The “Forum For Climate Engineering Assessment” Interviews Dane Wigington From GeoengineeringWatch.org
Dane Wigington GeoengineeringWatch.org Official institutions are still attempting to mask the ongoing climate engineering atrocities by parroting the "official narrative" of denial. The "Forum For Climate Engineering Assessement" recently contacted GeoengineeringWatch.org and requested an interview with me. The fact that institutional organizations feel they need to engage in such interviews is a clear sign that our combined efforts are gaining ground in the battle to reach a critical mass of awarenes. Some excerpts from their mission statement are below: Mission Statement The Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment’s (FCEA) overarching objective is to assess the social, ethical, political, and legal implications of emerging technologies that fall under the broad rubric of climate engineering (sometimes referred to as “climate geoengineering”). We produce high-quality and policy-relevant research and commentary, and work in a variety of ways ensure that the climate engineering conversation maintains a focus on issues of justice, equity, agency, and inclusion. Scope of Work Facilitation of climate engineering research in the academic sector. Our work in this context includes: ongoing development of a timeline that chronicles the history of climate geoengineering and provides access to critical source materials; an occasional paper series; and development of a range of other materials for teaching and research on the social and political implications of climate engineering. The 18 minute interview I did for this "Climate Engineering Assessment" group is below (full audio and full transcript). Whatever the overal agenda was behind this interview was (perhaps to try and marginalize those that are completely committed to exposing the climate engineering assault), the interviewer, Holly Buck, was cordial and professional. This being said, Ms. Buck has made her position on geoengineering clear. Though she claims climate engineering is only a "proposal", she advocates for all the "benifits" of deploying climate engineering/SRM programs. Publically denying existing climate engineering is likely a mandatory position for any in academia who wish to preserve their paychecks and pensions. Does this excuse the denial of academia? Absolutely not. There are volumes of verifiable facts, documents, and film footage which confirm the ongoing climate engineering reality. Unfortunately, academia (as a whole) refuses to honestly speak out about the ongoing geoengineering insanity. The recent illegal federal gag order on all NWS and NOAA employees is certainly one of the reasons why. Whatever the hurdles to speaking out, academia's betrayal of the public trust must be brought to light. The only way forward in the battle to expose and halt the ongoing weather warfare assault is to reach a critical mass of awareness with global populations, this effort will take all of us. Again, whatever the agenda of the interviewing institution may have been, the fact that they carried out this interview at all will help us carry the message to the halls of academia. DW An Interview with Dane Wigington of Geoengineering Watch By Holly Buck Recently, I talked with Dane Wigington of geoengineeringwatch.org. This site often features at the top of Google results for informational searches such as “geoengineering”, “geoengineering definition”, “examples of geoengineering”, etc. You can listen to the interview or read the transcript below. Note to listeners: I do not share Dane’s view that there is an ongoing deployment of solar radiation management. Dane Wigington of Geoengineering Watch Holly: I was hoping we could start out by hearing a bit more about your site. Dane: Our site, geoengineeringwatch.org, is simply a informational repository. We are nonpolitical. We don’t sell anything. We are simply trying to put data forward to the public so they can examine information on the geoengineering, climate engineering, solar radiation management, stratospheric aerosol injection subjects; and come to their own conclusions. Holly: Can you tell us more about the scope of your site — who uses it, and how they find it? Dane: Well, we have about 20,000 visitors a day and we’re over 25 million total visitors. Any search engine, if you search the word “geoengineering”, we are typically at the top of that list. Sometimes ahead of Wikipedia, so we are not hard to find. Again, we stick to the science terms and the science issues and data to back that up, so again, not hard to find if someone searches the subject of “geoengineering”. Holly: Given that international readership, do you have a “typical” reader? Do you have return readers? Or is mostly people from all around the world who are just searching for information about this? Dane: Well in Google Analytics, we can search fairly accurately as to who’s getting on, and we have broad, expansive demographics, if you will. Everyone from military organizations, agencies, general public and everything in between. So we’ve had very high numbers of agency people on the site as well. In fact, when we published the 60 day notice of pending legal action from our legal alliance to stop geoengineering legal team, within 3 hours, I heard from Marcia McNutt. I think you know who she is, perhaps. National Academy of Sciences. So, she apparently had looked within three hours of us posting. So there’s a wide range of people looking at this data. Holly: I would like to back up a little bit and hear your views on climate change. I was reading one of your articles recently, where you talked about runaway global warming, and my understanding is that you believe that people are doing geoengineering to either stop or cover up the runaway warming. Is that a correct reading? Dane: I think all available science data backs up that conclusion. I mean, I think you’re studying the issue of solar radiation management, and that is the purpose of the proposal of those programs, which again, we would argue the data indicates its long since been deployed. The problem … there are some in the anti-climate engineering movement that have not accepted the fact that the planet is in full-blown meltdown. I gave global warming lectures before I focused everything on the climate engineering issue. But I don’t think we can argue logically, any of us, that the planet’s … what would be mathematically, statistically in a runaway greenhouse effect right now. And we’re seeing statistically, an under-reporting of official high temperatures. Not an over-reporting as many people would like to convince