Navigation Menu

The Berlin Declaration was deliberately sabotaged

The Berlin Declaration attempted to subject SRM to regulation and public approval, so it was sabotaged.

One of the most controversial and indeed revealing sessions of the Berlin Climate Engineering Conference 2014 was the Town Hall Meeting. This meeting was proposed by, and attended by, sceptical scientists who had grave concerns about SRM, how it is being pushed forward without due process and the possible ramifications if it is introduced on the back of a perceived emergency without regulation, without proper trials and without public debate and approval as some of the core group of pro-SRM hardliners aligned with the organisers of the event are calling for.

It seems we were not alone in our suspicions that those people are hellbent on pushing SRM forward to the point of full implementation as soon as practically possible. There seem to be no plans for public debate or public approval and the suspicion of many was that proposed so-called trials would simply lead to full implementation almost immediately.

Watch the meeting on Youtube here.


Berlin Declaration


This meeting laid bare the fear of the organisers and the small clique of scientists and others that we feel are part of the corporate structure behind the event such as David Keith, Clive Hamilton and  Oliver Morton that their plans may be scuppered by those who would prefer a gradual and reasoned approach to SRM. They were all in there ready to sabotage this so as to prevent any form of declaration or agreement, and thereby ensure no public announcements or approval process would ever occur. It seems their intentions, as we had predicted, were to just go ahead and do this as quickly and as quietly as possible.


Jane C.S.Long’s input (21:30) was particularly concerning, as she seems to insinuate that producing a document that simply tries to achieve many sensible and cautious things, is in some way suspicious. So when we look at her profile, again we see she is part of what we consider the ‘complicit organisations’ (those who seek to promote the mindset of climate emergency so as to foster the need to introduce unapproved SRM), so her rather aggressive attack on the document comes as no surprise. Steve’s response clarifies very well that his proposal is entirely justified and makes total sense (our words).

Clive Hamilton uses very clever diversion tactics to not only undermine the document, but also steer the debate round to the governance issue yet again, which was a running theme through the entire event, and yet again fostered exclusively by those who belong to organisation we consider to be behind the climate emergency mindset. We discuss this in more detail here.


The letter also refers to the Oxford Principles and the Asilomar Principles.

The Oxford Principles could be described as a set of principles that advise on the governance and implementation of Climate Engineering.

The Asilomar Principles are are proposed norms and guidelines for climate intervention and remediation research.  They were developed to reduce the risks and set the safety standards associated with conducting such research.”


There seems a very obvious concern among many in the Climate Engineering community that regulation must be introduced and, crucially, before any trials take place. The people we deem to be complicit in the current programs seem to want to avoid this at all cost, and when we listen to these debates with that in mind, it seems clear that this battle is being played out very subtly throughout the entire event and all others like it.

It seems clear to us that those who are what we deem ‘complicit’ are determined to push the world into a perceived state of climate emergency. This will enable governments and those who head the complicit organisations to force implementation of SRM programs without trials, without accountability, and we suspect, without any ability of the public or genuine scientists to be able to monitor or check exactly what is being sprayed. there will be no announcements, no news, no way back.

That is the ruse in a nutshell. We think we have it all figured out and so far everything we see and hear is confirming those suspicions.

3 years on from Berlin CEC2014, we still hear the same old propaganda:


Our climate is reaching a point of no return and urgent measures are needed before it’s too late

It is almost too late for mitigation techniques to be effective

Of all the techniques proposed for engineering the climate only SRM – atmospheric aerosol spraying – will work

A global system of Climate Engineering is unworkable without a system of global governance.

To us it seems glaringly obvious. To others it may seem as if we are subjecting ourselves to confirmation bias, but trust us, we were not looking for these answers and are not comfortable with acknowledging them. Sadly we see no other explanation for the complex web of disinformation, lack of public consultation, virtual silence of governments on the entire subject and the extremely suspicious stance of those few in the scientific community who we consider to be complicit in this exercise of mass environmental subterfuge.


Feature length documentary on the next global event

We will be attending and reporting on the CEC17 event in Berlin this year. We feel this will be the springboard for the clique of pro-SRM hardliners to seek to gain approval from EU states for the official introduction of SRM programs across Europe. it is absolutely crucial we are there to ensure this does not happen, and to report to the public on what these people are up to.

It is also extremely important that we continue to give a voice to the many concerned scientists who have realised this ruse and who are trying hard to prevent it realising its goal – unregulated control of our weather by private corporations.


We think that is completely and utterly unacceptable and we are not alone.

Please support our campaign to raise £25,000 to attend the event and make a feature-length documentary film about it. We realised some time ago that as useful as a website is for those with the time and inclination to read up on this topic, most people will not invest that time, preferring to look at their phones and watch videos. If we make a professionally produced film however, as we did in 2015 for the Climate Engineering Research Symposium 2015, then people will watch it.

Watch our CER15 documentary on Vimeo.


Please visit our projects page and invest in a brighter future by donating.

Projects page

Invest in a brighter future

Donate Now



Further reading:

A review of the session by Andy Parker (IASS)

NB Oliver Morton is the Moderator in Chief of the IASS CEC14 event and clearly one of the most prominent members of what we describe as the core group pro-SRM hardliners promoting the unregulated and unapproved introduction of SRM, so his views and analysis should be viewed with that in mind.

A review of the session by Andrew Lockley. We also consider Andrew to be one of the core group pro-SRM hardliners promoting the unregulated and unapproved introduction of SRM, so clearly his review is designed to be a damage-limitation exercise and pro-SRM propaganda.

Climate Geoengineering Governance

Geoengineering Governance Research