UK Admits Plans to Inject Aerosols into Stratosphere

Originally posted by Uncinus
Einstein only tested temperature, in a single accumulator, with no humans. This is is much more comprehensive and definitive test.

If you really believe so then you are free to go ahead with it yourself. Even with a positive result you'll inevitably find those results under scrutiny in attempts to explain them with more conventional explanations, and inevitably be faced with out-of-hand dismissals.

To reiterate once again since I have long learned not to take your memory for granted, I have not claimed scientific proof of orgone energy. I'm not even worried about it until we find a way to measure biological energy directly, which will require new instruments to be developed just as with the discovery of electrical, magnetic, nuclear and gravitational energy. Until then you would only be taking indirect measurements anyway.

Also until then you're going to have to save your breathe calling all of this stuff bunk outright, as anything other than your personal opinion. I realize this appears to cause you extreme duress but until then, no number of rhetorical questions or flagrant fallacies is going to be able to prove what you can't prove with real logic or science, either.



Btw if you are genuinely interested in real ongoing research in this field, you might be interested in what Dr. Bill Tiller is doing at Stanford: www.tillerfoundation.com...

But who am I kidding? Your only interest here is to "debunk" something that you already realize you can't even falsify. You have no real interest in these fields and even seem to hold a grudge against them for some unrevealed reason.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
Einstein only tested temperature, in a single accumulator, with no humans. This is is much more comprehensive and definitive test.

If you really believe so then you are free to go ahead with it yourself.

Why would I? I'm not the one making the claim.

I'm not claimed orgone does not work. I've noted that nobody has presented evidence that it does, and I've suggested a simple experiment they could use to change the world by proving it. And I say that the lack of any evidence that it works is good evidence that it does not, given such easy experiments.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Btw if you are genuinely interested in real ongoing research in this field, you might be interested in what Dr. Bill Tiller is doing at Stanford: www.tillerfoundation.com...

Thanks. That's very interesting. I find this stuff fascinating.

There don't appear to be any experimental results there though.

Along similar lines:

www.noetic.org...

This looks like a tasty topic, maybe we can debunk this tomorrow

www.noetic.org...

Originally posted by Uncinus
Why would I? I'm not the one making the claim.

And what claim is that again?

This is exactly why I included this in my post above:

To reiterate once again since I have long learned not to take your memory for granted, I have not claimed scientific proof of orgone energy.

And I notice you're already setting up your own straw-men to knock down. You do all this crap on purpose don't you? Sock puppet accounts and all.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
Why would I? I'm not the one making the claim.

And what claim is that again?

Reich's claim of what happens in an Orgone Accumulator. As detailed above.

This is exactly why I included this in my post above:

To reiterate once again since I have long learned not to take your memory for granted, I have not claimed scientific proof of orgone energy.

I never said you did. I'm saying Reich claims that it works. I explain how it can be easily tested. I suggest that the fact that it's not been demonstrated in 80 years is good evidence (but not absolute proof, of course) that it does not work.

Originally posted by bsbray11

And I notice you're already setting up your own straw-men to knock down. You do all this crap on purpose don't you? Sock puppet accounts and all.

If you actually think someone has extra accounts, you should take it to the mods. I am guessing you dont really think he does, but you think its a good way to distract and impugn him. You are accusing him of activities that break ATS rules, when the reality is a false accusation of that, IS against the ATS rules

Originally posted by Uncinus
I never said you did. I'm saying Reich claims that it works. I explain how it can be easily tested. I suggest that the fact that it's not been demonstrated in 80 years is good evidence (but not absolute proof, of course) that it does not work.

Well congratulations, by arguing with a dead man you have finally put yourself in a position where the person you're arguing with, can't argue back.

Originally posted by firepilot
You are accusing him of activities that break ATS rules, when the reality is a false accusation of that, IS against the ATS rules

Prove it's a false accusation.

How Often Are Sock Puppet Accounts Looked For?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by firepilot
You are accusing him of activities that break ATS rules, when the reality is a false accusation of that, IS against the ATS rules

Prove it's a false accusation.

[url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread707126/pg1]How Often Are Sock Puppet Accounts Looked For?]

It does not work that way. If you have evidence of someone breaking ATS rules, then take it to the Moderators. If you do not and are just attacking someone over it without any evidence, thats libel and against ATS rules.

Besides, how about your prove it is actually true and that you are not just making it up?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
I never said you did. I'm saying Reich claims that it works. I explain how it can be easily tested. I suggest that the fact that it's not been demonstrated in 80 years is good evidence (but not absolute proof, of course) that it does not work.

Well congratulations, by arguing with a dead man you have finally put yourself in a position where the person you're arguing with, can't argue back.

But there's plenty of people alive who make the same claims. Lots of people believe Orgone works. Since it would revolutionize science, it's a bit odd that nobody has ever created a demonstration over the last 80 years. That seems to indicate that maybe it does not actually work as Reich claimed?

Originally posted by Uncinus
But there's plenty of people alive who make the same claims.

Whenever you want to stop arguing with straw-men and focus on claims that I am actually making, I'll be delighted.

You realize by attacking nothing but what other people have said besides me, you're really not even arguing with me at all, right?

That seems to indicate that maybe it does not actually work as Reich claimed?

Would you like to state this definitively and accept the burden of proof for it too, instead of beating around the bush asking questions?

Of course not. We already know what your opinions are, so what gives?

Originally posted by bsbray11
You realize by attacking nothing but what other people have said besides me, you're really not even arguing with me at all, right?

Then why are you arguing back?

It's about the preponderance of evidence. If it worked, there would be some good evidence.

Evidence of Absence. Look it up.

Originally posted by Uncinus
Then why are you arguing back?

I just wanted to point out that you are not actually arguing with anything I am saying here.

It's about the preponderance of evidence. If it worked, there would be some good evidence.

And that's your opinion, not any kind of logical assertion.

Evidence of Absence. Look it up.

Or read what I posted above.

Originally posted by bsbray11

It's about the preponderance of evidence. If it worked, there would be some good evidence.

And that's your opinion, not any kind of logical assertion.

Not really. The chemtrail theory has been around for 15 years. You can't list one piece of scientific evidence that supports it in any way.

It's like with unicorns. They might exist, people even claim they have seen them, there's videos of them on youtube. But there's no good evidence that they actually exist.

Getting back to the OP - the paper linked to is nothing to do with planning or proposing to geo-engineer at all.

It is about how to regulate it so that if someone does try to do it there are laws governing it - the paper is titled:

The Regulation of Geoengineering

, and from the OP's own extract note this:

The technologies and techniques vary so much that any regulatory framework for geoengineering cannot be uniform. Instead, those techniques, particularly carbon removal, that are closely related to familiar existing technologies, could be regulated by developing the international regulation of the existing regimes to encompass geoengineering. For other technologies, especially solar refection, new regulatory arrangements will have to be developed.

At the moment there is no regulation - if someone wanted to carry out any of the techniques there is no law to stop them, nothing to require monitoring of the effect, nothing to tell them they have to have any contingencies or any other considerations, nothing at all - and this is a real concern for everybody, not just a theoretical concern for some imaginative nutjobs.

so the OP headline is just plain misleading - whether you think a wedding plan is het same as a wedding proposal or not!

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11

It's about the preponderance of evidence. If it worked, there would be some good evidence.

And that's your opinion, not any kind of logical assertion.

Not really. The chemtrail theory has been around for 15 years. You can't list one piece of scientific evidence that supports it in any way.

And again... to jump from this to "therefore they don't exist, period!" is a blatant fallacy you take on faith.

It's like with unicorns. They might exist, people even claim they have seen them, there's videos of them on youtube. But there's no good evidence that they actually exist.

Show me declassified military operations involving unicorns, or government reports giving means and motives for unicorns, and then we'll talk about unicorns.

Originally posted by bsbray11
More means and motives validating chemtrails as a reality.

www.publications.parliament.uk...

Geoengineering describes activities specifically and deliberately designed to effect a change in the global climate with the aim of minimising or reversing anthropogenic (that is human caused) climate change. Geoengineering covers many techniques and technologies but splits into two broad categories: those that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere such as sequestering and locking carbon dioxide in geological formations; and those that reflect solar radiation. Techniques in this category include the injection of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by large volcanic eruptions. The technologies and techniques vary so much that any regulatory framework for geoengineering cannot be uniform. Instead, those techniques, particularly carbon removal, that are closely related to familiar existing technologies, could be regulated by developing the international regulation of the existing regimes to encompass geoengineering. For other technologies, especially solar refection, new regulatory arrangements will have to be developed.

There are three reasons why, we believe, regulation is needed. First, in the future some geoengineering techniques may allow a single country unilaterally to affect the climate. Second, some—albeit very small scale—geoengineering testing is already underway. Third, we may need geoengineering as a “Plan B” if, in the event of the failure of “Plan A”—the reduction of greenhouse gases—we are faced with highly disruptive climate change. If we start work now it will provide the opportunity to explore fully the technological, environmental, political and regulatory issues.

Of course we know that, in the realm of military technology, anything politicians are talking about is already old news.

And here they are openly talking about injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight in an effort to manipulate climate, and admitting that testing of such techniques is already underway, "albeit very small scale," whatever "small scale" means to a politician.

And for those who are unaware, the stratosphere resides between about 6 and 30 miles up into the air.


Expect the usual disinfo gang to arrive shortly to begin explaining to us how this is proof of nothing and we're all lunatics for paying attention to what politicians say (although there is a grain of truth to that I suppose

) .

Cool.. (pun intended), now we're going to help the sun and the volcanoes cool the planet down. Looks like it's going to get very cold outside..

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11

It's about the preponderance of evidence. If it worked, there would be some good evidence.

And that's your opinion, not any kind of logical assertion.

Not really. The chemtrail theory has been around for 15 years. You can't list one piece of scientific evidence that supports it in any way.

And again... to jump from this to "therefore they don't exist, period!" is a blatant fallacy you take on faith.

But I'm not making that jump.

It's like with unicorns. They might exist, people even claim they have seen them, there's videos of them on youtube. But there's no good evidence that they actually exist.

Show me declassified military operations involving unicorns, or government reports giving means and motives for unicorns, and then we'll talk about unicorns.

I think you miss the point. It's about the degree of evidence. The degree of evidence of them CURRENTLY EXISTING seems to be about the same.

And, I would certainly not say "unicorns don't exist, period". I hope you would not either. But the evidence certainly seems to be going that way.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11
And again... to jump from this to "therefore they don't exist, period!" is a blatant fallacy you take on faith.

But I'm not making that jump.

Yes, you are. Every time you turn around and deny it you are lying. You are constantly trying to insinuate that none of this stuff can exist because if it did, it would have been proven by now. Covert military operations don't work that way. The evidence comes out when they are declassified, period.

Show me declassified military operations involving unicorns, or government reports giving means and motives for unicorns, and then we'll talk about unicorns.

I think you miss the point. It's about the degree of evidence. The degree of evidence of them CURRENTLY EXISTING seems to be about the same.

No, I think you're missing the point. There are declassified government projects that involved dumping chemicals into the air, and there are public reports giving means and motives for continuing to do this. There is nothing even remotely similar to that for your stupid unicorn analogy, or else we would already know that unicorns existed in the past. So put up or shut up if you want to show unicorns are relevant to any of this.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Yes, you are. Every time you turn around and deny it you are lying. You are constantly trying to insinuate that none of this stuff can exist because if it did, it would have been proven by now. Covert military operations don't work that way. The evidence comes out when they are declassified, period.

You are accusing me of lying? Perhaps you could back that up? I've been very clear time and again that I would not rule out the possibility.

No, I think you're missing the point. There are declassified government projects that involved dumping chemicals into the air, and there are public reports giving means and motives for continuing to do this. There is nothing even remotely similar to that for your stupid unicorn analogy, or else we would already know that unicorns existed in the past. So put up or shut up if you want to show unicorns are relevant to any of this.

There are LOTS of historical accounts of unicorns. There's lots of incentive for people to either find or genetically create a unicorn.

But history and motive are not the issue. The issue is the evidence of it actually happening!

Originally posted by Uncinus
You are accusing me of lying? Perhaps you could back that up? I've been very clear time and again that I would not rule out the possibility.

And yet that is exactly what you try to do, using fallacious reasoning, every time we should otherwise have already come to an agreement.

There are LOTS of historical accounts of unicorns. There's lots of incentive for people to either find or genetically create a unicorn.

What you call "historical accounts" here is in no way, shape or form as credible as declassified government admission of dumping chemicals into the air in the 1950s. Which we have for chemtrails. Not for unicorns.

And when you say there is an "incentive for people to either find or genetically create a unicorn" you are talking purely out of your rear end and you know it.