Geoengineering proof from NOAA?

page: 8
41
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


That definitions says "believed by some".


I believe
Everyman has his own reality,
Other men only intervene,
when
they want to shape opinion.
edit on 17-3-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


And this thread was started by op to ask opinion or form, to be fair,
so do not take my last post against you.
]
edit on 17-3-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: to be fair



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 

lol, I never would have looked up the dates on that thing. Thanks for the info and thanks for taking the time. It all stinks but we plod on, bizarre study to even more bizarre study.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Oh, yes all that blather defending the billions and billions of dollars every year
just on "research" alone. *SIGH*

Try as they will, the public does not take kindly to it!

They can paint it anyway they wish.



Professor Benford (U.C. Irvine, CA), wrote the following regarding the public in a Reason.com article in 1997: “…But perhaps the greatest unknown is social: How will the politically aware public react--those who vote, anyway? If geoengineers are painted early and often as Dr. Strangeloves of the air, they will fail. Properly portrayed as allies of science--and true environmentalism--they could become heroes… A major factor here will be whether mitigation looks like yet another top-down contrivance, another set of orders from the elite. source credit


As always you are at the core of the matter!

And here is the crux of what I am doing here:

If geoengineers are painted early and often as Dr. Strangeloves of the air, they will fail. Properly portrayed as allies of science--and true environmentalism--they could become heroes… A major factor here will be whether mitigation looks like yet another top-down contrivance, another set of orders from the elite.


They are NOT environmentalists, they ARE Dr. Strangeloves.

Geoengineering is horrible, top down science that only benefits the elite... doesn't matter if it has started or not, this needs to be stopped!

At best it moves money from our pockets to these same bastards that are bankrupting the worlds economies for fun and profit.

At worst it sends us into an ice age that kills off most of the planet. These rich globalist bastards have money and preparations, we are screwed.

No way does this every benefit us. If they wanted to benefit us they would switch from top down oil and other resources they control for profit, and are destroying our planet, to solar and other renewable energies that we can control from home... I'll let you guess how likely that is...


edit on 18-3-2012 by pianopraze because: formatting error
edit on 18-3-2012 by pianopraze because: ...



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Update:
The CIA Wants To Control The Weather Through 'Geoengineering





The CIA will partially fund a $630,000 study by the National Academy of Sciences that will investigate how humans could influence the Earth's climate using 'geoengineering.' According to Mother Jones' Dana Liebelson and Chris Mooney, the project will look into several techniques for altering the environment to prevent climate change. The first, known as "solar radiation management," works by pumping chemicals into the atmosphere that reflect some of the sun's rays back into space in order to reduce the amount of heat retained due to greenhouse gases. The second method relies on removing greenhouse gases like carbon monoxide from the atmosphere to counteract the emissions from power plants and automobiles. This technique has already been attempted on a small scale. Last year, an American entrepreneur named Russ George attempted to create an algae bloom that would theoretically suck CO2 out of the atmosphere by dumping iron filings into the Pacific Ocean. Much like fertilizer for plants, the filings provided vital nutrients to the algae and led to the formation of a large bloom. The effectiveness of this method is still unclear. If the algae die and sink to the ocean floor, the CO2 they absorb is effectively sequestered. But if fish eat the algae before they can sink, their metabolism will re-emit those gases back into the atmosphere, cancelling out any environmental benefit. Many scientists assume that the latter is the more likely outcome, which is why the scientific community has for the most part condemned George's experiment. As for why the CIA is involved with projects attempting to alter the Earth's climate, a spokesperson told Mother Jones, "It's natural that on a subject like climate change the Agency would work with scientists to better understand the phenomenon and its implications on national security."
finance.yahoo.com...

Found the above when checking science news.
Maybe there is something to rumors of weather control after all when the CIA gets involve that's something to worry about.
edit on 23-7-2013 by Spider879 because: just because



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Spider879
 


It's the CIA doing their job. Climate change has national security implications and if you were to implement geoengineering unilaterally then there's the potential to loss off a lot of other countries.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Spider879
 


If the potential for some Dr Evil to control the climate may exist OF COURSE the CIA would want to know about it, nothing in the text actually supports the headline. I see that as very typical fear mongering spin.

The alternative is that national security agencies are neglectful to the point they are taken completely by surprise if something actually happened. Would you prefer that?
edit on 24-7-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


how it feel to be wrong, so wrong



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestorm
 


It doesn't 'feel' anything. Being wrong or right isn't a personal emotion. This is where chemmies always go wrong and why they always moan about being attacked.

Beside which, did you have a point?



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestorm
 





how it feel to be wrong, so wrong


Well I am new to that, so is there any chance you can let me in on how it should feel ?



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluestorm
reply to post by waynos
 


how it feel to be wrong, so wrong



According to Mother Jones' Dana Liebelson and Chris Mooney, the project will look into several techniques


From the above post.

Will look into. Hmmmmm, to me, that sounds an awful lot like it hasn't happened yet.

Wrong indeed.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
still you all are on every chemtrail post banging away with denial meanwhile in reality i watched a few times a week my sky go from clear blue to contrail cirrus in a few hours, its beyond obvious, i know you all are smart by some of the stuff ive seen in your debates, which makes me wonder what your m.o. is? you have to be able to see what is happening or is this just in my neck of the woods? so its inevitable that one day the truth shall be so massive that your team is outnumbered and you are going to have to accept that youve spent days weeks years babbling at and demeaning those who were just here to help.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluestorm
still you all are on every chemtrail post banging away with denial meanwhile in reality i watched a few times a week my sky go from clear blue to contrail cirrus in a few hours, its beyond obvious,


sure - but why do you say that is "chemtrails" and not "cloud"?

contrails do exactly what you say - and have ben known to do so since WW2 - ie spread out from the initial "lines" into a think high altitude haze - they do this because of the properties of eth atmosphere.

There is no need to invent a myth to explain it.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestorm
 





i know you all are smart by some of the stuff ive seen in your debates, which makes me wonder what your m.o. is?


I can tell you in two words....

Deny Ignorance....



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
No matter how much "proof" you present, the chemtrail debunkers will always need more. I guess they're actually waiting for the government to come out and tell us the truth. As if that's going to happen. They tell the truth decades later. By that time, it's already too late. I wonder how much $$$ is being made from these government/private contractors.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 





No matter how much "proof" you present, the chemtrail debunkers will always need more. I guess they're actually waiting for the government to come out and tell us the truth.


That is because it isn't about quantity it is about quality, which most if not all evidence proving chemtrails exist does not have..



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by WonderBoi
No matter how much "proof" you present, the chemtrail debunkers will always need more.


No - some GOOD "proof" would be enough.

See my sig - it doesn't matter how much rubbish you present - it remains rubbish.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 
Oh, so...i guess the only quality proof we have, is from the debunkers? What makes their proof more relevant than those that have eyes to see. Is "proof" really needed?



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by WonderBoi
No matter how much "proof" you present, the chemtrail debunkers will always need more.


No - some GOOD "proof" would be enough.

See my sig - it doesn't matter how much rubbish you present - it remains rubbish.


And yet, your rubbish is better than ours?
Comical!



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestorm
 


I concur with Gauls reply. There is no point me typing the same. It is people's insistence that this is a deliberate chemical spraying operation rather than a well known and fully understood consequence of aviation that dismays me.





top topics
 
41
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join