Well...all my years of training have finally been utilised.

originally posted by: sophie87
uh maybe try again
a reply to: mrthumpy

Why don't you show us what you're on about then? Be a lot easier that way

a reply to: sophie87

type in 'geoengineering' on the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) website search box and see what you get

And I found this...

Exploration of geoengineering strategies also creates potential risks. The possibility of
quick and seemingly inexpensive geoengineering fixes could distract the public and policy
makers from critically needed efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build society’s
capacity to deal with unavoidable climate impacts. Developing any new capacity, including
geoengineering, requires resources that will possibly be drawn from more productive uses.
Geoengineering technologies, once developed, may enable short-sighted and unwise deployment
decisions, with potentially serious unforeseen consequences.

Therefore, the World Meteorological Organization recommends:

1. Enhanced research on the scientific and technological potential for geoengineering the
climate system, including research on intended and unintended environmental responses.

2. Coordinated study of historical, ethical, legal, and social implications of geoengineering that
integrates international, interdisciplinary, and intergenerational issues and perspectives and
includes lessons from past efforts to modify weather and climate.

3. Development and analysis of policy options to promote transparency and international
cooperation in exploring geoengineering options along with restrictions on reckless efforts to
manipulate the climate system.

www.wmo.int...

Seems they are saying the same thing as most when it comes to geoengineering...it hasn't gotten past the computer model stage where they are studying the best method to do this, and also studying the consequences of geoengineering.

And nobody denies geoengineering isn't real...it just isn't being done outside of the lab.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I don't think you were supposed to actually read that.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I don't think you were supposed to actually read that.

Well you never know, sophie may come back and tell us which bits to read and which bits to ignore

Ah a new chemtrail thread! Always fun to see some action going on in this part of the internetz!

So the score so far in this thread:

We have another Newznose sighting, who provided a snide remark, but no evidence for chemtrails. Same thing for Sophie and Bandersnatch.

So..nothing as far as evidence so far.

The there's azureblue, who has read confessions of an anonymous 'airport/flight manager type', but he doesn't provide anything we can check or verify. More useless 'info'.

Then there's Akira, who is another chemmie who doesn't know the difference between a contrail and weather modification.

Saadad thinks that the KC10 video, which has been long long debunked and explained, is good evidence for chemtrails. Then he wants us to prove that chemtrails aren't happening.

So yeah.. that leaves us with empty hands again. And a nice overview of how a typical chemtrail debate goes. It's like the same thread repeats over and over.. the same arguments are presented again and again, as if this time they are going to be valid evidence for 'chemtrails'.. The same fallacies are presented over and over again (prove that it isn't happening!), and again and again chemmies know nothing of aviation of meteorology.. You'd think that'd be the FIRST thing to learn about if you want to be able to tell what's normal and what isn't as far as contrails are concerned.

None of this seems to matter. You can explain why none of this amounts to anything, but the same people just show up in other threads again and go on as if nothing happened. Do people ever learn?

And it's not as if the chemtrail belief is harmless. The other day there was the group of hackers who tried to crash one of NASA's global hawks, believing that NASA is involved in chemtrails.

originally posted by: payt69

Saadad thinks that the KC10 video, which has been long long debunked and explained, is good evidence for chemtrails.

Not forgetting

a reply to: payt69

OK but what about that well known scientists that say they are spraying aluminium?

Are they nuts?

a reply to: saadad

OK but what about that well known scientists that say they are spraying aluminium?

Names and how does one know what is being supposedly sprayed when not one person has ever been up and actually tested these so called chemtrails in the air?

Wow I didn't realize there were still chemtraillers out there. I thought they would haver moved on to the next hot rumor.

originally posted by: saadad
a reply to: payt69

OK but what about that well known scientists that say they are spraying aluminium?

Are they nuts?

What scientists are those? How are they spraying and for what purpose?

I think you've started from the wrong end. Are you familiar with the physics involved with contrails? You do know that contrail persistence is a well known phenomenon in those circles right? In fact they're just like cirrus clouds, which are found at the same altitude.

Anyway I'd love to see you provide a link or something that takes us to those scientists that believe 'they' are spraying aluminum.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: payt69

Saadad thinks that the KC10 video, which has been long long debunked and explained, is good evidence for chemtrails.

Not forgetting

Good point..

But as you see, news on what's debunked and what's not goes slow in chemtrail circles. The same nonsense that did the rounds years ago still draws people in today, apparently.

a reply to: payt69

I m not expert on thus field I m just curious. I read a story about scientist claiming that airplanes poison us from sky with aluminium. I put a link in previous replyes.

I googled a name of this scientists and it returns that this guys are real. So what are they talking about?

originally posted by: saadad
a reply to: network dude



I read this article: www.99cento.com...

Here is the link, some guys debunked video and I agree with that, but what about names of those scientists? Did this website lie? I googled this scientists and they are real deal. So what happen with them to say this lies if this is not true?

a reply to: saadad

It appears he is a scientist that went a bit off the rails. He was shunned from the science community for his theory on the earth's origins.

I am not a fan of killing the messenger, but in this case, I think it's kind of important to understand the messenger, and put him in proper context.

boingboing.net...

He offers nothing new to the debate other than his opinion, so much like Ted Gunderson, what we seem to have here is an appeal to authority, and not much else. (IMHO)

Ultimately, it's up to you to decide who you wish to believe and why.

originally posted by: saadad

originally posted by: saadad
a reply to: network dude



I read this article: www.99cento.com...

Here is the link, some guys debunked video and I agree with that, but what about names of those scientists? Did this website lie? I googled this scientists and they are real deal. So what happen with them to say this lies if this is not true?

I neither know nor care what happened, I'm more interested in what they say. And if it's bunk then it's bunk no matter who they are

a reply to: 3danimator2014

a girl my wife hates as shes a shameless flirt with me...and is very pretty

You have already lost.
She's pretty.
That's all it takes in this world.

a reply to: saadad

Here is the link, some guys debunked video and I agree with that, but what about names of those scientists?

Just see who is pushing his agenda and that should tell you about him.

Did this website lie?

More like misinformed.

I googled this scientists and they are real deal. So what happen with them to say this lies if this is not true?

But he can still be wrong.

Nothing happens to them when they lie...they just lie more to cover the original lie, until it gets to the point you just can't lie anymore.

Then they admit they were wrong...just like Rosalind Peters did.