Dug this up today:

The Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI)



Advancing the international governance of geoengineering

Interesting to note that for all these organizations and partnerships that preach for public disclosure and transparency - one cannot seem to find any information regarding the above discussed topic anywhere on their sites. Groups such as TWAS and The Environmental Defense Fund who rubber stamped their involvement with this draft go on about clean air, water and health in the face of what the risks of geoengineering are. What's up with that?

Perhaps, that is why other groups such as "Green Piece" (yes, I spelled it that way on purpose) will not acknowledge chemtrail/anti-geoengineering activists that want them to side up? Maybe these groups are already on board with accepting the measures of these temporary, "specialized" pollution thresholds if it will produce an acceptable cull of the human population, in trade to save the rest of the planet?

Those of us that are aware should reconsider where we place our donations to. The outer layer of these organizations paint themselves all sugar coated, but the cores are tainted with deceit.

TWAS the academy of sciences for the developing world
In regards to TWAS - World Climate Research Programme WCRP
- from page 17
"The development of ESSP has made the GEC programme landscape more difficult. If ESSP is seen as a separate, competing science programme, then it s existence will erode the health and effectiveness of programmes like WCRP as they become more societally relevant. This would not be an effective mode. What is at issue is the extent to which WCRP should take the lead on par ticular GEC-wide programmes.
Clearly, WCRP has the track record in leaving legacies in modelling and observations, among all the GEC programmes. It has a poorer record in constructive interdisciplinary research and in bridging to social and human sciences. Moreover, WCRP it self will need to take some responsibility for the diffusion and communication of its science. The roles and relationship of ESSP and WCRP need better definition.
The Panel acknowledges that it s sentiment s toward ESSP are not fully aligned with those of the Panel that reviewed ESSP—and that these differing views will need to be reconciled by the GEC community and sponsors sooner rather than later."

"Capacity building was not in the original objectives of WCRP. However, for sustained success, a multi-pronged approach for building capacity is needed. This is particularly important because the participation of all scientists in WCRP projects is on a voluntary basis. WCRP will need to raise the priority of, and explicitly engage, with projects and activities involving developing countries as part of an overall strategy to raise it s profile in facilitating and creating relevant applications for climate science. Some steps are evident in the strategy related to seasonal prediction, but this must extend WCRP-wide. The engagement with developing-country scientists and other under-represented groups will need to have as an objective enduring capability and enhanced capacity, along with the normal scientific objectives."

"An important aspect of engaging such scientists in the activities of WCRP will be a focus on practical applications of direct policy relevance and benefit to developing countries. In order to make this work, WCRP will have to adopt specific targets and develop an image of “success”. These measures need to take account of durability and sustainability. One such example of targets comes from the IPCC AR4 Working Group I, which adopted the following composition: 25% had earned their highest degree within the last 10 years (at the time of their appointment); 75% had not previously been IPCC lead authors; and 35% were from developing countries and countries with economies in transition.
There are various types of involvement: evaluation of models, attending meetings, and planning of projects. Each is considered in the remainder of this section."

In other words, rounding up third world scientists can be accomplished by the dangling of carrots and constructing a false sense of involvement through promotion and peer recognition. - What did they call it? - "capacity building"
Kind of reminds me of the story of The Soup Stone

EDF Environmental Defense Fund

Of coarse there are many other "stakeholders" involved and in the spirit of transparency ---

"Stakeholder partners will:
* not have to add their logos to Initiative literature (unless they so desire)
* be free to pursue their own separate work on geoengineering outside of the SRMGI"