posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:28 PM
Wow. Don't know what the OP or the person who titled this video clip listened to, but at no time did he mention "chemtrails" or that such a
program was in progress. Failure to comprehend science should not be an excuse, but seems to be the one that makes the most difference. That and
knowing what verbs used really mean.....not doing, but researching, planning, proposing.....all are thinking only, and not anything to do with
It's sad that the "chemtrail" people try to sucker in people to their non-science and nonsense by using the term "geo-engineering." The actual
study is so much more, and places the use of airplanes last on the list for many reasons. Geo-engineering does NOT mean "chemtrails" and never has.
Continuing to try to mix the two into one giant scheme is a real shame. It will eventually pull people away from the real discussions out there
about things that really are geo-engineering that do not involve planes at all.
And the continuation of the mistaken use of the term here at ATS only showcases why the story about "chemtrails" is wrong, and why people will still
debunk passionately. While I don't believe in "global warming" as claimed by Gore, favoring instead the climate models that show a similar shift
in global temps shown at intervals before, the first steps in the real geo-engineering are things that need to be done NOW, to assure a healthy
When people are told geo-engineering means "chemtrails", and they understand that "chemtrails" are not real (which is most of the populace,
despite claims otherwise) then people will turn away from the really good parts of the plan as being a stupid conspiracy instead of something that
could and should be done.
How comprehensive is the field of geo-engineering? Here's a report and overview of a meeting of the experts:
IPCC Expert Discuss Geoengineering
The report itself is a .pdf. The link is the WGI website link at the middle of the page.
And using airplanes is discussed, a few times. Their conclusion? This from page 62 of the report (not page 62 of the .pdf)
These results highlight numerous limitations and consequences of stratospheric sulfate geoengineering. In addition to limited efficacy, ozone
destruction, and surface acid deposition that have been published previously, we find a significantly enhanced upper tropospheric sulfate burden which
may alter tropospheric clouds, chemistry, and radiative forcing. We recommend geoengineering ideas to be studied in more detail before they are
seriously considered as climate intervention options.
See? The real experts see the "limited efficacy" and recommend more study before being " seriously considered." So any real "chemtrails" are
just a very small part of the whole of geoengineering.