #aerotoxicsyndrome!
Pilots are the dumbest!
You have misunderstood what Dr Tim Lenton said. The phrase “uncontrolled experiment” refers to the global warming inadvertently caused by humans burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Look it up, it’s a commonly used phrase to describe global warming due to CO2 since the industrial revolution. So Lenton did not admit anything.
No, because it’s quite clear that they are specifically discussing the ongoing geoengineering experiment – i.e., not the more general topic of global warming, as you are trying to make out. Professor Lenton also stresses “uncontrolled experiment” in order to emphasise the contrast from “reflective roofs and road surfaces” – so, again, it’s perfectly clear that he is indeed talking about geoengineering. There’s no question.
Geoengineering in a broader sense means anything done by mankind that influences the climate, even unintentionally. He used it in this broader sense. I understand this could be easily misunderstood by laypeople, but that’s what he meant. If you don’t believe it, email him. Actually, someone emailed him and he confirmed it, you can find the discussion on Metabunk.
Prof Lenton did not use the word ‘geoengineering’ in a broader sense but in the specific, usual, sense – as would be expected in such a discussion in such an environment.
Why Dr Pritchard or Prof Lenton would substitute the term ‘manmade climate change’ with ‘geoengineering’ is inexplicable – especially in this scenario, so soon after Olga Raffa raised her concerns about specific geoengineering.
Take Prof Lenton’s statement: “I’m not monolithically set against things that are being discussed under the banner of geoengineering… it really depends on the options you’re considering. So you’ve got some things which would be reflective roofs and road surfaces…” Now replace ‘geoengineering’ with ‘manmade climate change’ and it makes no sense. This problem is exacerbated when you consider that, prior to Dr Pritchard’s question, there had been no mention by Prof Lenton of geoengineering in a ‘broader’ sense. It’s therefore clear that both of them were indeed talking about geoengineering in its specific sense – that is, 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.
It’s really a moot point as Dr Lenton has confirmed that he indeed meant global warming, here’s his email verbatim:
“they are misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said–I was referring to the current ‘uncontrolled experiment’ of global scale fossil fuel burning emitting both carbon dioxide and aerosol-forming sulphur gases into the lower atmosphere”.
And Colin Pritchard’s email verbatim:
“It’s our current (failure to) address the climate dilemma that is an ‘uncontrolled experiment’! I’m sure all the conference participants in the room would have understood this.”
More on metabunk, look for the topic ‘Debunked: “Top climate scientist Tim Lenton admits to ongoing geoengineering”‘
Please see my ‘4th November 2015 at 12:17 am’ response to Deano.
This is all lies! The chemtrails sprayed every day globally for over a decade are HIDING PLANET X! Everything else you hear is a lie! All your governments and media are treasonous criminals. The day of the next false flag using a nuke and blamed on Iran will be the day amerikka-the-stupid will be annihilated by Russia, China and the SCO.
LMAO!! I wouldn’t believe a “climate scientist” if he told me rain is wet!
:-) Seriously, it depends what’s raining down… Take a strong torch (e.g., mobile phone flash light) out on a dark, clear night and you sometimes see really fine particles dropping out of the sky that you cannot see without the torch light. Leave a bit of tissue paper out and it remains totally dry… So the ‘rain’ isn’t always wet! (That’s my experience, anyway.)
Blah blah blah, geoengineering, agenda 21, nwo, blah blah blah… This article is so full of shit you could smell it from 30,000 ft. Where contrails persist under the right conditions and have for nearly 100 years. Fuckin’ quacks.
Strange, but I’m sure I’ve seen Gordon Brown and other (former) World leaders talking about the New World Order. And I’m sure I’ve seen copies of United Nations’ Agenda 21 for sale on Amazon… Contrails are forming and persisting under conditions where they CANNOT exist – and that’s according to NASA and HMG. Please do some research, then come back when you’ve got your facts straight.
The reason you are seeing contradictions following Prof Tim Lenton’s statement is that you have (deliberately, I think) misunderstood what he said.
As I stated in am earlier comment to soberant, Professor Lenton’s words are clear and the context is unambiguous. If you cannot acknowledge that, I think you are misunderstanding what he said – either deliberately or maybe due to cognitive dissonance.
No, you are wrong in that interpretation. The present CO2 emissions problem is often referred to as an “uncontrolled experiment”. You seem quite unfamiliar with that climate science expression.
I’m not going to dispute that the CO2 emissions problem might be referred to as an “uncontrolled experiment.” But that’s immaterial when, for the reasons I’ve already set out, it is perfectly apparent Dr Pritchard and Prof Lenton are both clearly and specifically talking about geoengineering.
There is nothing in his words to ‘interpret’ as it is perfectly clear, unambiguous communication. Your words smack of the people that defend Larry Silverstein with his flawed WTC 7 “pull it” explanation. And you can try to distort the meaning of Professor Lenton’s words as much as you like, but I don’t think you’re going to get too many takers.
Well, I contacted Prof Lenton and Dr Pritchard myself and they both confirm that you are misrepresenting them and that they were, as everybody has been trying to tell you, talking about uncontrolled carbon emissions from fossil fuel use. That has been referred to as an “uncontrolled experiment” since at least the 1970s.
Now that you are aware of the truth, I suggest you might want to delete or heavily amend this article, if you are familiar with UK libel law.
As I’ve stated elsewhere in these comments, of course Lenton and Pritchard would try to undo what they’ve said. But that doesn’t change the conversation that they’ve had.
Yes, uncontrolled carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels has previously been referred to as an “uncontrolled experiment” but has it ever been referred to as an “uncontrolled experiment in geoengineering” – especially when (as I mentioned in my ‘4th November 2015 at 9:20 am’ comment) the definition of geoengineering has only just been set in the same discussion as meaning the intentional global warming mitigation technique? No. Of course not.
Apparently dissent is not permitted on this website. Now I know why there are so many ill-informed people who believe this garbage. If you go through, deleting every comment that is in disagreement with the article, how do you expect to learn from your mistakes. It’s quite a pathetic attempt to propagate this lie that has been going on for far too long. Shame.
What garbage? You can see it for yourself, straight from the horses mouth. (As if the dozens of daily unidentifiable aircraft leaving persistent trails in atmospheric conditions that do not permit “ordinary condensation trails” was not reason enough to be curious about what they were doing and what they’re emitting).
I haven’t deleted any comments on this article. I have published and responded to every negative comment, so keep them coming.
I understand how you might find this article challenging, but if all you can do is make baseless claims then you are hardly doing your side any favours.
It appears that your article has been attacked by the shill brigade from Metafunk. That sucks. The exact avatar picture that “Ross” guy is using actually appeared in an article specifically about Mick West and the Metabunk shill crew and how they spend their entire lives attacking chemtrail observers. Funny that even after being exposed as a well-known shill the dork still hasn’t changed his picture! Try not to let them get to you. They’re just dicks.
Well, they’re just doing their jobs… The fact that no-one seems to be able to make a valid point against the article isn’t such a bad thing!
You find it suspicious that Ross (who is a real meteorologist from New Zealand, as you can easily verify) is using a real photo of himself as an avatar? That seems highly illogical.
Well done Mr. Hodgskiss.
“You know you’re directly over the target by the amount of flak you take”
Looking fwd to this whole global warming dog and pony show being exposed for the criminal fraud that it is.
it is quite clear what he means, and it is obviously uncontrolled C02 emissions not daft conspiracy theories regarding spraying aerosols
only in conspiracy land does 2 + 2 = 17
Please back up your claim that he is somehow talking about uncontrolled CO2 emissions.
For example, I will here back up my claim that he is talking about geoengineering:
It’s as obvious as the dozens of unidentifiable planes we have flying backwards and forwards almost every day, leaving trails that persist and spread the block out the sun – a.k.a. geoengineering – endangering every living thing beneath them, whilst continually depleting the ozone layer above them.
The fact that you are able to arrived at the warped conclusion that Prof Lenton wasn’t talking about geoengineering (so far, without backing it up) does seem a little strange. Is it just cognitive dissonance, or is it something more?
To anyone else reading this:
Elsewhere in these comments, other people have accused ‘deniers’ (such as the person I’ve just responded to) of originating from metabunk, which is a relatively well-known ‘debunking’ site. The role of these deniers appears to be to defend whatever it is our governments are telling us and/or doing to us.
In many instances (this particular one being a notable exception) they offer what looks like a strong argument to defend whatever the official narrative may be on a given topic. But when you delve deeper into researching the topic and check out their claims in response to the highly improbably / impossible scenarios being painted by their government, their argument usually boils down to your eyes, ears and/or common sense somehow defying you. They do this for the death of JFK, 9/11 and, of course, geoengineering/chemtrails. You name it, they’ve got all the answers. All the pro-government answers.
Such people are known as shills, and it’s widely accepted that they exist. So anyone reading these comments may well wonder: if none of the deniers on this page are paid government shills then – in their government’s hour of need – where the hell are they?
We don’t have to presume, guess or otherwise interpret what both prof Lenton and dr Pritchard meant
Simply ask them, email and ask them – do what people genuinely seeking the truth do, enquire, ask – go to the source
Don’t just sit tapping away on a website
But then if as I suspect they say “off course the uncontrolled experiment in ego engineering we are talking about is CO2”
You will simply revert to shills and disinfo agents
Prove me wrong
So I presume you reached your bizarre conclusion by emailing and asking them, did you?… before you sat there tapping away on our website! (Your responses seem to have devolved from the absurd to the hypocritical.)
There’s not presuming, guessing or interpretation of Prof Lenton’s words required… It was basic, unambiguous communication in the English language. I’m afraid you’re not going to talk too many people into abandoning their common sense on this one.
Maybe someone will follow up on this with Prof Lenton. Maybe he won’t buckle under the pressure next time, but I really don’t see any logical way out for him. Of course, if you want to take it up with him – maybe in some desperate attempt to give your words some credibility – then do go ahead and let us know how you get on.
It’s already been followed up, and (as should have been clear to a five year old) both parties were not talking about any big nefarious conspiracy.
Now, I wonder if you’ll do the right thing and allow this to be shown, or will cognitive dissonance and the need to preserve the chemtrail echo chamber prevail?
Thank you, Deano. The metabunk article is very cleverly set out. It presents the comments by Lenton and Pritchard in the wrong order, which creates unnecessary confusion which contributes to misleading the reader.
Here’s the same analysis, done in a fair and chronological manner:
Prof Lenton (response to Olga Raffa): “I’m now of a view that the risks posed by large-scale attempts to reflect sunlight back to space… (are) far outweigh(ed by) the potential benefits in terms of reducing risk of higher temperatures and associated tipping points.”
…whatever his point was, he’s clearly comparing the risks to the benefits of ‘specific’ (not broader) geoengineering. We know that with certainty because he included “reflecting sunlight back to space” in his statement.
Dr Pritchard (question to Prof Lenton): “I would basically agree with you on geoengineering – except, may I infer that you prefer an enormous global-scale uncontrolled experiment in geoengineering as opposed to a small-scale (and / un)controlled one. At the moment we are in the former. And it seems to be a little bizarre to prefer the former to the latter.”
…as metabunk point out for us, here Pritchard is indeed referring to Lenton’s previous statement to Olga Raffa – a statement where, as I’ve just shown, Lenton is definitely talking about ‘specific’ geoengineering. So too, therefore, is Dr Pritchard talking about ‘specific’ geoengineering (i.e., not geoengineering in some broader term).
Lenton immediately responds to Pritchard referring to the “uncontrolled experiment” that Pritchard clearly referred to as being one of ‘specific’ geoengineering.
Summary: The only fitting explanation is that all three people were talking about ‘specific’ geoengineering all along – namely, 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. Additionally, for Olga to introduce the word ‘geoengineering’ with its usual definition and for the other two to suddenly redefine the word ‘geoengineering’ with some broader definition is totally implausible.
Further, what Pritchard and Lenton have done between them is to inadvertently blow the lid off the multi-billion dollar climate change scam. Lenton, being a climate scientist, seems to know this as it appears to reflect in his body language and demeanour. Dr Pritchard, however, seemingly from a different ‘discipline’ does not appear to be aware of the major implications that admitting current geoengineering activities would have on the global warming hoax (that’s if he’s even aware of the hoax – see http://climatechangesense.org for more on that). This would explain Pritchard’s nonchalance. Fast forward to today where they realise the consequences of their discussion (especially as they are both employed by universities involved in the climate scam – see the flow chart in the article) then, of course, they have no option by to try and get the cat back in the bag. But they (and metabunk) are going to have to do a lot better.
No, you are still misunderstanding it. Let me summarize. Olga Raffa asked a question about geoengineering. Lenton answered that he knows about geoengineering proposals but he generally thinks geoengineering is a bad idea because its risks far outweigh the benefits. Then Pritchard asks whether that means that he prefers continuing the current large-scale uncontrolled “geoengineering” (i.e. burning fossil fuels since the industrial revolution) to a small-scale deliberate geoengineering. And then Lenton answered that he does not think the current “experiment” (i.e. burning the fossil fuels) should continue as before.
When you understand what these people were actually talking about, it’s very clear, it cannot be explained differently. There was no admission, the current experiment is the burning of fossil fuels.
OK, so you acknowledge that Raffa and Lenton were both initially talking about geoengineering – most commonly defined as an intentional global warming mitigation technique. Pritchard then thanks Lenton for that explanation of geoengineering and then asks him a question about it which includes the assertion that such geoengineering activities are already occurring (as we can all see) – so it’s perfectly clear that they are all talking about geoengineering as being an intentional mitigation technique.
I understand you perfectly. And I understand how you are trying to twist their words to mean something else. But your explanation isn’t plausible.
Soberant’s explanation above is not only plausible, but 100% correct, as verified directly to me by both Pritchard and Lenton independently. As a journalist I can tell you that taking people’s quotes out of context when you have been apprised of the reality is sailing dangerously close to libel, especially if you are trying to implicate them in some sort of crime. I’m sure both scientists have more important things to worry about than being defamed on some conspiracy website, but it’s something to bear in mind.
If that’s what you really want/need to believe, Colin, then go ahead and believe it. I don’t believe it because it doesn’t stand up to logical scrutiny.
To be clear, I haven’t taken anything out of context. It is people like soberant, Lenton and Pritchard that are clearly trying to change the context of their words! For each one, it is perfectly understandable why they would want to do that.
James, I understand that usually it’s extremely hard for people to admit that they made a mistake, and I suspect that you will never do that. But your version of the story just doesn’t make any sense. Lenton: “I oppose geoengineering”. Pritchard: “So does that mean you support the current geoengineering”? This question just doesn’t make any sense. No, Pritchard was asking whether Lenton prefers UNCONTROLLED (i.e. unintentional, inadvertent) “geoengineering” (inadvertent climate change due to human activities) to CONTROLLED (i.e. intentional, planned) geoengineering (real geoengineering).
Note that you have a mistake in your transcription: Pritchard didn’t say “small-scale uncontrolled”, he said “small-scale AND controlled”. Maybe that’s why you didn’t understand his question. He asks Lenton to choose between uncontrolled and controlled geoengineering (i.e. geoengineering in a broad sense and real geoengineering).
Pritchard seems to say “und” controlled, which can be interpreted either way. Similarly, Lenton’s statement is not clear (which is why Pritchard may have misunderstood it). But those two things don’t matter because this article isn’t about whether one or two people think geoengineering is a good idea or not.
I’ve already addressed your other assertions, showing them to be implausible.
As Pritchard said in his email, all the scientists in that room knew what he was talking about. Apparently only Olga Raffa didn’t, as she was talking about HAARP and aluminium in bees and whales and all manner of other unrelated things.
I wish that the scientists would actually just spell out to you once and for all the simple fact: you are complaining about persistent contrails, which are nothing to do with geoengineering discussions! It shouldn’t need to be said, because it’s a self evident truth, but apparently you do need to be told, because you keep bringing up “trails in the sky” in response to geoengineering.
So allow me to do it. SRM would not create trails in the sky. The trails in the sky you see are contrails. They are not anywhere near the target altitude for SRM (where the air would not be conducive in any way to trail formation). They do not act like SRM, in fact their radiative forcing effect is the OPPOSITE of all proposed SRM techniques.
You need to decide. Are you opposed to geoengineering, or are you opposed to persistent contrails in the sky? If the latter, please stop harassing geoengineering scientists and start campaigning against air travel.
That doesn’t make sense, because it was Olga Raffa that introduced the topic.
We complain about persistent aircraft trails which are a lot to do with geoengineering discussions. Check out our home page and Directive page if you really have no idea.
SAI (one branch of SRM) with aluminium oxide, sulphur, etc. would create trails in the sky – their purpose being to reflect sunlight back into space.
I agree that the unidentified aircraft that we see flying in the troposphere should not be regarded as Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG), but we do also seeing them in the stratosphere. I expect that is why Olga wanted to express the range of factors that were affecting the climate and were not being accounted for in mainstream climate models. Whether the trails left by these planes are contributing to or mitigating global warming is not the main issue.
What do you mean that the Metabunk article “presents the comments in the wrong order”? It presents them just as they are on this page, in the order they were discussed during the Q&A. The transcript is copied verbatim from this page, barring a couple of minor corrections.
I do wonder why you didn’t take the obvious step of talking to Lenton and Pritchard yourself, before writing a lengthy article about them? It would have saved you a lot of embarrassment in the long run.
Why seek clarification of something that is already clear? Lenton’s and Pritchard’s responses are not plausible – for the reasons I’ve already set out in this comments section. So they offer no clarification anyway.
Regarding metabunk giving things in the wrong order (to create confusion is mislead the reader), I was talking about this analysis:
That’s why, in my ‘4th November 2015 at 12:17 am’ comment, I give a chronological and fairer analysis.
I think you may have missed the responses by Professor Lenton and Dr. Pritchard when contacted regarding your interpretation of their discussion:-
Professor Lenton: They are misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said – I was referring to the current ‘uncontrolled experiment’ of global scale fossil fuel burning emitting both carbon dioxide and aerosol-forming sulphur gases into the lower atmosphere
Dr. Pritchard: It’s our current (failure to) address the climate dilemma that is an “uncontrolled experiment”! I’m sure all the conference participants in the room would have understood this.
Thank you for allowing my post, it does you much credit that you can allow differing viewpoints.
In the same spirit I do hope you’ll acknowledge that your article does not accurately reflect Pritchard and Lenton’s discussion.
Deano, see my ‘4th November 2015 at 12:17 am’ response to your previous comment. You’ll see why their email responses don’t stack up – and why they had little option but to try and undo what they’ve done.
My article exactly reflects their discussion – transcript (except for a couple of relatively meaningless typo’s), video and a conclusion that (unlike the competing ones) stands up to logical scrutiny.
I think your response glosses over several things in the discussion. Firstly, in Lenton’s response to Olga (I’m presuming she’s the lady who starts going on about HAARP towers and military spraying?) makes it clear that he is only talking about proposed geoengineering and not “ongoing” as Olga has just claimed. He does not directly address any of her claims, and looks quite embarrassed. To me his body language looks that of someone who is trying quite hard not to offend.
More tellingly though, is the laughing from Pritchard and others in the room following the “uncontrolled experiment” comment, and some more from Lenton in his reply. Basically it’s a climate scientist in-joke.
Yes, when talking to Olga, Lenton claims that geoengineering is still a “proposal.” But that’s immaterial as far as the definition of geoengineering in this context because the definition has already been set by Olga. And, as one would fully expect, it was set with the usual definition: 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.
Dr Pritchard, from what I can tell, is not a climate scientist. So, even if there was such a climate scientist ‘in-joke’, I’m not sure he would be in on it. No-one laughs when he mentions the “uncontrolled experiment in geoengineering,” but only at the end of his question where he asks Lenton if he prefers the current uncontrolled experiment in geoengineering rather than a small-scale, (un)controlled one. The laughter at this point may be because he is now the second person to address the elephant in the room (i.e., that we are already experiencing exactly what the stratospheric aerosol geoengineering proponents are proposing) and/or because of the absurdity of his inference regarding Lenton’s preference. Ultimately, we won’t know for sure why they’re laughing, but I don’t think that’s really the main issue here, anyway.
You refer to an “elephant in the room (i.e., that we are already experiencing exactly what the stratospheric aerosol geoengineering proponents are proposing)”.
But we’re not, are we? Quite the reverse in fact!. Stratospheric aerosol engineering would have a negative radiative forcing. Currently we are experiencing a positive radiative forcing effect, which is in part due to the very persistent contrails that you are complaining about!
Do you not understand that they are chalk and cheese? Persistent contrails cause warming. Solar radiation management would be designed to cause cooling, and therefore would not be creating contrail cirrus which is rather effective at TRAPPING heat, rather than reflecting incoming solar radiation up in the troposphere.
I find it rather staggering that you claim to be able to second-guess professional climate scientists when you seeming fail to make this rather vital distinction.
I am talking about the physical phenomenon of what we are experiencing up in the sky rather than their effect on warming/cooling. More specifically, why would geoengineering be proposing to spray toxic substances such as aluminium from aircraft to block out the sun when the same effect, we’re told, are already being achieved with “ordinary condensation trails.” That’s the absurdity I am referring to.
Do you really think that SRM (in particular, stratospheric aerosol injection) is not designed to create contrail cirrus?!
“Do you really think that SRM (in particular, stratospheric aerosol injection) is not designed to create contrail cirrus?!”
Of course I think that, as does anyone who has studied geoengineering, and I find it staggering that you could think that it would be designed to CREATE cirrus. This seems to be at the heart of your confusion about contrails versus geoengineering/SRM.
Contrail cirrus is a highly undesirable phenomenon when it comes to climate, as it has a strong warming effect. It allows sunlight through but traps radiated heat from the earth.
Stratospheric aerosol injection would be done well above cirrus cloud altitude, most likely 60,000 feet or more. It would reduce the incoming radiation before it ever got a chance to be trapped by cirrus below.
The only albedo modification technique proposed to increase cloud cover is marine cloud brightening. That would be done at very low altitude (eg from the sea surface by spraying seawater) and would be aimed at brightening LOW clouds and making them more reflective.
As you surely ought to know, those low clouds don’t have the warming effect that high ice-crystal (cirrus) clouds have.
The point I was making is that the persistent trails from SAG are designed to reflect sunlight back into space. That is what is being proposed to happen in the stratopshere, and as can already be seen. When these trails merge to form an artificial layer of cloud, is it not still known as contrail cirrus (i.e., regardless of the altitude)?
Yes, persistent trails in the troposphere can have a warming effect. This is also stated by the IPCC who, intriguingly, do not take this effect into account in their climate models. This not only casts another layer of doubt in the whole carbon-related global warming claim, but also leads to the questions, why on Earth are all these unidentifiable planes leaving persistent trails (often in conditions were condensation trails cannot persist) that are contributing to global warming? And why are they not being taken into account in climate models?
I’m going to put Olga’s comments aside, as I don’t want to be insulting, suffice to say I think Lenton’s body language and response show that he’s not accepting her definition of geoengineering as being just SRM/”chemtrails”.
I’ll agree that it’s hard to tell how from the video how many of those who laughed were actual climate scientists and attendees. However, you do raise an interesting point.
Pritchard’s background is in engineering (not “geoengineering”), and appears to have been there as an attendee, just like Olga and the others. Why then when faced with his clear explanation that his comment relates to the current situation of man’s unintentional “geoengineering” by the release of greenhouse gases, do you co-opt him into being part of the “chemtrail” conspiracy and accuse him of having a motive for disproving your interpretation of his words?
Clearly, both Olga and Lenton were quite nervous – for very different reasons. Olga, because she’s not used to attending and speaking at such events. Lenton, maybe because he’s got to stand there and uphold the global warming lie (see http://climatechangesense.org ) and/or, more likely, that he is publicly encountering the obvious questions about ongoing stratospheric aerosol geoengineering.
Olga does not give a definition of geoengineering as being just SRM or SAI, but those are the aspects of geoengineering that she chose to focus on. Trying to attribute Lenton’s body language to something that hasn’t happened is therefore not correct.
As I’ve sufficiently stated elsewhere in these comments section, the explanations now being offered by Lenton and Pritchard do not stack up. They need to protect themselves, the lie and/or the associated revenue streams for the universities that they work for. So they have no option but to try and undo what they’ve both said about the “uncontrolled experiment in geoengineering” – where the usual definition of the term “geoengineering” was set up by Olga Raffa, continued by Lenton, then continued further by Pritchard, before Lenton had his infamous final say on the matter.