Originally posted by Uncinus
Originally posted by PinealGland
Deal with the raw data I presented, where I mentioned a scientist in that what in the world are they spraying film, where he admits it will harm
their grandkids and doesn't care.
The thing is though, whenever someone DOES focus on what you ask, they give a very reasonable explanation, and then you ignore it and change the
subject. How about you address the issue of all the inaccuracies in "What in the World are they Spraying"? Does not the vast amount of errors in that
film give you ANY concern as to its overall conclusions?
And regarding the scientist you mention, he said "it's not really a moral hazard. It's more like free-riding on our grandchildren." He does not say
he does not care.
By "it" here's he's referring to the problem of global warming. "Moral hazard" has a specific meaning in economics, and it's similar to "free
riding", which is also an economic term. He was clarifying that the moral hazard OF DOING NOTHING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING will primarily impact our
And I know you don't like wikipedia, but the definitions are real, and will help explain what he means.
Do really see what his opinions are, watch his TED talk:
He's actually very thoughtful about the problem, and how to do the right thing. It would see he cares quite a bit.
Alright look, I still go to Wikipedia from time to time if I want information on a discography or some crap like that. And I'm sorry, but I don't
believe in these "wave clouds" or whatever people are calling them. YES, at the risk of sounding crazy, I'm coming out and saying that. YES. So go
ahead and call me crazy all you want, but these wave clouds are ridiculous. Now, if I do something you don't like, please tell me specifically what I
did. Don't just make blanket statements like "people tell you stuff and you just ignore it". What exactly did I ignore? And what exactly is wrong
or inaccurate about the film? As for me saying the 'moral hazard' thing... well I don't know what to say. I guess I was oblivious of that economic
term, the moral hazard one. I read it now and I can't make sense of it. Maybe I'm just tired. I'll try another time.
As for ignoring people's arguments. I apologize if I did that. I didn't mean any harm. That said, I don't really know what you're talking about. I
don't remember ignoring anything, and if I did... well it's kind of strange to be accused of that when this is the first day I really posted anything
here. What, am I supposed to just live online 500% of my time? (I'm going to double check my source on the barium comment, btw, probably the other
thread there...). One of my first posts was "I don't have time to read all the skeptics' views". I don't. Especially when they attack a film and
don't even say what was wrong about it. So I mis-heard the scientist IN the film. Big deal. There is other RAW DATA in the content of my posts that
nobody's commented on so far. You people seem to love to nitpick, and repeat the same things over and over. "SEE? SEE ? THE KEG THING WAS A HOAX.
SEE?" Yeah I get it, it was a hoax, or at least you think so. Can we get past that? Didn't I say other things? Fire tornado? What about the
persian gulf "tornado" video I posted that resulted in mass fish, whale, and dolphin deaths in 2008? The dolphins were burnt to a crisp. But let's
The way I see it, weather modification is wrong, is based on fabricated evidence, and in the end is just playing God. I'm not going to source
everything I say to live up to this endless scrutiny. I haven't posted on a message board in years for this very reason. People love to focus on a
few minor things and ignore all the other legitimate stuff I said. People have all the confidence in the world to talk # to you when they're behind
text and a screen. Half the things most people say on message boards, they would NEVER say in person. It's sad.
As for the person who said that corbettreport.com is unscientific.... all I have to say to that is these videos...
...which deal with the global warming HOAX, and make a LOT of sense to me. Scientific or not. They make SENSE to me. If they don't make sense to
you, please resist the urge to make broad sweeping statements like "those videos are unscientific". I would love if you gave me specifics and tell me
what about them is unscientific. But like I said, I try to have a life, too, and I am an extremely busy person. So don't accuse me of ignoring stuff
you're saying if I don't respond within 5 minutes. I'm not getting PAID to go on here, you know.
"Does not the vast amount of errors in the film..." what errors? How can you expect anyone to answer a question framed in this way? You imply that
there are errors in the film already, like I should know that, because it's somehow common knowledge in your scheme of things, and then I'm supposed
to defend the film like I made it or something. It's hard enough defending the film I MADE that I posted to a guy who barely watched the video, read
the blurb of the video bellow the video and called me crazy. Basically insulted me and just said all my experiences were "fantasy". Blanket
statement. Why? He's trying to cause a fight or something. It's obvious. I just don't know how to respond to so much bull#. That's fine, though.
You think this is the first time I've faced ridicule for spreading the truth? I'm not going to pretend I need to source every 2nd thing I say. If
you don't believe it, nobody's putting a gun to your head, forcing you to believe it. I already said I didn't have any interest in talking to the
naysayers about this... but here I am. tsk tsk... I gotta say, I'm disappointed I even spent this much time on this so far. I have better things to
do with my time than to make sure you completely grasp everything I have to say. By all means give me constructive criticism, but I'm not stupid - I
know when I'm being attacked.
And you know what? I remember actually getting a lot more information about weather modification from this interview with the film-makers themselves,
than I did from the actual film. I probably should have posted that too. Here it is:
Here's another one about weather modification with Dr. Nich Begich: www.youtube.com...
I remember someone bickering about finding things on the net that don't say "chemtrail" and instead say "contrail"... well you're in luck! BOOM: I
think someone already posted this, but it is worth repeating if so - This awesome woman, Rosalind Peterson seems to HATE using the term "chemtrails"
and she loves saying "persistent contrails". And I agree with almost everything she says... so... you're welcome, bro. Have at it.
That other dude wanted to talk "fantasy"... Let me tell you, being sick is not just a PART of life. Maybe it's a part of death, but it's not normal
for this many people to be this sick with this many different things. We're not supposed to be sick all the time. People who believe that make a lot
of money for the pharmaceutical industry. That's a fact. When I walk down the street, quite often, I see trees with HUGE tumors on them... not just
one... like sometimes 20 tumors on almost every 2nd tree trunk I see downtown. Sounds crazy doesn't it? Sounds like a lot? Okay maybe I'm
exaggerating. Maybe it's only 7-15 tumors sometimes. Forgive me. Well what's crazier is that people don't notice or care. The trees didn't used to
be like this. There ARE huge spikes in heavy metals, all around the same time, all starting around 1990, found from ground and air samples. I'm not
going to source that for you... I have no time to source everything to oblivion, even though I deeply and truly care about the message. I'm a
musician. That takes up a lot of my time.
I don't have time to watch the TED talk. Why? Because, quite frankly, I was using him as an example. Maybe his intentions are good, maybe not. But
he's not the first one to ever talk about playing god like this. Is nobody noticing the floods that are happening? The gigantic tornadoes that have
little tornadoes coming off the side of them? Hundreds of tornadoes in the span of 3 days? Strange sinkholes all over the place? Weather
modification technology was built out of Nikola Tesla's ideas. That guy said that if you beam energy at the right spot, you could split the earth in
two. INDEED. (all is one)... And that is why martial artists know how to hit a human being in a certain spot and kill him with that pressure point.
This is the holographic nature of the universe. The earth is our mother. It's a living being. You can't expect to control the weather anymore than
you can expect to boss your mother around. The fact that you think you SHOULD is testament to the fact that we have become control freaks.
Does anyone remember that episode of the Simpsons where Mr. Burns made a gigantic umbrella that blocked the sun from hitting the town? Well when we
all saw that we all agreed that was crazy, right? But somehow, throwing microscopic bits of aluminum in the sky is great? Why don't you just go and
chew on some aluminum, then? Which leads me to my other point: the other reason I won't watch the TED talk is because the central premise of the
whole operation is flawed - "global warming" / "climate change" is refuted by many scientists who make a lot of sense to me when I listen to what
they're saying instead of when I pretend that the universe revolves around me and that I automatically must know everything (obviously kidding).
Global warming is not an issue. I really don't want to get into nitty gritty of why that is the case. The whole topic is tarnished with politics and
misinformation. This guy, Randall Carlson breaks it down pretty well and takes a long time doing it: vimeo.com...
Note: he doesn't talk EXTREMELY FAST. He WANTS you to hear what he's saying. He WANTS people to understand.
Yes, this is a long post. To some, that might mean I'm getting off topic. I disagree. All is one. We are all connected. Your story is our story.
And there is NO WAY of getting off topic. No matter what you're looking at, if you look at it the right way, you'll come to the same conclusions,
because everything is connected. Just as there are individual mountains, they have a common foundation. So go ahead. Call me crazy again. You shoot
yourself in the foot every single time because it makes you lose credibility. Fact is, I've been accused of getting off topic .... pretty much all
the time from most people everywhere. A rant is apparently anything longer than a paragraph. I'm used to it by now and I notice that people accuse
me of it when they don't grasp what I'm actually saying or haven't been patient enough to let me finish (or when they have nothing better to do).
Like I said - transparent. Are any of you aware there's a commercial in the UK that basically threatens the life of anyone who disagrees with the
idea that man has caused global warming? I'm not going to root around for that one for you. It shouldn't be too hard to find for yourself. It got a
lot of coverage in the media last year. The actress from the X-Files did the voice-over for the commercial and Radiohead donated the music. If the
proponents of anthropogenic global warming had any sophistication whatsoever, they would argue the science behind it. They can't do that, though, so
they resort to threatening your life, they resort to ridicule, etc, etc, etc.
Final note: It also seems that some of you don't understand the concept of "implication". Here's a fun fact: Sometimes, people can imply things
without outright saying them. I can't remember what or who this is in response to, but you know who you are. At least I hope so...
5/13/2011 by PinealGland because: forgot to include the Rosalind Peterson video link