Articles in English by Gabriel Stetter

[Wayne Hall]

1. White Skies - the Global Warming Problem and Chemtrails

www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/r+z.html

2. The Great Riddle: Greenpeace and the Chemtrail Question

www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/r+z-gp.html

[Wayne Hall]

A note from Gabriel Stetter who confesses to having been demoralised by his interaction with "ignorant idiots from 'Aerzte fuer den Umweltschutz' " (doctors for environmental protection) "who are supposed to be a group of concerned Swiss eco-activists." Gabriel notes that "everyone is simply toeing the IPCC line."

He is particularly annoyed about what the head of 'Aerzte fuer den Umweltschutz', Andreas Biedermann, wrote in the group's magazine "oekoskop".

That 'everyone is toeing the IPCC line' is a phenomenon worthier of enquiry than whether 'chemtrails' are or are not a collective hallucination.

Could it be that climate scientists have to be wary of being taken to court or otherwise given a hard time by the 'climate change sceptic' lobby if they come out with anything other than the prescribed formulas? If you read the books of the climate change activists Ross Gelbspan or Jeremy Leggett you see how persistently these 'sceptics' work. Both Gelbspan and Leggett could be seen as 'toeing the IPPC line.'

But on the other hand if 'mitigation', to the extent that it is 'successful', merely leads to climate change sceptics citing the effects of the 'success' as evidence that the climate change problem doesn't exist in the first place, then this is a problem that climate-friendly scientists obviously need help in facing. Perhaps programmes like the BBC 'Global Dimming' documentary are part of an attempt by climate scientists to get out of the box they have been put into.

But they are an attempt that is not altogether successful, because hysteria, overstatement and striving for short-term effect cannot subsitute for frank, intelligent presentation of all the parameters that are in operation.

[javelina]

.....But they are an attempt that is not altogether successful, because hysteria, overstatement and striving for short-term effect cannot subsitute for frank, intelligent presentation of all the parameters that are in operation.....

Forgive my bluntness here, but if people want to continue to listen to the voices of "hysteria" to the exclusion of the many voices who are simply putting the facts out there as best they can I guess that's their business.

I for one am sick unto death of seeing so much time being wasted on attention to extremists on both sides of this issue. Do people not understand that these extremists are in fact engaged in the same disgusting game?

.....Both Gelbspan and Leggett could be seen as 'toeing the IPCC line.'.....

Holy Cow.

I guess we might as well dismiss their years of hard work exposing the spurious games of the fossil fuel cabal as worthless, then, yes?

Wayne, where are you coming from with all this? I don't understand.

[Wayne Hall]

javelina said:

Forgive my bluntness here, but if people want to continue to listen to the voices of "hysteria" to the exclusion of the many voices who are simply putting the facts out there as best they can I guess that's their business.

I'm afraid I'm having some difficulties understanding what you mean also, Javelina, when you say that it's their business.

What is relevant is what more mainstream audiences are exposed to.

If they are exposed to hysterical voices, they will pay attention for a short period, and then they will go back to whatever they were doing before.

I for one am sick unto death of seeing so much time being wasted on attention to extremists on both sides of this issue. Do people not understand that these extremists are in fact engaged in the same disgusting game?

[/color]
[/quote]

This was more or less the point that I was making, except that I don't think all the people involved, e.g. with the BBC "Global Dimming" documentary are/were cynics or distorters. Most of them undoubtedly thought that what they were doing is what they should be doing.

I guess we might as well dismiss their years of hard work exposing the spurious games of the fossil fuel cabal as worthless, then, yes?

This is a major misunderstanding of the point I was/am trying to make.

Exposure of what the fossil fuel cabal has had to say about climate change has been valuable.

Unfortunately we have not yet been provided with similarly valuable documentation on the activities of that branch of the fossil fuel cabal that focused its attention on 'chemtrails' activists and set about disorganizing them/us.

[javelina]

.....What is relevant is what more mainstream audiences are exposed to.

If they are exposed to hysterical voices, they will pay attention for a short period, and then they will go back to whatever they were doing before.....

I can't say I disagree with this as it does unfortunately and in general seem to be the case where "mainstream audiences" are concerned.

I hold the media responsible for the couching of empirical data from the research community in quasi-hysterical language - language which, I might add, seems deliberately chosen for its capacity to convey ambiguity if not total obfuscation.

I know this is asking a lot - believe me, I know this - but if people would go straight to the relevant literature, using a few keywords from media reports on, say, atmospheric CO2 concentration, stratospheric ozone depletion, regional increase in sea-surface temperatures, expansion of marine "dead zones" offshore of major population centers, retreating glacial mass, increasingly chaotic regional weather patterns, regional drought, massive crop failure, etc. - if people would take a few minutes to go directly to the studies referenced (however briefly) in the media they would see for themselves exactly what the scientists are observing and documenting. No (media-facilitated) "hysteria" involved. Just the facts.

.....This was more or less the point that I was making, except that I don't think all the people involved, e.g. with the BBC "Global Dimming" documentary are/were cynics or distorters. Most of them undoubtedly thought that what they were doing is what they should be doing.....

I agree with this.

.....This is a major misunderstanding of the point I was/am trying to make.

Exposure of what the fossil fuel cabal has had to say about climate change has been valuable.

Unfortunately we have not yet been provided with similarly valuable documentation on the activities of that branch of the fossil fuel cabal that focused its attention on 'chemtrails' activists and set about disorganizing them/us.....

OK, I see what you were getting at.

However, it's unfortunate that so much energy is being given to the relatively "specialized" group of goons who are obsessed with harrassing 'chemtrails' activists. They've been doing this for the last 6-7 years that I'm aware of - but - it is very apparent that most of their attention is focused on those whose concern regarding the condition of our skies also includes a more broad-based concern for the context within which this highly-observable activity is taking place. In other words, the 'activists' who get the most "attention" are those with the best research skills and sufficient grasp of the research literature to connect the data with what they (and all observant people) are actually witnessing at this point. And that's not just 'chemtrails'.

[halva]

Do we have anything to say to 'Hoggle' at this URL
www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=179&threadID=44284&tstart=0

(or indeed to David Reay? I wrote to him privately a few days ago. He has not answered (yet?)