You are asking chemtrail activists to exclusively support an admittedly compromised organization?An organization that continues to support the very scientific fraud (global warming) that was designed to (among other things) legitimize chemtrails? I am not asking chemtrails activists to support them. I am asking chemtrails activists to give them a role in OUR SCHEME OF THINGS.
I would not suggest even discussing the subject with them of whether geoengineering programmes are in planetary application or not. If they have anything to say on this subject it will be crap.
This is what we have already found anyway.
http://www.enouranois.gr/english/indexenglish.htm(c) Open Letter to Hands off Mother Earth Reply from Diana Bronson:
http://www.enouranois.gr/epistoles/ResponseopeletterHOMEcampaign.pdfThe point is that ETC Group and H.O.M.E. are opposed to geoengineering. If there are any forms of geoengineering that are inevitable, and therefore provisionally tolerable, the ETC Group on its current showing, are equipped to say what they are and distinguish them from the others, which we can all then oppose.
If they seem to be becoming unreliable on this subject as they already are on the subject of whether geoengineering programmes are already in global application, then we can withdraw the support.
At the moment the ETC group and H.O.M.E. are the most radical tolerated voices in the official discourse. They are allowed to "oppose" geoengineering because they are complicit in the fiction that it is not already happening, massively.
We should grant recognition to them and withdraw recognition from ALL OTHER PARTICIPANTS in the official disourse. Perhaps we will grant recognition to Ken Caldera, but not on the subject of geoengineering. Only on the subject of nuclear disarmament, which he claims to favour.
In our scenario we should remove them from their radical status and give them a conservative status. Instead of being the opponents of geoengineering in the official milieu they can become the supporters of geoengineering in our milieu.
One factor that you are not taking into account is that more and more climate change sceptics are now coming out in favour of geoengineering, including aerosol spraying. This is not true only of Lomborg. It is becoming a generalised phenomenon.
And it is nothing new. The coexistence of climate change scepticism and support for atmospheric geoengineering has been present from the beginning, from Edward Teller's "Sunscreen for Planet Earth".
http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6791Our opponents are implementing a divide-and-rule strategy, with good cops like Caldera, Crutzen and Keith, who are prepared to acknowledge the worries of ecologists, and bad cops like Lowell Wood, who flatter the sceptics and their opinions on most subjects.
To counter this we must institute a good cop/bad cop division of labour also, so that we can have our OWN divide-and-rule strategy to divide and rule the opponent.
Our good cops can be the ETC group and HOME, who have some limited acceptance among the opponent. The bad cops can be people like you.
In any really successful good cop/bad cop division of labour, the bad cops must have some elementary understanding of the orientation and beliefs of the good cops.
This is what is needed.
