Are Chemtrails preparation for a polar shift where global warming will be necessary?

reply to post by Truth4Thought

Research in climate science is done with computer models.

Because of the danger of unintended consequences real world testing of geoengineering proposals is too risky to undertake before such studies are carried out.

reply to post by Truth4Thought


I believe the issue is this...my portion stated "significant study," is necessary....not "insignificant study." If "they," were going to the trouble of conducting "insignificant study," "they," would of course mention it in an open paper...

Think, if the paper is in the open, and everything people are claiming concerning chemtrails could be connected, then it would be ACTIONABLE CAUSE...nothing, absolutely NOTHING, would stand in the way...

Perhaps these incidents and individuals need mentioning again:

LOVE CANAL
CAM-OR
THREE MILE ISLAND
ERIN BROCKOVICH

See, these things and the lawyer in question had DATA and COLD HARD FACT to back up the outcomes...Take a look at the tube for just a minute...Here in the USA, we are about as sue happy as a country can get...Pharmaceuticals go through hell...it seems nearly every other commercial is urging people to come forward if they have taken Paxil, Zoloft, Prozac, etc., because they have an actionable cause...If "chemtrails," even came CLOSE to this bar of evidence, then the jig would be up...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

reply to post by ProudBird

reply to post by Uncinus


So now everyone is an expert on how the CIA operates. Not only that but you all are also experts on the DOD. You also know everything about congressional panels and how those work. Pretty soon I'm going to be reading articles from you all on how congress operated in the '60's and on English law and how it relates to this topic. If I was issuing a performance rating it would be plus an order to get out into the field and collect some real intelligence.

From the link www.themoralliberal.com...

Most Americans may not know that the government agency responsible for providing national security data to the nation’s senior policymakers, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), operates a special center dedicated to global warming

That’s because the CIA doesn’t want anyone to know what goes on in its two-year-old Center on Climate Change and National Security. So the exclusive unit, led by “senior specialists,” operates under a cloak of secrecy that rejects all public-records requests

Because everything the CIA’s climate center does is a national security secret, according to a report published this month by a group of scientists dedicated to exposing government secrecy.

The group that exposed this story points out that the CIA’s response indicates a fundamental lack of discernment that calls into question the integrity of the Center on Climate Change, if not the agency as a whole

This story describing actions that the CIA Center on Climate Change is taking today, not in 2009 when the center opened, talks about a group of scientists who want disclosure. Of course they don't perform climate change studies themselves. They are an intelligence gathering organization and created a unit, under the guise of national security, that has morphed into a bottle-neck for climate change data. So much so that scientists themselves are trying to expose this group. They seem to think there is something to disclose. There is no declassification going on. This is like a black hole. Data goes in. Nothing comes out.

You all know more though than the scientists calling for disclosure. Look at the state of Global Warming data. It's a mess. No one knows what is correct anymore and all are engaged in infighting. Do you think this happens by itself? Conflicts are manipulated and I stand by my statement that the CIA, which by the way, has compartmentalized itself into a situation where the left hand can claim plausible deniability regarding what the right hand is doing, is withholding climate change data. Wake up and bring some real world operations information to this discussion.

reply to post by luxordelphi


You've merely cut and pasted the same source, yet again. :shk:

And oddly, have not listened at all to what was written to explain that the CIA can go take a flying leap!! They do NOT hold all of the cards in climate research!!

This is really rather obvious, when you read the article from that terribly biased source that is cited.

The CIA is merely keeping secret their "discoveries" and their evaluations and plans of action that affect the USA, in terms of climate changes and any adverse impacts in future.

The CIA does NOT control what any other country does, and what studies they perform.....nor does the CIA interfere or subvert any U.S. independent corporation or University that is doing the same research!!

reply to post by luxordelphi


From what you quote

That’s because the CIA doesn’t want anyone to know what goes on in its two-year-old Center on Climate Change and National Security. So the exclusive unit, led by “senior specialists,” operates under a cloak of secrecy that rejects all public-records requests

Can we ascertain how many requests have been filed? Nope... So we do not know for sure if all requests have been rejected...

This story describing actions that the CIA Center on Climate Change is taking today, not in 2009 when the center opened, talks about a group of scientists who want disclosure. Of course they don't perform climate change studies themselves.

So, you understand the CIA does not actually perform climate change studies, but instead relies on outside data sources from universities, climatologists, etc., as source material...

They are an intelligence gathering organization and created a unit, under the guise of national security, that has morphed into a bottle-neck for climate change data.

Everything about the CIA is about national security. So, how again are they serving as bottle-neck for climate change data? You said the info goes in...and we can ask for the info that went in...we do all the time...the thing that is being withheld is the impact this information has on national security...if any...

Furthermore, I would be very interested in knowing WHAT GROUP was asking the CIA for the information...I did not see ONE LINK in the source you cited leading to that group...


Must be this one, from the information I could gather, but do these guys qualify as SCIENTISTS? : en.wikipedia.org...

I knew it! Roy Spencer and the UAH are working for the CIA

www.drroyspencer.com...

Originally posted by luxordelphi
[
So now everyone is an expert on how the CIA operates. Not only that but you all are also experts on the DOD. You also know everything about congressional panels and how those work. Pretty soon I'm going to be reading articles from you all on how congress operated in the '60's and on English law and how it relates to this topic.

More strawman arguments.

"We" are no moer experts than you are - you were happy to use that article as evidence so you can't complain when it is pointed out that it didn't say what you thougt it said, and that there are oteehr sources on the matter that also contradict what you thought it said.

You could at least be honest that you are simply mistaken in this case instead of making illogical arguments like this.

I thought I would just make kind of a group response here to claims that I am 'unaware' and have a 'continued misunderstanding' and that I am not 'educated' and that I am 'emotionally reactionary' and that I am 'over-reaching' based on 'misrepresentation' and that my source is 'terribly biased' and that I need to be at least 'honest' and that I am 'simply mistaken' and that I am making 'illogical arguments.' Your full quotes follow lest you accuse me of cut and paste, heaven forbid.

reply to post by Essan

I assume you are unaware that magnetic north is constantly changing?

reply to post by ProudBird

Here we have again continued misunderstanding about the situation at Tampa Airport

The fact of the movement of the magnetic North pole is no secret, n or is it any cause for alarm.....by those who are educated, and not emotionally reactionary.

As usual, over-reaching based on misinterpretation

This is really rather obvious, when you read the article from that terribly biased source that is cited.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

You could at least be honest that you are simply mistaken in this case instead of making illogical arguments like this.

On second thought, I think your statements speak for themselves and require no response. There are a number of other people who replied in this thread - replied to me - without ever resorting to any of this even though they disagreed with my points. In fact those same people often disagree with me but are confident enough in their own statements that they don't feel the need to belittle others in order to make their statements work.

The topic was pole shifts, chemtrails and global warming. It's a topic I still find fascinating. The topic has nothing to do with me, personally, nor with how you, personally, want me to be perceived.

So you just dismiss the comments out of hand

I guess that's because you know they are right and you cannot counter them with valid scientific arguments? Clearly you are unable to counter them. Otherwise you would have done so ......

Why is it when someone wants to openly brainstorm about ideas and theories on this subject. Even when openly admitting the theory to be speculation. There is still an immediate outcry of "show me proof" and "where's the scientific data".

Ridiculous attitudes among some of the people here. Those who wish to turn every thread into a debate about scientific data. Go get a life and let us crazy conspiracy nuts have a little fun once in awhile ok.

Can we please have a discussion here once in awhile that allows for some speculation on these topics and maybe even a little cooperation when brainstorming ideas. These conversations and debates don't always have to break down into such negative behavior.

I would like to see the debunkers, just once in awhile, let people discuss their ideas openly before jumping on someone with insults and ridicule. I don't care if I get flamed for saying this.

By the way OP I think you're definitely on to something. There is a conspiracy around Global warming issues. It is very hard to say what the purpose behind chemtrails is. One thing for sure is they don't want the public to know about it just yet.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
There is a conspiracy around Global warming issues. It is very hard to say what the purpose behind chemtrails is. One thing for sure is they don't want the public to know about it just yet.

"They" (whoever they might be) don't even want the people who study "chemtrails" to determine their effects on weather and climate, and to investigate ways of preventing them from forming, to know what they are! Be interesting to know how they manage to keep it all so secret though.

reply to post by ProudBird


You really don't get it do you? Im not talking about your aviation knowlege or your opinions on the issues. Im talking about your sarcastic manners. The invasive way you reply to people. Why is that? Why do you do that?
here is a great example,

Here we have again continued misunderstanding about the situation at Tampa Airport, when they re-numbered the runways

Here we go again? Continued? Or this one below,

The fact of the movement of the magnetic North pole is no secret, n or is it any cause for alarm.....by those who are educated, and not emotionally reactionary

By those who are EDUCATED and not EMOTIONALLY REACTIONARY. Thats encouraging to hear. There is another side to your own statement that makes you lack emootional control. The fact that you respond in such a judgemental way tells me your an emotionally reactive person. Of course anyone who is EDUCATED and not EMOTIONALLLY REACTIONARY would know this already. ,, Wouldn't they?

Are you taking offence because of the way you are interpreting the comments, rather than how they are written? Uneducated, for example, doesn't mean stupid. There must be quite a few topics upon which you, Proudbird, I and everyone else are relatively uneducated. The remedy is learning. There is no remedy for stupid.

At least that is MY interpretation. Of course I didn't write them so I could be wrong too

Indeed, I am ignorant of many things - and depending on context, being called ignorant is no more offensive or demeaning than being called right handed (assuming you are right handed).

Unfortunately, on the internet - especially when conversing with people from different countries, possibly different cultures and often different ages, it is easy to misconstrue the sense in which a comment is made.

I think always best to assume, where there is doubt, that comments are made constructively and in good faith. And where necessary use a U2U to ensure we maintain wherever possible a friendly debate rather than antagonistic argument.

And always remember, the only thing we can ever be absolutely certain of is that we may be wrong


(and thus endth today's sermon )

reply to post by Essan


But also, for the other side if the coin - it's worth assuming that your comments may NOT be recognized as being made in good faith, and so you should choose your words appropriately.

It's been shown time and again that pointing out to people that they need some education is frequently considered by them to be an insult to their intelligence.

In communicating, the person talking has the primary responsibility for conveying the message accurately and efficiently.

Good point

And that's a one liner I think is justified