Colbert Exposes Climate Engineering Expert on Chemtrails

reply to post by luxordelphi


You haven't said anything that contradicts what I said. The way I see it, humanity has two choices. It can either stick it's fingers in its ears and go la la la and hope problems will go away, or it can give deep and serious thought to some awkward and scary questions in a quest to find the best solution.

Being willing to think about worst case scenarios is not the same as being all for them and can be a step along the road to finding a different way. You and your pal seem oblivious to this rather obvious point.

reply to post by Eryiedes

I believed the interview preceeding the clip I posted is not from TED and is from a television interview.

Well then how about the whole interview...



Not the cherrypicked version you have posted.

So I ask again, why are you trying to use a video that misrepresents exactly what he said?

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Fine except for one thing.
You don't need the entire video to establish that Gates has personal & financial interests in global depopulation.
Post all the superfluous information you wish in the hopes that it will cloud the issue.
It won't matter.
Gate's can do a billion good deeds and none of them will cancel the his acts against humanity.
No lollipops will erase the gunpoint vaccinations.
No smile will erase the forced sterilizations.
No words can replace a persons reproductive system taken from them so others with four personal jets can continue to reap the planet of resources.
No good intentions can distract from the millions that they intend to kill...for the planet.
Mask his intent anyway you wish.
I wasn't buying it then and I'm not buying into it now.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes


Wouldn't it be cool if everyone was as stupid as you hope they are? It's called context. Using context, you can establish what the person meant. If you chop up the video and only use the small portion you want to convey what you want everyone to think they said, then you have what you presented. Which is very typical of a chemtrail believer. Since there isn't actually anything that proves your side, you must resort to lies and misrepresenting your points. It's a shame you sacrifice integrity to look right.

reply to post by network dude


Spare me your transhumanist dogma and stay on topic.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes

The only good thing about your strawman is you can use it to sweep up some of this mess.

You really cannot grasp that you posted a video that took what Gates said out of context?


Is it really that difficult to understand?

You posted a video saying Bill gates said this, here is the proof.

You were shown that the what was said was taken out of context and shown the full video.

Seriously you can train a animal to respond more logically,

Fine except for one thing. You don't need the entire video to establish that Gates has personal & financial interests in global depopulation. Post all the superfluous information you wish in the hopes that it will cloud the issue. It won't matter. Gate's can do a billion good deeds and none of them will cancel the his acts against humanity. No lollipops will erase the gunpoint vaccinations. No smile will erase the forced sterilizations. No words can replace a persons reproductive system taken from them so others with four personal jets can continue to reap the planet of resources. No good intentions can distract from the millions that they intend to kill...for the planet. Mask his intent anyway you wish. I wasn't buying it then and I'm not buying into it now.

Your not buying?


You were trying to sell a deception and were caught, was it purposely or were you ignorant of the facts about the interview?

reply to post by InhaleExhale


That's not the only link sir.
I have done threads on it that can be found here on ATS and I guarentee there are more than just the one clip I chose for expedience.
You want to sing Bill's praises...I won't stop you.
I'm going to pass.

-Peace-

Eryiedes
reply to post by InhaleExhale

 

That's not the only link sir.
I have done threads on it that can be found here on ATS and I guarentee there are more than just the one clip I chose for expedience.
You want to sing Bill's praises...I won't stop you.
I'm going to pass.

-Peace-

Are you really that obtuse?

No I don't sing to any tunes or praises, so no need to stop me or warn me or advice me of anything in your vast knowledge.

I know all about Gates his wife and their foundations and have my suspicions, but you have gone off track completely.

What you keep trying to pass is that you posted a hoax, a misinterpretation.

You were shown it was not what he said yet still try twisting the debate so its unrecognizable.

It is time you pass, you cant possibly make yourself look any more foolish.

InhaleExhale
I know all about Gates his wife and their foundations and have my suspicions, but you have gone off track completely.

No...I stopped listening to any Gate's appologists after his foundations started shoving guns down the throats of brown people and arresting them for not taking his shots.
End of Story.

What you keep trying to pass is that you posted a hoax, a misinterpretation.

My Transhumanism thread exposes that statement as utter bunk.

You were shown it was not what he said yet still try twisting the debate so its unrecognizable.

Once more...after the whole vaccine & sterilization issue, I don't care what his lackey's have to say. Whatever Bill is for (just like Rockafeller or Rothchild) is definitely to the detriment of mankind.
This admission of the sulphur plan which pro-GE crowds (on Uncle Bill's payroll) try to say is good is a nightmare.
The established record of Gates attrocites in the third world and now globally through transgenics and GE is clear.
Aside from this we can only agree to disagree so we're done here.

-Peace-

reply to post by waynos


Some things are black and white. Here the question is: kill people or kill the economy. Use lethal geoengineering solutions or cut emissions. To me, that's a no brainer and what's scary, to me, is that there would even be a question here on what's right. Should people die so that corporations can save money by continuing unchecked pollution?

Just like the individual who is faced with a medical pronouncement of certain death unless he enacts dramatic lifestyle changes, our environment is at that same point.

Unchecked stratospheric emissions have accelerated global warming to runaway train status.

Depopulation agendas hidden within saving the planet scenarios are still just that - killing people.

If you're saying that David Keith used this book promotion interview as horrific parody of geoengineering solutions in order to get emissions cut...all I can say is, do you have proof? Because looking at the actions of David Keith, Bill Gates and John Holdren, this is not at all clear. (Perhaps David Keith has become nauseated by his choice of patron and has gone renegade like Petronius in Quo Vadis - that's possible.)

A best of both worlds solution here involves a lot of dead people. And that seems to be the aim disguised as saving the planet.

luxordelphi
reply to post by waynos

 

If you're saying that David Keith used this book promotion interview as horrific parody of geoengineering solutions in order to get emissions cut...all I can say is, do you have proof?

I don't know about his book launch - but he is on record all over the place saying that emissions need to be cut to net zero - eg here:

While we will ultimately have to cut emissions to nearly zero to stabilize the climate, “ultimately” is a long way off, and near-term emissions reductions do very little to reduce near-term climate risks such as temperature extremes that may cause crop losses whose impacts will fall on the most vulnerable populations over the next half century. Solar geoengineering offers the prospect of materially reducing climate risk for current generations and of slowing large-scale climatic change such as the loss of Arctic Sea ice. While it sounds hyperbolic and promotional, there is literally no other method we know to achieve this.

A best of both worlds solution here involves a lot of dead people. And that seems to be the aim disguised as saving the planet.

Where is killing people "the best of both worlds"??

and if you "do the math", then why would killing a couple of 10's of thousands of people need to be "disguised" at all? who would actually notice it if you just shut up and went about injecting that SO2??

reply to post by network dude


Creating gray areas, where there are none, and conditioning people to accept them as 'options' with unfortunate but necessary collateral damage (dead people) is clever. But it's so incredibly self-serving that it inevitably leads back to the depopulation agenda.

Because the people spouting this are keeping unholy company. And there is a mental contagion, as it were, that blunts the edge of reason. Particularly if there is also the promise of a large paycheck.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I read the link you put up.

Q&A with David Keith

There's not really a one-liner response to the content. I have fundamental disagreements with this person's philosophy. It's like advocating the use of drones to keep us safe. Killing innocents is the unfortunate collateral damage. This thinking is screwed up. But we have become a society that kills wild horses. Perhaps I am out of step with the times.

These are the statements that I found particularly offensive:

Solar geoengineering offers the prospect of materially reducing climate risk for current generations and of slowing large-scale climatic change such as the loss of Arctic Sea ice. While it sounds hyperbolic and promotional, there is literally no other method we know to achieve this.

Our climate choices would be easy if we really were facing an imminent existential threat. A true emergency justifies extreme measures, a narrow focus on a single problem and suspension of democratic due process.

That last one sounds like 9/11 all over again. The rest is just rhetoric - an attempt to contrast a seemingly unattainable utopia (cutting emissions) with our current situation and thereby justifying depopulation.

It's like one of those exercises in school where you have to put something into your own words. So each one of these guys cloaks depopulation with their own justifications for it. It sounds different but it's all the same.

and if you "do the math", then why would killing a couple of 10's of thousands of people need to be "disguised" at all? who would actually notice it if you just shut up and went about injecting that SO2??

Honestly, Gaul, lol, sometimes you just floor me. So...he's ok because he's talking? Or are you painting him now as a closeted, left-handed whistle blower?

reply to post by Eryiedes

Once more...after the whole vaccine & sterilization issue, I don't care what his lackey's have to say. Whatever Bill is for (just like Rockafeller or Rothchild) is definitely to the detriment of mankind.
This admission of the sulphur plan which pro-GE crowds (on Uncle Bill's payroll) try to say is good is a nightmare.
The established record of Gates attrocites in the third world and now globally through transgenics and GE is clear.
Aside from this we can only agree to disagree so we're done here.

So it is your opinion about Bill Gates saying this and that no matter how much evidence showing you what he actually said...so in essence your saying damn the truth I just don't like him.

Btw just because you have a thread about how you don't like him doesn't show proof he did what you are claiming.

Interesting way to see the world.

reply to post by Eryiedes

No...I stopped listening to any Gate's appologists after his foundations started shoving guns down the throats of brown people and arresting them for not taking his shots.
End of Story.

You have failed to prove he had anything to do with that, so how about supplying the proof that he was involved. ( like another credible source is preferred )

Also those people were arrested because they broke the law and as far as the law goes are you saying Bill Gates is now making policy in these countries?

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


It's called a search function.
Use it and educate yourself because I am done with you and doing your footwork for you.
You have all the information you need to find the truth on your own.
I suggest you stop trolling and get cracking.

-Peace-

tsurfer2000h
You have failed to prove he had anything to do with that, so how about supplying the proof that he was involved.

Since you didn't even go through my thread, or use your search function yet maintain I have established nothing, all you are doing is blowing brown air in a paper bag.

Also those people were arrested because they broke the law and as far as the law goes are you saying Bill Gates is now making policy in these countries?

Yes, I am saying corperations like Monsanto do make policy in those countries because of corruption and bribery.
And you are naive (and that's being polite) to think corperations do not effect national policies.

"How can a man like Bill Gate's who owns billion upon billions of dollars, actually effect a countries policy?"

Your statement is ridiculous and I suggest you repeat the quoted text over and over until it makes sence to you.

-Good Bye-

luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

These are the statements that I found particularly offensive:

Offensive, really??

(note I've removed ex tags in some places below 'cos of ATS's problems with multiple layers of tags)

Solar geoengineering offers the prospect of materially reducing climate risk for current generations and of slowing large-scale climatic change such as the loss of Arctic Sea ice. While it sounds hyperbolic and promotional, there is literally no other method we know to achieve this.

so this is "offensive" to you? Can you explain that reasoning??

"Our climate choices would be easy if we really were facing an imminent existential threat. A true emergency justifies extreme measures, a narrow focus on a single problem and suspension of democratic due process."

That last one sounds like 9/11 all over again.

Really? You equate global warming with a terrorist attack?

Why don't you consider that the 2 are somewhat different?

The rest is just rhetoric - an attempt to contrast a seemingly unattainable utopia (cutting emissions) with our current situation and thereby justifying depopulation.

What depopulation?

And yes, of course he is trying to justify his position - that is what all people do - even you with this somewhat confusing babble, even me writing this. "Just rhetoric"?? what is more important than conveying ideas??

cutting emissions is an "unattainable utopia"?? Nil emissions might be - but why is cutting them either "unobtainable", or "utopia"??

He's talking about solar radiation management - which may result in 10's of thousands of premature deaths, and saying that is a BAD THING! so as far as I can see you are agreeing with him but are do not realize it.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

And while extra deaths is deplorable, they are not exactly "depopulation", whereas continued global warming actually come closer!

so choose - SRM with 10's of thousands of early deaths, or continued global warming with millions of early deaths?

Or do you postulate a 3rd way - if so what is it??

It's like one of those exercises in school where you have to put something into your own words. So each one of these guys cloaks depopulation with their own justifications for it. It sounds different but it's all the same.

what depopulation? See below - he's talking about 10's of thousands of early deaths - which while deplorable are hardly "depopulation" of the 7 Billion of us (and increasing)

"and if you "do the math", then why would killing a couple of 10's of thousands of people need to be "disguised" at all? who would actually notice it if you just shut up and went about injecting that SO2??"

Honestly, Gaul, lol, sometimes you just floor me. So...he's ok because he's talking?

He is HONEST because he is talking. He is HONEST because he is IDENTIFYING THE ISSUE and the IMPLICATIONS of it.

Where as you are just putting your head in the sand and deny everything, rather than deny ignorance!

Or are you painting him now as a closeted, left-handed whistle blower?

seems to be a fantasy of yours that there is something to blow the whistle on - I have no such issue and i'm not interested in you foisting it on me.

So here's a question:

What do YOU think are the implications of Global Warming it in terms of human survival? What do YOU think needs to be done about that, if anything? (do nothing is always an option of course - but if so then an explanation would be good so we all know why)

reply to post by luxordelphi


How many people has Bill Gates killed? How many of his Geo-engineering ideas are up and running right now?
How many actual Geo-engineering programs are up and running at this time?

Please answer those so we can get to the root of the problem.