A response to peer reviewed article “Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret large-scale atmospheric spraying program.”
Recently a ‘peer reviewed’ article titled “Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret large-scale atmospheric spraying program” (Christine Shearer, 2016) was published by Environmental Research Letters in an attempt to “establish a source of objective science that can inform public discourse” in relation to a secret large-scale atmospheric spraying program according to the authors Christine Shearer (Department of Earth System Science, University of California & Near Zero, Carnegie Institution for Science), Mick West (MetaBunk.org), Ken Caldeira (Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science) and Steven J Davis (Department of Earth System Science, University of California & Near Zero, Carnegie Institution for Science).
To anyone familiar with peer reviewed papers and data collection processes the poor design of the article and corresponding questionnaires[1], [2] is immediately apparent; most notably the use of non-scientific terms and ambiguous wording[3] that is liable to generate social desirability bias[4] within respondents. For example the use of the term “secret large-scale atmospheric spraying program” or “SLAP” rather than using familiar scientific terms e.g. geoengineering, solar radiation management etc. Let’s break it down.
Secret [5]
- kept hidden from others : known to only a few people
- keeping information hidden from others
- involving many people or things <Their equipment is suitable for large-scale production.>
- covering or involving a large area <a large-scale map>
- the whole mass of air that surrounds the Earth
- a mass of gases that surround a planet or star
- the air in a particular place or area
- a plan of things that are done in order to achieve a specific result
Read the entire article HERE
View PDF Here
