6 Responses

1. Mr. Guy Mcpherson (as many others including some Ameg scientists) seems to be  compromised for some reason with the Power System we are all living in …so i guess he will never admit to be seeing "the big spageti monster" (geoengeneering) already in our skies..you are "forcing" him to admit an inconvenient truth that for him must not be a good thing to his reputation or to his  "business" of exposing only half truths for the many media  brain- washed audiences that lable geoengeneering activists only as conspiracy nuts or as "believers"… and maybe  Mr Guy doesn´t want to look like a "conspiracy theorist nut" or a "believer"? ,looking like  the "methane catastrophist" seems to be a easier way for him to expose the diring situation of the planet?…I don´t know what to think but maybe Mr Guy felt bad for not having the same courage that you(Dane) have and decided to not say anything or to not  answer questions that could left him without words or that could make him loose audience in the future so better to not go so deep in the subject cause his "half message" has resulted "very wel"l to him till now ?(better not screw it)…let´s hope for better days about people´s atitudes and  necessary help for all of us!…

   Reply

   1. Hello Ana, Guy’s message to the public is a disservice as it is a half-truth at best. His denial is very deep, whatever the driving motive behind it, it is simply not OK. I will elaborate much more in a details summary of the meeting with him which I will likely post on March 20.

2. I suspect my opinion will not be popular but when I looked at McPherson’s sources of data and his interpretation of that data, I came to believe he doesn’t have to be 100% correct. Once the conditions are in place (blue ocean event in the Arctic), we will be in a situation that propels us into a run away green house event. I’ve listened to Guy McPherson and believe he is absolutely convinced there is nothing we can do to stop NTHE (Near Term Human Extinction). I think he may believe that geoengineering may be the only option available to slow down a blue ocean event in the Arctic (and this goes for the AMEG group too).

   I’m not convinced that McPherson is anyone’s asset but his message is that there is no hope. People can be very brave in the face of battle. For some, it is considerable more frightening to be branded crazy and having your reputation tarnished. I do think McPherson has decided to stay on target (NTHE message). At one point, I read in one of his posts that he considered retreating to his mud hut due to the online character attacks. His NTHE message has a growing following that offers him a reputation safety net. I’m not saying it is right to deny geoengineering. I suspect he is aware this is going on. So why deny it? I think he knows Dane is exposing the issue and he did not want to be pulled into defending the NTHE position along with geoengineering. He tends to dodge the geoengineering issue so I would imagine he must have been upset if he was being pushed into responding to the issue. Seems very strange that he would physically show up to an event and then choose to run a video presentation.

   Dane correctly understands that the disruption of currents (ocean and jet stream) are decimating the planets natural ability to compensate and regulate the climate. I think the scientists at AMEG want the cooperation of the entities manipulating the weather to cool down the Arctic. While it seems like these groups do not support Dane’s position, I’m not so sure that is true behind the scenes. The members of AMEG appear to be products of educational institutions and want to attack the problem by working through official channels (good luck with that approach I hope it works). Dane is trying to expose the public to the truth, gain traction and use the public to force the government to respond.

   The situation is challenging. I think the powers that be will benefit from dissension amongst various groups who are trying to expose the truth to the public. I read an article, ‘Should leaders be heroes or relationship builders?’, I think we may need both to find a solution to the climate issues.

   Reply

   1. Hello Kathleen, I believe your assesements are close to the mark, but there may be a bit more. Guy seems to somehow enjoy the message he delivers, and this is especially wrong when one considers that this message is a half truth at best due to the total denial of climate engineering. The horizon does look very dark, but if there is still a flicker of light it is the fact that we can stop the geoengineering madness and allow the Earth to respond. Industrialized civilization will not survive, but perhaps the planet still has a chance. I believe Guy is also more worried about his reputation than he is the truth, that is not OK. Climate engineering is making a very bad situation worse, not better, and I absolutely believe Guy knows this all too well.  I will have a more detailed post of my meetings with him in the coming days. 

   2. Hello Dane. I appreciate the follow up. Just checked back in. I’ll keep an eye out for your post regarding the meeting. While I understand why people behave in a certain manner. I do agree, it is not helpful to the cause to deny GeoEngineering. I agree it’s not ok to place reputation above the truth and/or to mock the truth. I do believe you are correct about the harm the ongoing GeoEngineering is causing to the environment etc. Your dedication to the cause is not going unnoticed and I sense the message is gaining traction. I believe we (mankind) stand a chance as long as there are people (like yourself) who do not give up and continue to expose people to the truth. Thank you!

3. Kudos for bringing Guy McPherson out into the light. This is great news. It's been my feeling for some time that Guy is probably someone's asset. The devil as they say, is in the details. Especially when I noticed McPherson twisting Dr Natalia Shakhova's data into something downright false to assert the exponential nature of the arctic methane release, I  felt his true colours were shinning through.  The term 'limited hangout' comes  to mind; giving some of the facts but not all of the facts, and seeking to control the narrative. While the problem is mainly over what he doesn't say, and doesn't admit to, last year on a Canadian podcast I heard McPherson  chiming in with the host to ridicule the idea of an existing aerosol spray program.  So hearing that Guy McPherson compares geoenginerring to a belief in the Spaghetti Monster finally exposes the gulf between his presentation and reality; and its huge.  No, i don't think we should just turn our back on Guy McPherson and go quietly into the night. He is speaking disinformation from a growing platform and Dane is doing the right thing by squaring off with him.

   For those who don't know Natalia Shakhova, she claims (and she may well be right) that her data set (with partner Igor Semiletov) is the most complete data on the study of methane release on the Siberian shelf, and for that matter the only one of its kind.  Her unique work is the main underpinning for McPherson's dooms day reporting on the methane crisis and I have witnessed him embellish it by twisting her data. That is not to say, there is no crisis, only that McPherson is not above twisting the facts to suit his narrative. Buyer beware.      

   James-in-Ont

   Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment *

Name *

Email *

Website

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

CAPTCHA Code *