Geo-Engineering researcher vs. Chemtrail believers

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by smurfy
 


OH, dear God. Watch the video I messed up the link to.

The reasons I have the sentence "I don't know what a 'chemtrails' is" is because it is a quote from the man himself, mere minutes into the video.

Geo-engineering is not about visible plumes behind aircraft now. He also explains this in the OP video. What he is talking about, the real geo-engineering of stratospheric aerosol spraying would not be visible, would be higher than what you consider a"chemtrail" and is not being done now. He is a researcher, as are all his colleagues. They examine the matter from all angles, then decide if it is something that can done, then talk about if it should be done. All before anyone does anything. He discusses this as well.

The people who decided to wear a mask of legitimacy by changing their boogeyman from "chemtrails" to geo-engineering are wrong. The field is so much more than that. Those who further try to legitimize themselves by using the phrase "stratospheric aerosol spraying" need to learn a lot more about the atmosphere.

When you call "chemtrails", point to the sky at a contrail, and then say it's "stratospheric aerosol spraying," you are WRONG. Re-editing someone's statement with made-up words that are wrong...he doesn't like that happening to him either. He discusses this when asked about "WITWATS."

So your post and your video...are wrong in just about every way. Watch the video. It's 1:45, but enlightening.
edit on 19-5-2013 by stars15k because: clarity


You actually think that David Keith doesn't know what the popular verbiage of chemtrail is about, of course he does.
The rest of the post, has nothing to do with me, although I am curious as to why you should say,

"Geo-engineering is not about visible plumes behind aircraft [NOW]".




posted on May, 19 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
What fantasy is that?


chemtrails of course - what is this thread about??



you're making no sense for this thread.


chemtrails make no sense, so I am not surprised you don't understand why they are a fantasy.


What do you know about David Keith?


as much as is around publically - how much do you now about him?


What do you know about the ideology of actually deliberately warming the planet, or part of it.


quiet a bit - except it's not an ideology of course - it is het practical application of modern technology over a couple of hundred years.


and most of all, you know feck all about me, or what I think. A word of advice, so's you don't need to use your label sticker, click on Smurfy and you will get all my posts, or a portion on them. there is nothing so cut and dried as you might wish.


Why do you think I know anything about you at all - or care to? I was replying in kind to your comments - if you don't like the replies then I suggest you refrain from the comments in the first place.
edit on 19-5-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Of course he does.....he just doesn't believe in them.
And doesn't like that people twist his words, edit with spin, and apply things to his work that is not happening. For example, "chemtrails."

Watch the video. He knows what he is talking about. The other people, not so much. And it is evident.
Geo-engineering is not "chemtrails."
"Chemtrails" is not geo-engineering.
Stratospheric Aerosols are not "chemtrails."
"Chemtrails" are not stratospheric aerosols.

"Chemtrails" have no evidence of worth. It has believers, who don't know or understand the science behind what they are claiming.
David Keith knows this. He doesn't believe in them. He knows they won't work. He knows what he is talking about.
You....not so much.
This is directed at you and the video you posted: You add words to what he says for deceptive reasons. What you are presenting is wrong, in it's editing, in it's captioning, and in using statements by someone who would disavow what the video says. What is done is dishonest.
That is the makings of a hoax.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   
LoL the irony of a "geoengineer" claiming he doesn't know what "chemtrails" are in a video where he debunks them.

Honestly the guy comes across as a huge asshole.

Also OP you loose a massive amount of credibility in not being able to figure out how to post a video when it involves click a button labeled vid:youtube then copy and pasting 20 characters of text.

I have no comment on the validity of any of it.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
LoL the irony of a "geoengineer" claiming he doesn't know what "chemtrails" are in a video where he debunks them.


there's a difference between knowing what people claim they are and actually knowing what htey are.

You (and I and he) can certainly know what some people claim they are.

But since there's no actual such thing demonstrated to exist in the first place it is logically impossible to actually know what they consist of - to know what they consist of you would ahve to positively identify one and take a sample of it - and no-one has done that.

And I see no irony at all in a chemtrail believer not understanding that concept.
edit on 19-5-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 





David Keith doesn't know what Chemtrails are?? who's being misleading there!


The maker of that video is doing the misleading here, as there is nowhere in that video where he even mentions chemtrails.

In fact here is the only thing that mentions chemtrails



So maybe you can tell us all exactly where chemtrails are mentioned by him?



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


wow. Personal attack right out of the gate.
Sorry, my life full now. I missed a few characters. It was fixed.

And my error in no way negates the contents of the video.

David Keith's comment "I don't know what 'chemtrails' are" is apt because each believer will claim something different. There was even no consensus among the small group of believers at the table.

So to ask "What are 'chemtrails'" is needed to focus on the inaccuracies of the individual. He doesn't know what they are...to the person who said "chemtrails".

It's a question debunkers ask daily, because the definition seems to change daily. Used to be they were poisoning us....you just need to look at a chronological list on Carnicom to see how often the purpose has changed.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 





LoL the irony of a "geoengineer" claiming he doesn't know what "chemtrails" are in a video where he debunks them.


No what's really ironic is the fact that not one of the so called chemtrail experts can tell you what they are or what they are supposedly being sprayed for.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by smurfy
 


Of course he does.....he just doesn't believe in them.
And doesn't like that people twist his words, edit with spin, and apply things to his work that is not happening. For example, "chemtrails."

Watch the video. He knows what he is talking about. The other people, not so much. And it is evident.
Geo-engineering is not "chemtrails."
"Chemtrails" is not geo-engineering.
Stratospheric Aerosols are not "chemtrails."
"Chemtrails" are not stratospheric aerosols.

"Chemtrails" have no evidence of worth. It has believers, who don't know or understand the science behind what they are claiming.
David Keith knows this. He doesn't believe in them. He knows they won't work. He knows what he is talking about.
You....not so much.
This is directed at you and the video you posted: You add words to what he says for deceptive reasons. What you are presenting is wrong, in it's editing, in it's captioning, and in using statements by someone who would disavow what the video says. What is done is dishonest.
That is the makings of a hoax.


Then why does Keith talk about administering aluminium particles in the stratosphere by the use of aircraft? or are you going to say Keith has not mentioned that? That's all that matters here now, so has he said that or not?
Yes or No....I'll answer for him and you the answer is a resounding Yes.
edit on 20-5-2013 by smurfy because: Text



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Even if you dont believe there is anything in the con-trails you can not dispute that the shear amount of fuel and pollution from more and more planes is causing global dimming by FORMING CLOUD FRONTS THAT TURN INTO WEATHER FORMATIONS .This is the sky above me on a clear blue day (WOULD HAVE BEEN) that was turned into overcast with artificial clouds affecting our weather.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 





Even if you dont believe there is anything in the con-trails you can not dispute that the shear amount of fuel and pollution from more and more planes is causing global dimming by FORMING CLOUD FRONTS THAT TURN INTO WEATHER FORMATIONS


Actually weather helps contrails to form and not the other way around...


Ironically, the relationship between changes in the weather and contrail formation is opposite to the allegations that contrails are formed to influence the weather. Actually, weather conditions favorable for contrail formation are exactly the same as those preceding a storm front, and are the same conditions that cause natural clouds to form. Weather conditions do cause contrails, but contrails do not cause weather.


www.tetrahedron.org...



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 





This is the sky above me on a clear blue day (WOULD HAVE BEEN) that was turned into overcast with artificial clouds affecting our weather.


That is an unfortunate consequence of air travel.

This is why they are studying the effects of contrails on our weather.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


He is discussing stratospheric aerosol spraying.
If you watched the video (this shows you haven't) , you would see him explain that planes leaving contrails are not flying in the stratosphere, that such spraying as he describes would not create a plume, and that no one is doing it now anyway.
If you call that a "chemtrail", you are wrong.
He does not call that, or anything else a "chemtrail." Especially anything in the sky now.

Really, all your questions about what he says, the vocabulary he uses, his assertions regarding "chemtrails" and other conspiracies would be answered if you watch the video.
I suggest you do so.
Otherwise your input is off topic.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


When I look at your pictures I see a contrail, a Stratocumulus cloud field, and a really colorful, pretty sunset with several cloud forms visible.

All weather comes from fronts. Contrails don't make the weather, weather creates the contrail.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 

Clouds cannot be artificial.
They are too big.
If you mean clouds caused by contrails, those would only be cirrus clouds, which you do not show. And those clouds would be chemically similar to a "natural" cloud....dirty air and water as ice crystals.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
LoL the irony of a "geoengineer" claiming he doesn't know what "chemtrails" are in a video where he debunks them.

Honestly the guy comes across as a huge asshole.

Also OP you loose a massive amount of credibility in not being able to figure out how to post a video when it involves click a button labeled vid:youtube then copy and pasting 20 characters of text.

I have no comment on the validity of any of it.


This video of HardTalk, BBC London might give you some idea of where David Keith is coming from. First off David Keith is not just a research scientist, he is that, but also has a vested interest in being at the forefront of doing the work with his company, (one of the reasons he was in London, where there was a portion of a $25million fund up for grabs) which is to spray aerosols, (Aluminium micro particles) in the upper atmosphere as he says by aircraft. His method of choice would not remove CO2.
Anyway, there's more but listen to the video and make your own mind up.

edit on 20-5-2013 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
Then why does Keith talk about administering aluminium particles in the stratosphere by the use of aircraft? or are you going to say Keith has not mentioned that? That's all that matters here now, so has he said that or not?
Yes or No....I'll answer for him and you the answer is a resounding Yes.


Yes he talks about it - he proposed doing it, and yes it would be business for him.

That's still not the same as doing it, and if he did do it would it look like contrails???

Lots of people are talking about the possibility of solar radiation management by "spraying stuff" into the atmosphere at various heights - sulphur or aluminium in the stratosphere, salt water droplets at a lower level are quite well known proposals.

the fact that people are thinking up ideas does not justify making up stories saying they are actually doing it!



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


Spray is quite commonly done by the government to test effects of bacteria and viruses. There has been many documented experiments in history. I don't see why chem trails are any different.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by amfirst1
 


Because they are not documented as DEW and LAC were??



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by smurfy
 


He is discussing stratospheric aerosol spraying.
If you watched the video (this shows you haven't) , you would see him explain that planes leaving contrails are not flying in the stratosphere, that such spraying as he describes would not create a plume, and that no one is doing it now anyway.
If you call that a "chemtrail", you are wrong.
He does not call that, or anything else a "chemtrail." Especially anything in the sky now.

Really, all your questions about what he says, the vocabulary he uses, his assertions regarding "chemtrails" and other conspiracies would be answered if you watch the video.
I suggest you do so.
Otherwise your input is off topic.

He is a plausible crook, you have been misled, and you mislead. You have already stated that aircraft would not be used, and he in fact proposes aircraft. See the HARDtalk interview, it speaks volumes





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join