UK Admits Plans to Inject Aerosols into Stratosphere

reply to post by NightGypsy


All this doesn't change that you were wrong.

Look it's easy to do...

I mistakenly read too much into what you were saying and I was wrong about that.

My apologies.

reply to post by djcarlosa


We seems to have gone off at a tangent here, but I agree that seeding the oceans with iron filings in order to reduce CO2 won't counter global warming if the warming is not caused by CO2. Though it unless we've been wrong for the last 150 years, then it must be causing some warming.

But the fact that small scale trials of such seeding did not produce quite the expected results has nothing to do with whether or not there is carbon emission derived global warming.

Originally posted by NightGypsy

And again, I would like you to specify where I have stated the T.A.P. proposal is "evidence" of chemtrails? A document that outlines a proposal is not "evidence" of something occurring, but it has the potential to show a correlation between what is being "proposed" and what is being witnessed at the current time. It is a document that anyone researching the chemtrail issues should take a look at.

In what way exactly does a proposal to collect air samples in order to study industrial pollution have any connection with what people call chemtrails? Unless you're implying chemtrails are produced by car exhausts and factory chimneys?

won't counter global warming if the warming is not caused by CO2

reply to post by Essan


Science is always "surprised" when they find something different out than what they deemed true prior.

With that said, what if its cosmic radiation that is the cause for the heating. If they are doing anything to try and "fix" a problem via testing, I would hope they know what the problem really is in the first place.

reply to post by bsbray11


They have been talking about doing this for at least a decade.. Talking doesn't equal doing, nor does this prove any of the silly theories about chem trails.

And it is reflecting the sun light and has nothing to do with man made heating.

reply to post by Essan


I've told you what is causing the warming of the air look at heat exchange between the air and the oceans then look at the temp rise difference between air temp and ocean temp and you will see where the heat is really coming from i know you are a smart man look into it as i have.
oceans control weather and climate and this is why geoengineering will not work.

Look at the second last tweet of our Crown Prince Willem Alexander

twitter willem alexander


This video has willem linked there

Chemtrailing is going on, has been going on for sometime now, and will continue to go on. The ones who are denying it have their heads in the clouds or so poisoned with chemtrails they can't think straight. The excuse that chemtrailing is being done for global warming is just smoke n mirrors. There is another purpose for it but I'm not sure what. Global warming is not solely the by product of humanities doing but enevitable climate change and solar activity.

Originally posted by aceto
reply to post by bsbray11

 

They have been talking about doing this for at least a decade.. Talking doesn't equal doing, nor does this prove any of the silly theories about chem trails.

Many decades actually

luna.atmos.washington.edu...

As we will see, “weather and climate modification” or “weather control” was
a centerpiece of research in the atmospheric sciences during the 1950s and 1960s,
and was viewed as a priority by the governments of the United States and the
USSR. In that context, what are now called climate impacts was then called inadvertent climate modification; and, what is now called geoengineering bears a
strong similarity to what was then called weather and climate modification.

(Note there's a distinction between "weather" and "climate")

Originally posted by TribeOfManyColours
Look at the second last tweet of our Crown Prince Willem Alexander

twitter willem alexander

edit on 10-6-2011 by TribeOfManyColours because: (no reason given)

This video has willem linked there

Hmm, is this the elusive "what chinese cloud seeding looks like?" at around 3:30?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6b2b81127026.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2e1eeec534e3.jpg[/atsimg]

Purely for entertainment purposes :-





Courtesy of :- interceder.net...



Peace

Originally posted by niceguybob
Speaking of MY skyline here in Lake Tahoe.

There has been no evidence of contrails, chemtrails or any "cloud seeding" for the last 3 days.

OR airplane patterns flying over the Lake to other destinations. (They probably rerouted)

The sky is Blue again... 3 days in a row now.. SUPURB!!!

We're talking PERFECT!!!

So..I'm pretty sure the Airlines will reroute over the Lake again sometime soon...spewing that Contrail mist and covering the sky..in a total blanket over a period of 4-6 hours..and then..re contrailing me by flight pattern.

Looking out across 75miles in all directions and seeing only blue sky's with no contrails can only mean
one thing...when it starts again.. just the old flight pattern reinstated.

Got It!

They are flying over today anyways
flightaware.com...

Cloud seeding projects have been over with in Cali since end of March, its not like you ever saw trails though, since they were flying inside of snowstorms with twin Cessnas

Originally posted by bsbray11

Alright, you want to use the word "proposal" instead of "plan." Brilliant way to start off your trolling, Phage. And what is a proposal?

Type "proposal definition" into Google. What do you get?

pro·pos·al/prəˈpōzəl/Noun
1. A plan or suggestion put forward for consideration or discussion by others.

Like I said, way to start off your argument, with semantics that were automatically refuted.

See your definition up there for "proposal" ? You can't just isolate two words from a definition to prove your case....you need to read the whole definition. Now read the whole definition again.


But you said you don't believe it is in the planning stages anyway, that it was being done or tested on a large scale.
You were asked for evidence for your accusations.....you had none.

Which leaves me confused ...
----> Why did you present a document as evidence of "chemtrail" actions, when you do not believe what the document says ??

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by niceguybob
Speaking of MY skyline here in Lake Tahoe.

There has been no evidence of contrails, chemtrails or any "cloud seeding" for the last 3 days.

OR airplane patterns flying over the Lake to other destinations. (They probably rerouted)

The sky is Blue again... 3 days in a row now.. SUPURB!!!
We're talking PERFECT!!!

They are flying over today anyways
flightaware.com...

Yes, look at that....planes all over Tahoe.
It seems that Niceguybob is mistaken.
If a plane at cruising altitude has no contrail, they are much harder to spot.

Originally posted by aceto
They have been talking about doing this for at least a decade.. Talking doesn't equal doing, nor does this prove any of the silly theories about chem trails.

What's "silly" about it when it's already being explained to politicians and they have admitted testing has already been going on in these regards?

Like I've been saying, if politicians are already talking about it, you can be sure that the covert aspects of the military has already put a lot of research into this stuff themselves. Even the PDF linked mentions the implications on international relations this could have. The ability to weaponize this technology is too obvious.

Originally posted by EyeDontKnow
See your definition up there for "proposal" ? You can't just isolate two words from a definition to prove your case....you need to read the whole definition. Now read the whole definition again.

I read the whole definition the first time my friend. "Plan" and "proposal" are synonyms. I guess you think you are really proving something by trying to replace one word, with another which is a synonym of the first.

But you said you don't believe it is in the planning stages anyway, that it was being done or tested on a large scale.
You were asked for evidence for your accusations.....you had none.

Of course I have none. Do you realize what you would be asking me to do, to go after covert military operations?

The question that it comes down to is whether or not you believe the military is just sitting around with their thumbs up their asses when it would be too easy for them to go up testing this stuff already themselves. After recent admissions of the way they went up and dumped biological and chemical agents on people to see what the effects would be (including making a bunch of people sick in California at least), why in the hell do you think they wouldn't do it?

reply to post by bsbray11

No CBW agents were dumped on the public. Simulants have been used to study the potential dispersal characteristics of real CBW agents.

Why would the military get involved with mitigation of global warming?

reply to post by bsbray11

The question that it comes down to is whether or not you believe the military is just sitting around with their thumbs up their asses when it would be too easy for them to go up testing this stuff already themselves. After recent admissions of the way they went up and dumped biological and chemical agents on people to see what the effects would be (including making a bunch of people sick in California at least), why in the hell do you think they wouldn't do it?

Exactly why the chemtrail deniers have a problem from the start. They maintain that the government says it's only in the research stages of aerosol spraying such as we see in the T.A.P. proposal, and that this should be considered some sort of "evidence" to support their claim that no such operations have been implemented. They push the theory, "The government has said it's not happening yet, so therefore, chemtrails are a myth," despite circumstantial evidence to the contrary. The fact that the debunkers here on ATS expect any government claim to be taken at face value is ludicrous all by itself..... before any of the other debatable evidence even enters the picture.

reply to post by Phage

Why would the military get involved with mitigation of global warming? signature:

Well, one could argue that there is an annoying little entity called "The Military Industrial Complex" whose work transcends many facets of the government in order to carry out a specific agenda. It operates under it's own rules.

However, there seems to be a more predominant claim that any alleged chemtrail operations are being accomplished through privately owned corporations working for a handful of the usual perps.

Since you hardly are unaware of these points, I'm wondering why you think suggesting the military would not get involved with these operations will serve to disprove anything regarding chemtrails?

reply to post by NightGypsy

I was not attempting to disprove anything.

The claim was made that the military could be involved with geoengineering. I asked why. Since there is no evidence that it is being done, some sort of motivation would be helpful rather than just making the claim that they could be.