NASA Geoengineering Conference LIVE on Ustream

Originally posted by fireyaguns
reply to post by stars15k

 

I for one don’t care that you continually interrupt almost every thread to do with geo engineering which is the subject. dont forget. Dont be afraid to use the word GEO ENGINEERING AERALSOLE GEO ENGINEERING.

OK - so prove something about that then??

I don’t know why you insist on the word chemtrail like as if you have a glitch though.

That would be because conspiracy theorists have used the word to describe the hoax for 10-15 years or so....only changing recently because gthe term is getting a bad name as known BS....and rather than admit that they have been duped they change the name - thus extending their abbility to believe nonsense.

This comment of yours (“find one science fact you are told about "chemtrails" and challenge it here”) Well it is impossible because science is mostly evolution and evolution is lie.

While evolution may be science, there is a lot of science that is not evolution.

Atmospheric science - how clouds form, and yes how contrails form, has nothing to do with evolution.

So whether or not you believe in evolution is irrelevant to whether or not ther are "science facts" about chemtrails.

And since "science" bought you the electricity, computer and internet that you are using to writeon here I think you should rethink about it all being a lie.

other things science has brought you: Phones, television, motor cars, firearms, table cutlery, clean water, cleaner air, the buildings you live and work in, air conditioning, insulation, fresh fruit and vegetables all year around, etc....

Explain how a science fact about "chemtrails" has changed to "suit the agenda."

My instinks tell me you know the answer

So why not tell us specifically what it is that is the single most convincing evidence that chemtrails exist??

reply to post by fireyaguns


What a verbose non-answer. Sorry, but thermodynamics and fluid dynamics have nothing to do with evolution. That you somehow meld the two together shows you are not interested in any real, intellectual debate about the topic at hand. Nor do you have the most basic concept of a broad field of sciences.
For instance, the change in agenda that caused the oft blasted word "chemtrails" to be replaced with the term geo-engineering. Science did not change that, the conspiracy people did. Unfortunately, the change takes away from the table the rest of the field of geoengineering. Aerosols could be used! I agree. But not in the stratosphere and not from planes. I know this because if I don't know about something, I research. The chance anyone is going use planes is remote. It's the most expensive, the most problematic, the hardest to control, and the most likely to have adverse effects of any of the other geoengineering possible plans. And there are not enough planes flying now to do the job; more and different planes need to be built first.
But "chemtrail" believers didn't research, so now most of them think anything geoengineered means "bad stuff sprayed by planes that you can tell is chemically different with just your eye sight."
Just as they don't know the proper use of the words(or spelling) "aerosol."
Aerosol does NOT mean "sprayed." Not to an atmospheric scientist for sure. It means anything in the atmosphere that is not a gas. A cloud, being water droplets and ice crystals is an aerosol. So is salt from the sea, dust from the Sahara, ash from burning the rainforest, industrial waste...none of which are sprayed.
The people who write the articles, attend the conferences, and know what they are talking about know this. It is the only way they use the word. By not knowing that yourself, you can't possibly understand what they are truly talking about.