Navigation Menu

Terminology, Psychology and the Subtleties of Reaching People

Look-Up is in the process of morphing. We all know the phrase if you can’t beat them join them, well we are re-inventing this principle, but in a trojan horse kind of way. We are about to go back on our strongly held belief to stick to using the word chemtrails. The term chemtrails was coined by the military many years ago and was first documented in a USAF training manual dated 1990.

The official definition is as followsdefinition

The last line of the definition above summarises perfectly the essence of the problem we face, or faced until CEC14 in Berlin. The mere mention of the word immediately provokes a knee-jerk reaction, and often people will simply switch off, smirk or even get angry. We think we know why that is happening, and it involves the use of NLP on television, but it’s another article entirely.

So after trying relentlessly to convince the world of their existence we thought it pointless, and even counter-productive, to continue swimming against the tide, when the Climate Engineering movement is flowing ever faster in the opposite direction. Look-Up.org.uk attended the Climate Engineering Conference 2014 in Berlin recently and we organised a presentation to some of the world’s top scientists, and organisers of the event. “Presenting Evidence And Theory Of Current Atmospheric Aerosol Spraying Programs”. We have discussed this elsewhere in more detail, but the point is we are now part of the official debate. In view of this we feel it is time to flow with the debate and continue to be part of it, and that entails using the same terminology. If we cannot be taken seriously by either public or scientists when we speak of chemtrails, then the simple answer is to speak to them in their own language, and approach the public on the same level as the ‘proposed’ climate engineering movement. We chose the title of the presentation very carefully for that reason as well as to make it clear our focus was purely aerosols, and not other forms or SRM or carbon capture.

The great thing about the Climate Engineering Conference 2014 event was that it put the topic very firmly on the map, and hence up for public acceptance and debate. From the organiser’s perspective that was the intention so as to ease the public into accepting the ideas behind it. Little did they know though that we would appear (myself and Terry Lawton*) to not only attend and ask many very awkward questions, but to make a presentation and become part of that debate. We can now take full advantage of that fact. Nobody can now deny that this is real technology, and there is an entire industry based on it. The official line is that the technology is still being developed. Obviously we know this not to be true, but again, let’s work with it, rather than against it, and talk about the proposed technology and show people that it would produce exactly the type of effects that we see now, so to then accept it is happening already is a very small step. That is far less crazy, and much more palatable to most people in the street than talking about chemtrails.

We now feel that once the public is able to accept that this is already happening, it will follow naturally for them to question what they are spraying and its potential health effects, so we don’t need to focus so hard on the poisoning us bit at this stage. This way we cannot be discredited or ridiculed as we are discussing the very same thing as the world’s top climate scientists. The only difference is we have proof that it is already happening. Some may see this as a cop-out, but actually we think it is a very clever move. We will be subtly re-writing much of the content of the website to reflect this change in policy over the next few weeks.

This does not mean we will not acknowledge the word chemtrails, quite the opposite, we will simply refer to it as one of the theories being considered in the overall debate, alongside the deniers, and the in-betweeners – people who accept that climate engineering is happening, but are not sure if it is harmful. It also does not mean we will not be discussing the possible harmful effects. The problem is still that there is little, if any hard, conclusive evidence, as yet, of the harmful effects so we can only speculate, but rest assured we will.

We thought the best way to distinguish between the climate engineering program and chemtrails is the debate surrounding whether or not some, or all, of the various programs we see in our skies, is designed to be harmful or not. That is essentially the underlying definition of the word chemtrails in most people’s minds anyway. We feel it is now important to take a more neutral stance and present the evidence as we see it, rather than do the usual point-and-shout about poison thing that we are all inclined to do. We do not feel that is working well enough to be effective on a large-scale, and we need to really start turning this around very soon if we are stand a realistic chance of gaining enough support to put an end to it before it is officially approved, which is our greatest fear. With the recent UN Green House Gas Bulletin bleating about the imminent danger of CO2 levels, we feel the UN, IPCC, SRMGI, and the IASS and their sponsors the Club of Rome etc are now starting to push hard for that to happen soon.

Another recent quote (from memory as we can’t trace it) was “we are running out of time to save the world from the effects of global warming”. Strong words, and words that indicate the increasing desperation of the organisations behind this poli-comm movement. We can only interpret this as we are running out of time to expose and stop this before they legalise it.

There is a further point to make which is to do with the subtleties of terminology. We are all very used to hearing the terms Climate Change. The term Climate Engineering therefore, is only a small step from that term, and easy to understand even for the uninitiated on the street. It’s changing so they want to engineer it, or from our perspective, it’s changing because they are  engineering it. The questions that arise from the latter will follow naturally, but if we can get people to accept the fist step, our job is nearly done. So we think this really is the way forward.

We very much hope this make sense to people. We feel it is a more effective way to make progress, so we are perceived by the public as part of the mainstream debate and not a bunch of fringe, conspiracy-theorists as some now see us.

If there is general consensus on this then hopefully others will also follow suit and we can all start speaking the same language as the scientific community. If we manage to achieve this, we will merge in with the internal opposition within the scientific community and bolster their opposition to climate engineering, and hopefully draw the public in with us at the same time, so as to make a large and effective opposition to the program as a whole.

We look forward to people’s comments on Facebook

 

Ed

 

* Terry Lawton is an independent campaigner and has no affiliation with Look-Up.org.uk. We paid for Terry to attend CEC14, as the event was too big to cover alone. We fully endorse him though, along with Paul Fitch, as two of the UK’s leading campaigners against Climate Engineering.

 

======================================================================================================

Further reading:

IASS