Correspondence with Rosalie Bertell and other activists
I would like in this e-mail to focus attention on the question of relations with the ETC Group, with Hands off Mother Earth, with the moratorium on geoengineering passed at the UN Conference on Biodiversity, against the background of the fact that the majority of chemtrails activists are both climate change sceptics and opponents of the United Nations.
Many chemtrails activists focus on the fact that the ETC group does not acknowledge chemtrails as a well-established, in no way "experimental", global reality. Here is an example of one such posting: a Pat Mooney interview with Amy Goodman, and Jeff Farias's comments on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vetL-XF9Hj4
Rosalie has a high opinion of Pat Mooney, who she says she knows well, and has given the impression from what she has said in her postings that she thinks his stance on chemtrails is a result of being inadequately informed. She makes similar assumptions in her response to Diane Bronson's answer to the Open Letter some of us chemtrails activists in Greece sent to Hands off Mother Earth
http://www.enouranois.gr/english/epistolesenglish/indexbronson.htm
What I think is more likely is that the ETC group's focus on geoengineering as a purportedly non-military project is deliberate, and aimed at taking advantage of the fact that an attempt is being made at this time to gain public consent to geoengineering ideas, thus removing from the subject the "conspiracy theory" taboo.
Chemtrails activists are under no obligation to fall into line with this disingenuous attitude of the ETC group and Hands off Mother Earth. I believe that the most effective strategy is to maintain independence from them, but to seek to strengthen their position within the circles of the scientists discussing climate change and geoengineering. One way to do this is to say that we do not recognize the credentials of any scientist to be involved with geoengineering projects if that scientist is in favour of such unacceptable ways of treating the planet earth and life on it. The only scientists whose legitimacy we are prepared to recognize are scientists, e.g. who publicly support Hands off Mother Earth.
As I said, most chemtrails activists are climate change sceptics and hostile to the UN. They therefore tend to regard the ETC group as "controlled opposition" and part of a a plan to mislead and demobilize real activists. My view would be that the real "controlled opposition" is scientists like Alan Robock, who express great reservations in relation to geoengineering, but have not declared support for Hands off Mother Earth. This is why I think that Mauro Oliveira's street argument with Robock was not good strategy, though it has given us a useful document.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNrkp6a_6As&NR=1
How can chemtrails activists who are climate change sceptics and opponents of the UN get the right orientation towards ETC group and HOME activists who are neither sceptics nor UN opponents? The ETC group say that geoengineering should not be under the control of only a few rich countries, mainly English-speaking, but should be controlled by the United Nations. They say that Britain's Royal Society should abandon its attempts to host the geoengineering discussion and leave the job entirely to the United Nations, where poor countries can also have their say.
But unlike United Nations forums, which have not been open to chemtrails activists (the one exception being a UN NGO forum in New York, where Rosalind Peterson spoke, and has not - it seems - been invited again) the Royal Society geoengineering discussion HAS been open to chemtrails activists. Saskia Messager made an intervention and Rebecca Campbell submitted a paper, which was acknowledged.
We should therefore not necessarily support the ETC group view that the United Nations is more appropriate than the Royal Society as a forum for geoengineering discussion though we SHOULD say that only scientists supporting the HOME orientation on geoengineering are acceptable to us. What counterproposal to UN responsibility can climate change sceptic and anti-UN chemtrails activists make that will not just lead to self-isolation? .
I have made the suggestion to some American anti-UN activists that they should propose the Commonwealth, after the US has joined it.
http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubb....r=3462#Post3462
Such a move could conceivably strengthen the hand of chemtrails activists and weaken the position of geoengineers, in institutions such as the Royal Society.
If such a proposal is seen as too eccentric, though it does not seem more wacky or eccentric to me than the idea of a North American Union that would bring together Canada and the US, then I would ask what other counterproposal to the United Nations can there be as a means for organizing the world at the international level.
Rebecca Campbell says this:
"I feel that we all have been lied to in this, as in most matters (i.e. about climate change); that there is indeed climate change going on, but it is now going on at least throughout our solar system, and likely throughout our galaxy as a natural process of transformation long prophecied by intuitives whose insights are now being proven scientifically as such classified information is being disclosed.
The NWO has coopted the mainstream environmental movement, and is using it to justify a depopulation agenda, while locking climate change skeptics into a limited mindset unable to consider the larger framework of cosmic phenomena now dramatically unfolding."
In her submission to the Royal Society Rebecca concealed her views on climate change and depopulation agendas but (or perhaps I should say "so") made what was in many ways a disarming and effective intervention, targeting the hypocrisy of pretending that "Solar Radiation Management" is just a proposal. How can we organize a follow-up to this effective incursion into the official discussions, a breakthrough potentially as significant as the ETC group's geoengineering moratorium.
For those who are discontented with our ignoring the aggressive "military" aspect of the aerial spraying, one other new development that is perhaps worth following up (and Keith Lampe is trying to start a relevant dialogue with it) this input from Rachel Smolker, once again, like the ETC group, from a climate change non-sceptic position.
http://www.climatesos.org/2010/11/resolution-war-climate