"Eine Schwäche hat die Studie allerdings: Da die befragten Experten wussten, worum es geht, haben sie möglicherweise erwünschte Antworten gegeben."
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/chemtrails-forscher-sagen-es-gibt-sie-nicht-a-1107738.htmlExactly this is the reason why Josef Joffe, DIE ZEIT, doesn't trust representative surveys anymore as he described it on the front page of DIE ZEIT after the Trump election.
The political correctness speech has created a filter for the expressions of people seperate of what they are really thinking. In other words: there is a perception within the general public that public opinion is different of how reality is personally experienced.
It remembers a little bit to the times of propaganda.
Why shouldn't experts in certain fields act differently compared to average people? It's just human.
The point is that this topic is livid. Only after heavy pressure a public discussion about this topic is started. And still there is an undertone of ridiculousness around the topic of "Chemtrails" which are in reality the colloquial word for Geoengineering. Geoengineering has already a long history on record. In reality, Geoengineering is nothing new as - image-wise - it is brought into the public discussion around the CO²-question.
Interestingly enough: this study is anonymous. Only because of anonymity the requested researchers dared to answer to the content of this topic. The researchers behave themselves not differently from the average person: They are afraid of being connected to a livid topic. In that way the right of free speech and opinion are restricted by the oligarchic structured "free" media. Therefore the "scissors" in everybodys thinking. Personally, everybody may have his own opinion but do not dare to go with that opinion in the political public!
That way it is not possible to discuss this topic objectively.
It is not explained why researchers think about this topic as they expressed it in the groups of questions given to them by Caldeira and West.
It is not explained how the Aluminum probes - as an examples - are differently of the aluminum which occurs in the earth crust in a chemical compound.
Also it is not explained of how Barium got into the environment on such a large scale.
The same to chemical element of Strontium.
But what we do know is that the Aluminum industry is very, very powerful!
And as we have a economically oligarchic structured media industry we don't know how this economic concentration within the "free press" is used for the outlet of information.
Only an example: there is a civil war going on for decades in the Kashmir region. In Germany, there are no news about it although 50.000 have died meanwhile during this conflict. It's just an example.
Why shouldn't this work even for domestic topics?
On "Phoenix" - a public broadcaster in Germany - a courageous professor for political science expressed once at late night how the German public is working: it can not stand more than 6 (!) topics at one time. This is the reality.
That way you have to be very selective in decisions to bring topic to the public.
Now, as a big share of the public is attentive to the topic of chemtrails the part of the media which brought informations about "future" geoengineering projects in the past is very quiet. Now, it's time of the part of the media to make the topic of chemtrails rediculous.
That way the oligarchic structured media wants to keep the ruling about that topic.
As Rudolf Scharping. Socialdemocratic Party of Germany, described it: the "published" opinion as Jean-Jacques Rousseau has expressed it in his times:
"In Frankreich wurde von Jean-Jacques Rousseau in seinem Discours sur les Sciences et les Arts 1750 erstmals von 'opinion publique' gesprochen, allerdings in einem kritischen Sinne gegen die veröffentlichte Meinung, die die Tugend zerstöre.[5] "
[5] Jürgen Habermas: Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. 5. Aufl., Neuwied/Berlin 1971, S. 116.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Öffentliche_Meinung
