Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

G. Edward Griffin Goes On Record in Video About Chemtrails Conspiracy

page: 2
49
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummerAnd finally, I came here for a variety of reasons but I enjoy trying to help people from falling for nonsense whenever possible. "Chemtrails" are nonsense, so here I am.


Why is it that people who provide their commentary as a "public service" are the most obnoxious?

I'm convinced there is something going on in the skies we are not being told about, and I certainly don't need a "savior" to rescue me from my ignorance. It's rather blissful.




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 

Using your mind means not taking everything you see in a youtube video at face value. It means going to the source and actually reading it. I don't know about you but I have a hard time reading without using my mind. My eyes just see marks on a page, my mind figures out what they mean and my mind tells me that the CFR is not saying anything should be done now. In fact they are saying the opposite.

The Council on Foreign Relations is very cautious about geoengineering, constantly stressing the unknowns and risks of such endeavors. You say the CFR has an "IMMENSE" influence. If that's the case, wouldn't the world's governments pay heed and approach the topic with extreme caution?

From the briefing for the 2008 Unilateral Geoengineering workshop:

There are a variety of strategies, such as injecting light-reflecting particles into the stratosphere, that might be used to modify the Earth’s atmosphere-ocean system in an attempt to slow or reverse global warming. All of these "geoengineering" strategies involve great uncertainty and carry significant risks. They may not work as expected, imposing large unintended consequences on the climate system. While offsetting warming, most strategies are likely to leave other impacts unchecked, such as acidification of the ocean, the destruction of coral reefs, and changes in composition of terrestrial ecosystems.

www.cfr.org...

Yes, during the workshop possible means of mitigation were discussed. But workshop was not recommending action. It was addressing means of preventing the possible unilateral use of such measures and controlling their use if climate change reaches an emergency level.

This workshop will focus on the question of strategies for constraining and shaping geoengineering. We will explore formal, legal strategies as well as informal efforts to create norms that could govern testing and deployment of geoengineering systems and their possible undesirable consequences. We will probe whether it is possible to limit the use of geoengineering to circumstances of collective action by the international community in the face of true global emergencies and what might happen when there are disputes over when the emergency “trigger” should be pulled.



At the workshop we should discuss what norms should govern geoengineering and how they might gain widespread adherence. The norms might include the need for collective open research and risk-averse assessment, as well as full transparency in environmental assessments of geoengineering options. Special norms might be created to require that deployment of geoengineering systems or experiments be done only with international teams and include extensive assessment to monitor actual effects. Special “red teams” might be required to assess possible harms. Additional norms may relate to minimizing and compensating for harms created by geoengineering.


[edit on 4/14/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Of course they spray chemicals in the air. China already openly admits to modifying its weather by spraying chemicals in the air. Hell, I can specifically remember hearing about the technology for the first time in 2nd grade! Bills have even been before Congress asking for open federal funding for the military to do this.

If you don't believe the military would do this, you are extremely naive, that's all I can say. The technology is there, the capability is there, the interest is there...
And when we finally revolt against this government I say we use all the sheep responsible for the mass ignorance and apathy as human shields, and make them useful for a change.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
It is always fun to watch the mental gymnastics required
when ignorance is embraced.
Big goofy pictures and
petty insults combined with childish name calling, and lots of
Kool-Aid.


Also wanted to post this very recent news, what has gotten into
the New York Times that they report on this? Geoengineering!
Whaddaya know!



March 31, 2010

One step on that road was a big meetingon geoengineering science and policy questions at the Asilomar Conference Center in northern California last week. The result is intensifying debate over what is still widely viewed as a last-ditch option should worst-case projections of warming pan out. The questions transcend simple worries about environmental impacts. The biggest, perhaps, could be one of global diplomacy. Who gets to set the Earth’s thermostat? Russia and Maldives would probably have entirely different views.


List of Attendees at the most recent conference-

ASILOMAR INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
CLIMATE INTERVENTION TECHNOLOGIES
SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Dr. Michael MacCracken, Chief Scientist, Climate Institute, Chair

Dr. Paul Berg, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University, Advisor and
Honorary Chair

Dr. Paul Crutzen, Max Plank Institute, Germany, and Scripps
Institution of Oceanography, US (corresponding member)

Dr. Scott Barrett, Lenfest Professor of Natural Resource Economics,
Columbia University, US

Dr. Roger Barry, Director of the World Data Center for Glaciology and
Distinguished Professor of Geography, University of Colorado, US

Dr. Steven Hamburg, Chief Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund,
US

Dr. Richard Lampitt, Senior Scientist, National Oceanography Center
and associated professor, University of Southampton, UK

Dr. Diana Liverman, Co-Director of the Institute for Environment and
Society and Professor of Geography and Regional Development,
University of Arizona, US.
Professor of Environmental Science at the
University of Oxford and Senior Fellow in the Environmental Change
Institute, Oxford University, UK.

Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, Heinz Center Biodiversity Chair at the Heinz
Center for Science and the Environment, US

Dr. Gordon McBean, Professor, Departments of Geography and
Political Science and Director of Policy Studies at the Institute for

Catastrophic Loss Reduction, The University of Western Ontario,
London, Canada.

Dr. John Shepherd, Professorial Research Fellow in Earth System
Science, School of Ocean and Earth Science, National Oceanography

Centre, University of Southampton, and Deputy Director (External
Science Coordination) of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research, UK

Mr. Stephen Siedel, Vice President for Policy Analysis and General
Counsel at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, US

Dr. Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus and
Research Professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University
of California, San Diego, US

Dr. Thomas Wigley, Professor, University of Adelaide, Australia


dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com...

Also, see another article in The New York Times here:
How To Cool A Planet (Maybe)


PROBLEMS AND EXPERIMENTS 1 Before-and-after images of plankton in an experiment that increased iron in the Pacific. 2 A large mirror that would shield Earth from the Sun. 3 A reservoir in a Palestinian village that is now covered with algae, potentially capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and a crater lake caused by a volcanic eruption. 4 An example of cloud production, the Blur Building by the architects Elizabeth Diller and Ricardo Scofidio, at the Swiss Expo in 2002.

www.nytimes.com...

And of course, we cant forget the greenies, they are getting in on the criticism also.


"Mitigation has to be the priority for action, action far in excess of currently being considered by politicians is needed. It is now clear that mitigation alone cannot keep global temperatures below a safer threshold of 1-1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. However many of the geoengineering options suggested are totally unacceptable due to the adverse environmental or social impacts they bring or risk bringing."........

.....However the idea that geoengineering is in some way a substitute for emissions reductions is crazy.
www.worldchanging.com...

[edit on 14-4-2010 by burntheships]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

Yes.
Geoengineering strategies are being looked at. It would be stupid not to think about it.

From your quote:

The result is intensifying debate over what is still widely viewed as a last-ditch option should worst-case projections of warming pan out.


The worst-case projections are not panning out, are they? Global warming seems to be questionable, doesn't it?


[edit on 4/14/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Of course mitigation is as you phrased it "being looked at".

A list of studies can easliy be searched here:
Google Recent Stratosheric Geoengineering

Of course, I believe the mitigation process is well underway,
and agree with Mr. Griffin.

~~~~

Back to the OP, it seems that the wide reaching consequences of Geoengineering are well known, and were discussed in depth at the recent conference.


Nobody has any clear idea how to resolve the inequalities inherent in geoengineering. One of the most quoted remarks at the conference came from Pablo Suarez, the associate director of programs with the Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre, who asked during one plenary session, “Who eats the risk?” In Suarez’s view, geoengineering is all about shifting the risk of global warming from rich nations — i.e., those who can afford the technologies to manipulate the climate — to poor nations. Suarez admitted that one way to resolve this might be for rich nations to pay poor nations for the damage caused by, say, shifting precipitation patterns. But that conjured up visions of Bangladeshi farmers suing Chinese geoengineers for ruining their rice crop — a legalistic can of worms that nobody was willing to openly explore.



e360.yale.edu...



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


There we go, thats more of what I was expecting from you Phage.


I have read enough of the CFR and military documents, most of which have been posted on ATS at some time or another to convince myself that this is a real phenomenon.

Those documents, combined with the NWO and crappy government track record is enough for me to conclude that we are indeed seeing something coming out of the ass-end of planes that is not merely 'contrail condensation' or a 'persistent contrail'.

I have watched some of the trails here in MT dissipate for hours across the whole sky, and I'm sorry but that # ain't normal.

As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Griffin is accurate in saying that the case is closed. If one government has EVER seeded clouds for a holiday, it is proof of the chemtrail conspiracy.

Sometimes these conspiracies are much simpler than the proponents claim. There doesn't have to be a sinister agenda, but the idiocy of those in power often places others at risk through their idiocy.

They may be trying to save the world, but that doesn't mean that there couldn't be harmful chemicals included in the aerosol spray that we only find out about years down the road.

The road to hell was paved with good intentions.

I say conspiracy confirmed. Again, I will say: Use your eyes people. And by that, I obviously do NOT mean stop using your brains.

Just simply do not let your preconceived notions of 'what is' bias your observations of these trails in the sky.

Del tha Funkee(Gorillaz, Clint Eastwood):

Every sprouting tree
Every child of peace
Every cloud and sea
You see with your eyes
I see destruction and demise
Corruption in disguise
From this f*ckin enterprise
Now I'm sucking to your lies
...
But y'all can see me now cos you don't see with your eye
You perceive with your mind





posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


Great post!


~~~~~


Geo-engineering of weather & climate has a long history:

• 1945: John von Neumann and other leading scientists meet at Princeton and agreed
that modifying weather deliberately might be possible (motivation was “next great war”)

• 1958: US Congress funded expanded rainmaking research (Irving Langmuir, GE)

• Cold War: U.S. military agencies devoted significant funds to research on what
came to be called "climatological warfare”
− one aim was to make the Arctic Ocean navigable by eliminating the ice pack
− extensive cloud-seeding conducted over Ho Chi Minh Trail during Vietnam war, to increase rainfall and bog down the North Vietnamese Army's supply line in mud

• 1975: Mikhail Budyko calculated that if global warming ever became a serious threat, we could counter with just a few airplane flights a day in the stratosphere, burning sulfur to make aerosols that would reflect sunlight away

• 1977: N.A.S. report looked at a variety of schemes to reduce global warming, should it ever become dangerous, and concluded a turn to renewable energy was a more practical solution than geo-engineering of climate
Source: S. Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming, Harvard University Press, 2003
www.aip.org...

3.
Geo-engineering of weather & climate has a long history:
Chapter 18 (pages 433 to 464) and Appendix Q (pages 817 to 835)
devoted to “geo-engineering of climate”
books.nap.edu...
National Academy of Sciences, 1992

4.
Geo-engineering of weather & climate has a long history:
Stephen Schneider, Geo-engineering: could −or should − we do it ?,
Climatic Change, 33, 291, 1996:
Although I believe it would be irresponsible to implement any large-scale
geo-engineering scheme until scientific, legal, and management uncertainties are substantially narrowed, I do agree that, given the potential for large inadvertent climatic changes now being built into the earth system, more systematic study of the potential for geo-engineering is probably needed.

5.
Geo-engineering of weather & climate has a long history:
Two general classifications:

• Carbon control and / or sequestration
− iron fertilization of oceans
− carbon sequestration
− reforestation

• Modification of surface radiative forcing as CO2 rises
− space shield blocking portion of solar irradiance
− stratospheric balloons blocking portion of solar irradiance
− injection of sulfate particles into stratosphere to 􀄹 albedo
− modification of tropospheric clouds to 􀄹 albedo

6.
Geo-engineering of weather & climate has a long history:
Geo-engineering of climate garnered lots of renewed attention
with the publication, in August 2006, of an article entitled:
Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution
to Resolved a Policy Dilemma?
by Paul J. Crutzen : Climatic Change, 77, 211-219, 2006
(1995)

7.
Since August 2006:

• Nov 2006: Geo-engineering workshop, NASA Ames
− led by Robert Chatfield and Max Loewenstein
− 40 page workshop report (event.arc.nasa.gov... )

• Oct 2007: Ken Caldeira, NY Times Op Ed
− Seeding the stratosphere might not work perfectly. But it would be cheap and easy enough
and is worth investigating..
− Think of it as an insurance policy, a backup plan for climate change.
− Which is the more environmentally sensitive thing to do: let the Greenland ice sheet
collapse and polar bears become extinct, or throw a little sulfate in the stratosphere?
The second option is at least worth looking into.

• Nov 2007: Geo-engineering meeting, Harvard University
− led by Daniel Shrag and David Keith
− covered by Science (sciencenow.sciencemag.org...)
Harvard climate researcher James Anderson told the group that the arctic ice was "holding on by a thread" and that more carbon emissions could tip the balance.
The delicacy of the system, he said "convinced me of the need for research into geo-engineering" Anderson said. And 5 years ago? "I would have said it's a very inappropriate solution to the problem."

• Dec 2007: Geo-engineering special session, AGU

• Apr 2008: Geo-engineering special session, EGU

• June 2009: Geo-engineering Options to Respond to Climate Change:
Steps to Establish a Research Agenda, N.A.S. meeting 8
Geo-engineering of weather & climate has a long history:

8.
April 2009 A.P. interview with John Holdren (presidential science
advisor) that stated: The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air. John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geo-engineering the climate is being discussed.
One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort. "It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking
any approach off the table."

9.
Sequestration of CO2 from the Atmosphere:
Oceanic Biology

• Iron's importance to phytoplankton growth and photosynthesis in the ocean dates back to
the 1930s, when English biologist Joseph Hart speculated that the ocean's great "desolate
zones" (areas apparently rich in nutrients, but lacking in plankton activity or other sea life)
might be due to an iron deficiency en.wikipedia.org...

• This observation has led to speculation by numerous scientists that “tanker loads” of iron
powder, deposited in the right place and time, would increase oceanic dissolved iron
content enough to turn these “desolate regions” into oceanic biological havens
www.motherjones.com...

10.
Sequestration of CO2 from the Atmosphere:
Oceanic Biology

• Iron's importance to phytoplankton growth and photosynthesis in the ocean dates back to
the 1930s, when English biologist Joseph Hart speculated that the ocean's great "desolate
zones" (areas apparently rich in nutrients, but lacking in plankton activity or other sea life)
might be due to an iron deficiency en.wikipedia.org...

• This observation has led to speculation by numerous scientists that “tanker loads” of iron
powder, deposited in the right place and time, would increase oceanic dissolved iron
content enough to turn these “desolate regions” into oceanic biological havens

• One concern (among many): will “new organic carbon” reach the deep ocean?
www.bbm.me.uk...

11.
Sequestration of CO2 from the Atmosphere:
Oceanic Biology

• Numerous experiments have been conducted, many with “success”: i.e., plankton blooms
and increased ocean productivity, carbon export associated with regions that have been
fertilized by iron

• A recent German study has shown that diatom population is limited by the availability of
silica, as well as iron (news.bbc.co.uk...)

• Some scientists have long argued that the iron fertilization vision is flawed because:
a) lack of iron not always the limiting factor for growth
b) the diatoms that form are much larger than phytoplankton that populate typical
surface waters (top of the oceanic food chain):
Image: University of Portsmouth
www.twine.com... ed

12.
Sequestration of CO2 from the Atmosphere:
Oceanic Biology

• Numerous experiments have been conducted, many with “success”: i.e., plankton blooms
and increased ocean productivity, carbon export associated with regions that have been
fertilized by iron

• A recent German study has shown that diatom population is limited by the availability of
silica, as well as iron (news.bbc.co.uk...)

• Some scientists have long argued that the iron fertilization vision is flawed because:
a) lack of iron not always the limiting factor for growth
b) the diatoms that form are much larger than phytoplankton that populate typical
surface waters (top of the oceanic food chain):


www.atmos.umd.edu...



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 

It's normal and it's being happening for a long time.

From 1970:

The spreading out of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent conditions exist from 25,000 to 40,000ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.


Contrail development and spreading begins in the morning hours with the start of heavy jet traffic and may extend from horizon to horizon as the air traffic peaks...By mid afternoon, sky conditions had developed into those shown in Fig. 2, an almost solid contrail sheet reported to average 500 m in depth.

journals.ametsoc.org...



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks for confirming that. So what chemicals are in these contrails that scorch the sky?(as you can see, the term 'chemtrail' comes very easily from there, no fringe conspiracy about it)

I think it is so ugly and I for one say it infringes on my rights to a blue sky.




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by beebs
 

My "take" on "chemtrails" is all over ATS.

The lack of science in the video is nothing new. The lack of logic is nothing new. The lack of evidence is nothing new. The leaping to conclusions is nothing new. The video brings nothing new to the table.


Try getting out of bed before noon and going outside and looking up.

The planes (?) come out after sunrise and spray their garbage into the air. Chemtrails stay there for hours and slowly disperse. Contrails do not do this. You say you need evidence, if the thousands of videos over the net isn't enough, just look at the sky ffs.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 

Contrails consist mostly of ice crystals. That is why they expand, the crystals formed in the exhaust of the jet engines act as condensation nucleii for existing water vapor. Other than that, contrails contain the same exhaust gases which all jet engines produce. The same ones which are pretty much invisible. It is only the ice crystals which are visible. They are exactly the same as the ice crystals which make up cirrus clouds.

If you bothered to use your mind and read the link, you would see that.

[edit on 4/14/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

If you bothered to use your mind and read the link, you would see that.

[edit on 4/14/2010 by Phage]


Thanks for the reply again, but not sure you needed to add that little jab in there.

So what accounts for the discrepancy between planes that do leave a 'chemtrail', as opposed to those that do not?

Simply altitude and temp.? Don't get me wrong, it makes perfect sense.

It just blows my mind that simple little ice crystals would stick around for hours. I would happily accept that explanation if the military and gov't did not create such an untrustworthy environment in every other aspect of their beingness. And if they didn't have documents suggesting otherwise...




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


Sorry, must have been the hip hop.

Yes.

While differences in engines (operating temperatures and water vapor emission levels) can produce differences in contrail production, the main reason is the different conditions encountered at different altitudes. It isn't just a matter of temperature; atmospheric pressure and relative humidity also play a role.

Cirrus clouds last for hours. They, like contrails, are composed of ice crystals.

Like it or not, the military and government have very good reasons for secrecy but that doesn't mean that they are doing everything everyone says they are doing or every idea they come up with. There have been proposals for a lot of things that didn't get done. Edward Teller came up with "peaceful" uses for thermonuclear devices, like dredging a harbor. Don't see much of that going on do we?



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer


And finally, I came here for a variety of reasons but I enjoy trying to help people from falling for nonsense whenever possible. "Chemtrails" are nonsense, so here I am.


The same thing happens with all denial movements - it's no different over on the 9/11 Conspiracies forum. Persistent Contrail denial has been around far longer than 9/11 Denial, but only the subject matter differs. Denial is denial is denial.

What we all find is it is virtually useless to try to help people out of these kinds of denial. No amount of reason, logic, and demonstrating the error of claims made ever seems to penetrate. The appeals to ignorance and incredulity are rampant.

We know that contrails and persistent contrails first became evident during World War II when aircraft operated at altitudes high enough for contrails to form. The history books and war museums are littered with photos of bombing runs over Europe and fighter plane engagements, full of contrails. There is no mystery here.

Nothing has changed about them, their formation, or their persistence in the right conditions since then.

The only thing that has changed is the diminished teaching of critical thinking skills in schools and universities over time that would allow today's deniers see the folly of their thinking.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Cusp

I'm convinced there is something going on in the skies we are not being told about


If you are convinced I can only guess you have concrete evidence of this. Please post some, maybe you'll change my mind about "chemtrails"


Why is it that people who provide their commentary as a "public service" are the most obnoxious?


It just seems that way because the truth is so often a buzzkill.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
The appeals to ignorance and incredulity are rampant.


This is an excellent example of projecting the negative qualities of your own arguments onto others, known as Freudian projection.

You are aware that China openly manipulates its weather systems by putting chemicals in the air, right jthomas?

I suppose you had to pick up the slack when HowardRoark was retired.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Very insigtful post, Nice! JThomas is good at that.

Speaking of China


China's air force deployed a "magic-like" range of chemicals and technology to clear Beijing's smoggy air for a grand parade marking the 60th anniversary of Communist China, state media said on Thursday.
Chemists and officials worked for weeks on the country's most ambitious ever attempt at weather modification, with air force technicians fanning out across the region to help teams operate complex equipment, the official Xinhua agency said.

The evening before the parade chemicals were fired into the hazy skies, and a light rain washed the city clean.

Surrounding provinces had already been loading clouds with silver iodide and dry ice, to try and force rain to fall before it reached Beijing, the report added.

"Only a handful of countries in the world could organise such large-scale, magic-like weather modification," said Cui Lianqing, a senior air force meteorologist who said the parade operation was the largest in China's history.

Contingency plans allowed for the teams to use one kind of chemicals to bring down rain in the parade area, and another to hold it off, he told Xinhua.

in.reuters.com...

[edit on 14-4-2010 by burntheships]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
What we all find is it is virtually useless to try to help people out of these kinds of denial. No amount of reason, logic, and demonstrating the error of claims made ever seems to penetrate.


Boy is that ever the truth. But there is always the chance that someone checking into these subjects for the first time may need to see that somebody out there is at least applying reason, logic and demonstrating the error of claims so that they may not fall into the maelstrom of hogwash like so many others. I don't expect to change any minds of the hardcore believers but I will demand evidence to back up their beliefs. Their lack of it is telling enough.





new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join