We need a geoengineering forum..."Chemtrail" properly geoengineering, threads do not belong instan

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Your own "Canadian study" describes numerous methods SO2 application, as does Mat's CFR report. Why are we focusing on aerosol SRM mitigation? Is that the only type of geoengineering you've ever considered, or is it the only one that depends upon spraying airplanes?

Who is "carrying out geoengineering while saying they are not?"

Actually, the CFR paper DOES discuss risks as well as benefits.
Who is it that "is implementing" stratospheric SO2 injection?

That's probably why it HASN'T been done! Who exactly has dumped "tons of aerosols" into the stratosphere, and for how long?

Or not. We survived Mt. Pimatubo and Eyjafjallajökull, actual injections of "tons of SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere."

While I agree that AGW is not proven, there are many who are already committed to spend $100,000,000,000 per year to fight it, or just "climate change," regardless of the cause.

Even so, none of them have endorsed stratospheric SO2 injection as one of their "solutions."

And got caught within a couple of years of doing so "in secret."

Why hasn't anyone "caught" the SO2 injectors, after almost 20 years?

jw

I've already pointed out how they remorsefully bemoan they just HAVE to implement it for our own good as the good of the many outweighs the good of the few and it's a necessary evil... BULL CRAP. This is psychological leading. Doesn't take a degree in psychology to see through their ploy. I watch peoples actions, not their words.

Everyone is waking up to their actions and that has them alarmed.

The Canadian study does mention others in it's first 7-8 pages giving an overview of geoengineering, but It spends the rest of the 84 pages of the paper about introducing aerosol particulates through airships if you care to read it. That is what the paper is about despite your obvious misleading twist.

I'm waiting for you to present any geoengineering data if you don't want to discuss stratospheric injection of aerosol particulates... I even presented more than one in my last post, you pointed out the Canadian post mentions others so I am not the one not presenting others. You keep suggesting it. Please do present some.

We see though the bull poop. Government agentcies are on full swing trying to mitigate this as BTS pointed out.

I dont' know, why don't you tell me who is implementing geoengineering? I would love to know. Enlighten us.

Good question, you tell me who is inserting particulate aerosols into our atmosphere. I know they have put barium in in conjunction with HAARP as show in some of the links above. You suggesting they are not doing what they have already admitted? Please do enlighten us.

Yep, we survived it. What happens if they cool down the climate by So2 injections and more volcanos go off and push us into an ice age? What if they use aluminum and toxify the soil to the point only Monsanto's aluminum resistant seed grows? What if these chemicals kill off vast numbers of birds, bees, snakes, fish, frogs, and other wildlife?

So why fight something they can't prove exists without data manipulation despite budgets in the BILLIONS?

If they haven't suggested it why is it throughout these papers as suggested ways? Alice in wonderland logic there.

They deny their newest planes which get labeled as UFO's for years too... doesn't mean people aren't seeing them. Deny everything.. isn't that their motto? How long was the B2 and F117 labeled as UFOs while being used operationally? Governments do keep secrets.

Who said it was 20 years? Think that was you.




posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jdub297
 

Again, the "Canadian study" focused strictly on equatorial applications. Well-above off-the-shelf 747s usual ceiling. That is the only study I've specifically addressed.
What's your point; that airplanes are spraying geoengineering aerosols in the "mid latitudes?" Who says so?

Care to look at global flight paths and tell me where they are concentrated.??
I'll give you a tip, it ain't the equator...


I have. They show no spraying of geoengineering areosols.
"Flight Tracker," "FlightAware," and "Aeroseek" do not show this. Which ones do?

jw



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jdub297
 

Again, the "Canadian study" focused strictly on equatorial applications. Well-above off-the-shelf 747s usual ceiling. That is the only study I've specifically addressed.
What's your point; that airplanes are spraying geoengineering aerosols in the "mid latitudes?" Who says so?

Care to look at global flight paths and tell me where they are concentrated.??
I'll give you a tip, it ain't the equator...

I have. They show no spraying of geoengineering areosols.
"Flight Tracker," "FlightAware," and "Aeroseek" do not show this. Which ones do?
jw


Why do you continually twist things??
I was correctly pointing out that planes spend very little time at the equator..

You try to baffle with BS but it ain't working...



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

The problem here, is that this thread appears bogged down in airplanes spraying chemicals, which have NOT been shown to be occurring, and which have NOT been shown to have any effect on the atmosphere, much less people at ground level.

The title of the thread doesn't speak in future tense. It refers to altering "chemtrail" topics to "geoengineering" topics. Want me to quote it?

We need a geoengineering forum..."Chemtrail" properly geoengineering, threads do not belong instan



Is anyone going to present something other than potentially spraying airplanes?

Is anyone going to talk about the multitude of present day, non secret geoengineering projects?

Even if we limit the discussion to AGW mitigation there are many proposals that ARE already being tested and implemented:

1. Iron fertilization. Deliberately stimulating plant growth in the ocean with the aim that the excess material will be permanently sequestered in the deep sea. This would supposedly remove carbon from the atmosphere.
This has been tried and failed disastrously. Plans are in the works for a different location and different application, but it is still going on.

2. Cloud whitening. Spraying seawater droplets into marine clouds to increase their reflectivity. This would also theoretically lower the amount of heat reaching Earth.
Tried and failed, at small- scale and large-scale trials. These were even the topic of a Discovery Channel (I think) series of numerous well-intentioned, but poorly researched geoengineering theories. Most of these actually put more CO2 into the atmosphere than they removed!

3. Atmospheric carbon capture. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere with a chemical absorbent (“scrubbers”) and then sequestering it. Again, another failure, and part of the TV series.

4. Geochemical carbon capture. Removing CO2 by using chemical pools to transform it to a dissolved or solid state. Tried in a football stadium and used more CO2-generating energy than it could remove in a large-scale test on the same series.

And what about the numerous other geoengineering projects that do not involve spraying airplanes?

What is the real agenda in this thread?

jw


The real agenda is to discuss how geoengineering threads do not belong instantly in skunkworks (the title got cut) also it's to discuss geoengineering is the vernacular we should be using as that is where all the hard science and political papers are to be found. And not stated in OP but welcomed is any papers you would care to contribute on the subject of geoengineering. I have to get up early So I'm going to log off now. I'll reply further tomorrow night.

Airplanes injecting aerosol particulate into the stratosphere is the main way the papers presented so far suggest to go about geoengineering. Why does this bother you? Feel free to continue discussing other methods. No one has stopped you - just pointed out your obvious twists. But the main topics of this thread were reiterated above.

I already have presented several geoengineering projects through the papers I have presented as you pointed out. Why do you now suggest we are not presenting them?

The aluminum chaff spraying was found to bring down particulates from the upper atmosphere causing allergies and spreading disease just as many geoengineering scientists speculate spraying other particulate matter would also do as discussed in the CFR papers and the movie "What in the world are they spraying" (they talk to several geoengineers in the beginning of the movie. So they are affecting people.

What about them? Do go on.

They tried and failed with the Iron? So they are going ahead with geoengineering? What were the results? What were the side effects? Do you have papers on this, I would be fascinated to read them.

Please present the discovery channel show on cloud whitening, I would love to watch it... so they tried this geoengineering technique? They tried two with bad results does that suggest they might be trying other techniques? I would logically, rationally, assume so... So they do have ways already operational that can introduce particulate mater from aircraft. Do you have any pictures of these planes or papers on the experiments? Did they use military or civilian craft? What systems were used for injecting the particulate mater?

Do you find it troubling that they are engaging in these geoengineering exercises based on an unproven theory, especially one which has been propped up with fraudulent data? That data was presented to the UN by the way.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
I've already pointed out how they remorsefully bemoan they just HAVE to implement it for our own good as the good of the many outweighs the good of the few and it's a necessary evil... BULL CRAP. This is psychological leading. Doesn't take a degree in psychology to see through their ploy. I watch peoples actions, not their words.


You act as if the CFR are the only ones who have looked at this idea, or that all who have endorsed it.
There are many studies that critically point out the uncertainties and the inequities that global aerosol injection could invoke.

The continuing uncertainty also emphasises the extent to which discussions of geoengineering do not constitute an alternative to other approaches to climate change: they are instead just an expansion of those efforts. Taking geoengineering seriously is not a question of opting for some clarifying technological fix—of saying, in effect, forget the politics, here come the sulphates. It is a matter of taking the current problems of decision making in conditions of uncertainty to new levels in order to consider possible worlds that aren’t quite as bad.
Green view: The geography of geoengineering

More criticisn=m in a scientific journal from last year:

it is physically not feasible to stabilize global precipitation and temperature simultaneously as long as atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise. Over time, simulated temperature and precipitation in large regions such as China and India vary significantly with different trajectories for solar-radiation management, and they diverge from historical baselines in different directions. Hence, it may not be possible to stabilize the climate in all regions simultaneously using solar-radiation management. Regional diversity in the response to different levels of solar-radiation management could make consensus about the optimal level of geoengineering difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
www.nature.com...


The Canadian study does mention others in it's first 7-8 pages giving an overview of geoengineering, but It spends the rest of the 84 pages of the paper about introducing aerosol particulates through airships

"Airships" which are in no way limited to 747s, or even mostly comprised if them! These included lighter-than-air craft, rockets and as yet undeveloped aircraft.


if you care to read it.

I read all of it.


I'm waiting for you to present any geoengineering data if you don't want to discuss stratospheric injection of aerosol particulates...


I gave several examples.

Even the chart you "lifted" from BTS and the UK study of options show that stratospheric aerosols are not the only or best option for examination.


I dont' know, why don't you tell me who is implementing geoengineering? I would love to know. Enlighten us.


No one is on a global scale. I've described several attempts to test or implement alternatives with localized effects.


I know they have put barium in in conjunction with HAARP as show in some of the links above.


Are you suggesting that barium is part of a geongineering strategy? That HAARP is?
Show me one published study on either that supports this. Are we going back to accepting YouTube and cherry-picked quotes s support?
Where is the science?


What happens if they cool down the climate by So2 injections and more volcanos go off and push us into an ice age? What if they use aluminum and toxify the soil to the point only Monsanto's aluminum resistant seed grows? What if these chemicals kill off vast numbers of birds, bees, snakes, fish, frogs, and other wildlife?


What if? Is that your idea of science? Aluminum has not "toxif[ied]" the soil anywhere. It is the one of the most abundant components of our planet. What if?

Maybe that's why they aren't doing it!


So why fight something they can't prove exists without data manipulation despite budgets in the BILLIONS?


Again, maybe that's why NOT ONE of the proposed projects to benefit from the redistributed "BILLIONS"
involves SRM. Maybe that's why they aren't doing it.


If they haven't suggested it why is it throughout these papers as suggested ways? Alice in wonderland logic there.


This is bit one method of mitigation. Mt. Pinatubo, et al prove that aerosol SO2 cools the planet. That foes not mean it is being done. All the AGW advocates are screaming that NOTHING is being done, and that the Earth is GETTING WARMER!


They deny their newest planes which get labeled as UFO's for years too... doesn't mean people aren't seeing them. Deny everything.. isn't that their motto? How long was the B2 and F117 labeled as UFOs while being used operationally?


Were they spraying, too? Who's "denying" anything about SRM?" It's discussed all over; no one is taking credit for "curing" AGW, are they?


Governments do keep secrets.


And spend tons of money on things that never come to pass.


Who said it was 20 years? Think that was you.


How about the UNFCCC and the IPCC? Jim Nansen. Phil Jones. Time.
AGW and mitigation have been discussed for a lot longer than you seem to believe.

jw



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


It's news to no one that Governments keep secrets and spend $billions on projects we never hear about..

Do you disagree with that simple statement? Yes or No ??



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze

The real agenda is ... also it's to discuss geoengineering is the vernacular we should be using as that is where all the hard science and political papers are to be found.


If you start from "hard science and political papers" and move straight into specualtion, the Skunkworks is exactly where this belongs.
And the "vernacular we should be using" to discuss what, spraying airplanes?


Airplanes injecting aerosol particulate into the stratosphere is the main way the papers presented so far suggest to go about geoengineering. Why does this bother you?


It doesn't. Presenting the theory as an on-going program does, without the "hard science" to support it. Why would they hide it if it is beneficial and effectively offsets what many believe is the most important threat facing mankind?


The aluminum chaff spraying was found to bring down particulates from the upper atmosphere causing allergies and spreading disease


Aluminum chaff? Now you are stretching. Who says aluminum chaff is effective at SRM?
Allergies and disease? Show me the epidemiological studies that show this, not YouTube.
You are backsliding away from geoengineering, now. More justification for skunkworks.


So they are affecting people.


Show me a scientific paper showing ACTUAL harm from aerosol SRM in the stratosphere..


They tried two with bad results does that suggest they might be trying other techniques?
Yes, and they would show those as well. Why not?


So they do have ways already operational that can introduce particulate mater from aircraft.


Not one of these alternatives involve aircraft. Isn't that why you have ignored them?


Do you find it troubling that they are engaging in these geoengineering exercises based on an unproven theory, especially one which has been propped up with fraudulent data? That data was presented to the UN by the way.


Absolutely! It was pathetic that an organization that professes scientific objectivity would pander to the AGW faithful with such ill-conceived projects. Even show, they were unafraid to show the failures, the unintended consequences and the potential for making an allegedly bad situation worse.

jw



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jdub297
 
It's news to no one that Governments keep secrets and spend $billions on projects we never hear about..

Do you disagree with that simple statement? Yes or No ??


That is a tautology. Everyone keeps secrets and wastes money. So what? Who gives a damn?

Are you suggesting there is a secret program to save people from global warming?

Are you suggesting that geoengineering is something other than what the OP has framed it as: the application of SO2 aerosols in the stratosphere to mitigate climate change?

With all the papers pro and con, who thinks this is a secret?

jw



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 



That is a tautology. Everyone keeps secrets and wastes money. So what? Who gives a damn?


Is that a yes or no?
I thought the question was simple enough..
Do I need to dumb it down for you?



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 





More justification for skunkworks.

SKUNK WORKS


en.wikipedia.org...

Skunk Works is an official alias for Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Development Programs (ADP), formerly called Lockheed Advanced Development Projects. Skunk Works is responsible for a number of famous aircraft designs, including the U-2, the SR-71 Blackbird, the F-117 Nighthawk, and the F-22 Raptor. Its largest current project is the F-35 Lightning II, which will be used in the air forces of several countries around the world. Production is expected to last for up to four decades. The designation "skunk works", or "skunkworks", is widely used in business, engineering, and technical fields to describe a group within an organization given a high degree of autonomy and unhampered by bureaucracy, tasked with working on advanced or secret projects.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 



Everyone keeps secrets and wastes money. So what? Who gives a damn?


Who gives a damn if the government keeps secrets and wastes tax payer money? I DO and so do most taxpayers.

Only those who have money to waste, waste money. Shame on you.


I think it is quite clear whose side your playing for now Jdub.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

reply to post by backinblack
 
You've missed the point completely (surprise, surprise).

Your friend asked whether gov'ts hide facts and waste money. Of course they do.

That has nothing to add the the topic, to the geoengineering discussion or anything except added paranoia: ""Oh my, we know they can do it; what are they hiding?"

How does that simplistic posture prove anything or add anything to an objective assessment of verifiable facts?
It doesn't.
.
jw
edit on 31-3-2011 by jdub297 because: added bib



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Why are geonegineering aficionados so intent on making something out of nothing?

Why not focus on research that shows what we are ACTUALLY doing to ourselves without resort to Youtube nonsense and cut & paste blurbs that leave out the main thrust of the article?

Here's a study on how we are making a mess of the environment with air traffic contrails. No need to resort to speculation. No need to grasp at some "geoengineering" euphemism.

How about straight-forward scientific research?

Contrails impact climate more than planes' carbon emissions



[T]he carbon released by air travel remains a relatively minor part of the global output—the impact of planes results from where they burn the fuel, not the mere fact that they burn it. A study in the brand-new journal Nature Climate Change reinforces that by suggesting that the clouds currently being generated by air travel have a larger impact on the climate than the cumulative emissions of all aircraft ever flown.

arstechnica.com...

According to the latest research, the contrail-to-cirrus transition adds much more to present day warming than CO2, or any proposed geoengineering program. Doesn't this work to counter some of the unbridled advocacy for SRM using aircraft?

As AuroraGeo pointed out, to be effective such a program would require millions of flight and thousands of aircraft each year.

Doesn't sound very effective to me in light of this common-sense observation.

Maybe that's another reason they AREN'T doing it today.

jw



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
This document outlines a plan and the need for the implementation of injected aerosol geoengineering back in 2007 and a timeline that describes full scale global use by 2012.

thehardlook.typepad.com...


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
A Framework to Prevent the Catastrophic Effects of Global
Warming using Solar Radiation Management (Geo-Engineering)

SUPPLEMENT TO
Testimony Before the
United States Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Washington, D.C.
Submitted to the Record
October 3, 2007

In the past 15 years, Solar Radiation Management (SRM) has been examined by two premier scientific groups. Lowell Wood has investigated the practicalities and risks of this approach in considerable depth. He is currently on the staff at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Ken Calderia, of the Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, has done confirmatory work at Carnegie and Livermore.



The Immediate Need for Solar Radiation Management (SRM) Research Regarding the need for solar radiation management (using sulfate particles), Paul J. Crutzen, Nobel Laureate for his work on the ozone hole and considered one of the world’s premier atmospheric physicist, stated last year: “the very best would be if emissions of the greenhouse gases could be reduced so much that the stratospheric sulfur release experiment would not need to take place. Currently, this looks like a pious wish.”



The pictures below show the effect of the predicted sea level rise on the State of Florida. We would lose three major metropolitan cities, Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Saint Petersburg, as well as the nation’s trillion dollar investment at Cape Canaveral potentially by as soon as 2050.



The purpose of the Framework below is to outline how solar radiation management, using stratospheric particles, can be evaluated and employed with complete certainty and within the time needed to prevent the most catastrophic effects of global warming. The Framework below is based on solar radiation management (SRM) as detailed by Alan Carlin (2007a and 2007c), and as conceived by Wood, Caldeira and others.



The Framework would consist of five core elements, each of which is essential to application of the proposed geo-engineering. These five elements reflect the concerns of the National Academy of Sciences and the consensus of climate scientists and economists conducting both science and policy research on geo-engineering.

1. Precisely Define Solar Radiation Management Objectives: In light of the potential to apply SRM incrementally, much like adjustment of a global thermostat, and in light of the potential for any nation or consortium to use SRM without “permission,” the first element of the Framework is specification of the objective being sought so that any nation or international body would have a basis for responsible action. Objective (3), below, discusses the need for an international body to address actual implementation of SRM.



2. SRM Research: Although there is no question that a nation could successfully implement SRM by doing no more than replicating the major volcanic eruptions, Dr. Wood recommends more optimum types of particles and more targeted placement of them into the stratosphere. We need research on each of the following:

a. The optimal size, composition, and placement of particles (elevation and geographic coverage) and determination of the optimum radiation wavelengths to be reduced, in order to achieve the Framework Objective;

b. The particle quantities required as a function of temperature reduction (energy balancing) as needed to meet the Framework Objective, i.e., in order to preserve the historic mass of all three major ice sheets;

c. Evaluation of the optimal transport mechanism to carry particles into stratosphere;

d. Identification of, and evaluation of means to eliminate or reduce, potential adverse non-temperature environmental effects of particles; For further discussion, see, references listed in footnote 119 of Carlin, 2007a.



3. Design and implement an institutional setting for use of SRM Professor Barrett, Director of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, argues there is an immediate need to examine how to manage SRM use through an international body, a policy recommendation also made by Alan Carlin of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Barrett 2007, Carlin 2007). To prevent the political pathologies observed in the operations of the IPCC and the UN Environmental Program, an international institution patterned after the Federal Reserve Board or the International Monetary Fund might be expected to provide neutral leadership. Such an apolitical body would likely operate in small incremental steps, much as the Federal Reserve and the IMF do with monetary policy. Recalling that SRM could be implemented by a single country with the needed financial and technological resources, this element of the Framework would serve to ensure international consensus on this global activity.



5. Proposed Timeline
This Framework contemplates a five phase approach that would likely achieve its objective of
guaranteeing prevention of catastrophic sea level rise within five years.

Phase I – Laboratory Research and Institutional Development: A consortium to
include the national leaders in SRM, would conduct preliminary research and technical
development work and draft a detailed plan to accomplish the necessary pilot scale
testing of SRM, to include funding requirements. The ideal leader of this consortium
would be Professor Wood (with significant assistance by Professor Caldeira and his
colleagues), and would include institutional experts such as Professor Barrett at Johns
Hopkins. Most physical research would involve laboratory scale physics and chemistry,
as well as computer simulations, modeling, and analyses of the kind routinely conducted
by climate scientists today. Simultaneously, the institutional research branch would
identify alternative means to regulate and manage SRM use, to include formation of a
specific objective such as presented in the first Element above. The plan would include a
detailed proposal for formation of a control institution to test and regulate the use of
SRM. The plan would ideally be reviewed and accepted by experts from a very wide
spectrum of relevant disciplines (18 months, $3.5 million estimated).

Phase II: Careful real world testing of subscale versions of SRM at gradually increasing
scales to verify any remaining questions and development of revised implementation
plan; appointment and organization of the SRM control organization (18 months).


Phase III: Review research results and propose and take comment on an SRM schedule
of events. This would be the first major action of the international SRM control body. It
would include a reexamination of the objective to ensure adequate global support (18
months).

Phase IV: Solar Radiation Management (SRM) begins under international control
through the SRM control body. Implementation would be transparent and would include
continuing monitoring and reporting of physical effects as well as and semi-annual plan
revisions based on new information gained.
Full SRM for the geographic area
selected/world would be realized within weeks of full implementation. Note that if the
quantities are correctly selected, it would be possible to design SRM so that no further
warming of the area selected/world would occur after that time regardless of other
climatic events as long as an appropriate level of particles is maintained.

Phase V: Maintenance of SRM system based on continued comparisons between
objectives (element 1 above) and actual achievements. The SRM program, if effective,
would be expected to continue until no longer needed (when greenhouse gases are
adequately controlled), and could be expected to remain in place for a century.

For a more lengthy discussion on some of the concepts underlying this Framework, see Carlin,
2007.


SOURCE FILE
thehardlook.typepad.com...
edit on 31-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 



That has nothing to add the the topic, to the geoengineering discussion or anything except added paranoia: ""Oh my, we know they can do it; what are they hiding?"

How does that simplistic posture prove anything or add anything to an objective assessment of verifiable facts?
It doesn't.


Verifiable facts??
Fact..They have sprayed dangerous chemicals on unsuspecting civilians.
Fact..They have the equipment to do it..
Fact..They briefed military to lie to civilians if questioned..
Fact..It was decades before the public was made aware..
Fact..$billions are spent without public scrutiny every year..

So the question is not if they would or could do it, but merely if they still are doing it..
edit on 31-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

the question is not if they would or could do it, but merely if they still are doing it..


And, not ONE published peer-reviewed study shows they are.

There is no science behind "chemtrails," only fearmongering and pandering to the hopelessly gullible.

jw



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by backinblack
 

the question is not if they would or could do it, but merely if they still are doing it..

And, not ONE published peer-reviewed study shows they are.
There is no science behind "chemtrails," only fearmongering and pandering to the hopelessly gullible.
jw


Gee whiz, no peer reviewed papers on secret Government spraying, what a frekin shock..


It is a FACT we didn't know about the other cases until decades later...

I don't know if they are still spraying or if they are, what are they spraying..
But to simply say 100% that they are not merely because there is no current evidence that is peer reviewed simply disregards past facts..



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

This document outlines a plan and the need for the implementation of injected aerosol geoengineering back in 2007 and a timeline that describes full scale global use by 2012.


So, if the planning is so thoroughly documented, then the implementation must be as well.

Somebody has to take "credit" for this "Earth-saving" science.

Show use the results of the test, the actual reductions in AGW from implementation.

You cannot and your speculative fearmongering falls by the wayside.

Can't you even pretend to understand the science behind your cut & paste agglomerations?

jw



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

This document outlines a plan and the need for the implementation of injected aerosol geoengineering back in 2007 and a timeline that describes full scale global use by 2012.


So, if the planning is so thoroughly documented, then the implementation must be as well.

Somebody has to take "credit" for this "Earth-saving" science.

Show use the results of the test, the actual reductions in AGW from implementation.

You cannot and your speculative fearmongering falls by the wayside.

Can't you even pretend to understand the science behind your cut & paste agglomerations?

jw





I choose to DENY IGNORANCE............... In response to your question.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297And, not ONE published peer-reviewed study shows they are.

There is no science behind "chemtrails," only fearmongering and pandering to the hopelessly gullible.


But there is plenty of science behind geoengineering and injecting aerosol particulates into the stratosphere. So let's leave chemtrials for other threads.

The problem is, I don't trust our government to prticipate in horendous atrocities. They have a proven track record such as the Tuskegee syphilis experiment

For the most part, doctors and civil servants simply did their jobs. Some merely followed orders, others worked for the glory of science. ”

— Dr John Heller, Director of the Public Health Service's Division of Venereal Diseases

How many civil servants are just doing their geoengineering jobs? You've already listed several geoengineering experiments that they have tried and failed. The results of some of these theories could be mass deaths.

Our government has a proven history of performing atrocities. MK ULTRA, Tuskegee, Agent Orange, Radiation Experiments, Banana Republics, on and on and on... I'm sure what is not known is much worse than what IS known.

This is called putting things in perspective. Viewing current events with historical lenses. This is not fear mongering, and the hopelessly gullible are those who blithely believe a government which has time and again lied and misrepresented. How can you with a clear conscience do such?
edit on 31-3-2011 by pianopraze because: formatting





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join