Joined: 04 Apr 2003
|Ros. Peterson's controversial interview with Roxy Lopez
Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:00 pm
Comment from halva:
This development is not news in the sense of introducing a new factor, or something that was not already known about Rosalind Peterson. Almost from the beginning of her career as an activist against aerosol spraying Rosalind has observed the taboo on using the word “chemtrails”, for the pragmatic reason that the word has been stigmatized as being at the heart of a “hoax” and will therefore not be accepted by a court of law. Rosalind therefore uses the terms “persistent contrails”, “weather modification”, etc.
Her pragmatism for a time appeared to be paying off, in that unlike other chemtrails activists she was invited in 2007 to participate in a United Nations seminar on climate change. http://newyorkskywatch.com/rosalind-peterson-speech-transcript/ But this was a one-off event. She was not invited back, and after the Copenhagen Climate Summit it became clear that she had lost her status as the number one “realpolitiker” in the anti-climate modification/geoengineering milieu to the ETC group and Pat Mooney.
The ETC group also focused its attention on what was “provable”, in their case on geoengineering proposals, which they succeeded at Nagoya in confining – on paper – to the status of proposals, gaining acceptance for a de facto moratorium on implementation.
For me the parting of the ways came with Rosalind when a disagreement with her emerged over the European Union’s campaign to have aircraft emissions included in the IPCC’s emissions trading scheme. This campaign was led inside the European Commission by Stavros Dimas, and was given very radical-sounding support by Friends of the Earth. http://deoxy.org/meme/AviationSmog
My attitude was that in the interests of conceptual clarity, distinctions should be drawn between “aircraft emissions as problem” as in the Dimas/Friends of the Earth stance and “aircraft emissions as solution” as in the geoengineering approach. “Ignoring factors of intentionality versus non-intentionality of aircraft emissions, the militant anti-aviation declarations effectively deflect attention not only from the illegality of what may be surmised to be present governmental activities, but also from the whole logic of geoengineering and thus from its appropriateness or inappropriateness as a solution to climate change.” http://www.spectrezine.org/environment/Hall6.htm
With her unwillingness to talk about anything other than “contrails”, Rosalind Peterson was not interested in making this distinction.
It is true that in her latest interchange with Robert Forgette Rosalind has gone further than I have seen her go before in emphasizing the “unproven” nature of what Robert thinks he can prove to an American court.
Does this have any connection with her non-appearance on the speakers’ list at the impending Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails conference?
Rosalind’s counterposing of electoral activism at the local level to the difficulties of litigation in today’s USA seems to have paid off to an extent e.g. with Long Island Skywatch’s Suffolk County campaign of last year. Cindy Pikoulas, who spearheaded the campaign, did not find that her group’s testimonies were being dismissed as “unproven”. The argument used by the Suffolk County legislature was that “Suffolk County cannot override State, Federal and FAA regulations pertaining to air quality and aircraft emissions.”