It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Time to lose the 'Chemtrail and Geo-Engineering' Forum

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by tridentblue
 



The respectable chemtrail people I've known believe that the chemtrails were geo-engineering attempts, and that they were separate from ordinary contrails.


Respectable is a highly charged term! It implies that some chemtrail theorists are not respectable.


Its part of the general weather modification conspiracy theory scene, where people believe the extreme weather events we've seen are either a result of geo-engineering, or symptoms of an underlying issues (like climate change way more extreme than predicted) which the government is trying to treat and hide.


Why single out 'chemtrails,' then? What about HAARP? What about sustained microwave radiation from orbit?


Honestly its one of my favorite scenes, just behind tech conspiracies and UFOs.


Why confound weather modification with geo-engineering, and chemtrails with both?




posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


According to the United Nations group, the dispersion of carbon, sulphur and other particulate into the lower and extreme upper atmosphere could assist with battling climate change by fundamentally changing the balance of the gases within the atmosphere for how that interacts with sunlight. Whew.... I hate sounding like a college student, but this topic is real hard to be entirely casual with and not lose major things.

Aircraft dispersion of those agents are one method discussed. So are others, and to be fair, I include the details about how seeding of clouds and the lower atmosphere has actually been the national policy of some world powers. The most recent example being China with their batteries of artillery in the countryside to seed clouds in an effort to suppress dust/pollution for their past Olympic Games. Again...not a private company, as US companies have been contracting for a long time ..but actual national policy with military grade hardware to accomplish.

Geoengineering would seem to clearly be modification of the environment by deliberate human effort....and aircraft dispersion of chemical and natural elements are, apparently, a mature topic of discussion (if nothing else) among circles of world power.

Seems like a fair point to maintain the forum, doesn't it?
edit on 8-2-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




Seems like a fair point to maintain the forum, doesn't it?

Sort of. The problem is the term "chemtrails" is generally taken to refer to contrails which persist and spread.

It's only since people have failed to drop like flies because of being poisoned by them has the "chemtrail" crowd taken to saying that the purpose is geoengineering.
www.angelfire.com...


edit on 2/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



Geoeingineering would seem to clearly be modification of the environment by deliberate human effort....and aircraft dispersion of chemical and natural elements are, apparently, a mature topic of discussion (if nothing else) among circles of world power.

Seems like a fair point to maintain the forum, doesn't it?


But that is not what tends to be discussed in the forum. Most of the participants are convinced that ordinary contrails are poisonous. They don't care about scientific studies or international policy debates. They believe that the cirrus clouds they see are the result of a conspiracy, and they are not necessarily in accord as to what the goal of that conspiracy is. Weather modification? Depopulation? Covering up aliens?



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



But that is not what tends to be discussed in the forum. Most of the participants are convinced that ordinary contrails are poisonous. They don't care about scientific studies or international policy debates.


Well I can say we are always happy to get alerts when folks think a thread has gone off the rails. If you come across some we seem to have missed, please let one of us know or just send to complaints and let us all know at the same time. If it's wildly off purpose for that forum it will absolutely get the consideration it warrants, however that ends up.

I'd love to see that forum return more to what it's obvious purpose is, indeed!



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Sort of. The problem is the term "chemtrails" is generally taken to refer to contrails which persist and spread.


Agreed...and again, the more the merrier for contributing what 'chemtrails' may actually come to mean vs. some of the near hysteria they've come to be defined as. Certainly, those can be wildly different things. Too much so, at times, perhaps?



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Any move to disrupt the general opinion concerning chemtrails will have the resulting effect of creating an air of support towards the opinions.

"look they did xyz, we must be on to something."

so.. damned if you do, damned if you dont.

contrails and aerial spraying, to those who lack the ability to differentiate, will be Chemtrails.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I once gave a man a Tomato, he said, 'Thanks for the Tomahto'


to each their own .... why would/should anyone attempt to 'limit the scope' of others' apparent 'interests and discussions' simply due to a personal disagreeance, on one person's part, over the same??


stifling discussion of near anything only further serves for it to fester and grow in the depths of ignorant darkness - shine a light. deny the ignorant 'darkness'.



???



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by 12m8keall2c
 


Except no one is attempting to stifle anything. No one is clamoring for chemtrail threads to be deleted. It's being requested that chemtrail threads, being a highly speculative topic, be moved to the forums that have been set aside for highly speculative topics.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   

DJW001
reply to post by tridentblue
 



The respectable chemtrail people I've known believe that the chemtrails were geo-engineering attempts, and that they were separate from ordinary contrails.


Respectable is a highly charged term! It implies that some chemtrail theorists are not respectable.



Because I've heard from some that aren't respectable. They believe all contrails are chemtrails, and that what's being sprayed is some kind of disease or poison. (intended as poison, not something else with toxic side effects) Stuff that's too far out can serve to discredit the community as a whole. However I support them having a voice here, even though I don't agree with them. I'm just saying I don't respect those kinds of opinions, but I do respect the opinions of those who believe that chemicals may be being introduced into the air by aircraft to accomplish ends, without the public being informed.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by 12m8keall2c
 





to each their own .... why would/should anyone attempt to 'limit the scope' of others' apparent 'interests and discussions' simply due to a personal disagreeance, on one person's part, over the same??


Hmm....are you saying that "highly speculative" discussions/topics that appear in 'Skunk Works' are limiting the scope of interest of other members?

Chemtrails are highly speculative which ever way you want to look at it!



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Calling to abolish the forum - whatever your rationale - is simply a petty attempt to marginalize a topic you disagree with.

News flash! It's a discussion board...don't agree with a topic? Discuss it. LoL!


ETA: Oh looky! It's even being discussed and debated in this BB&Q thread. - thank goodness there is a Geo-Engineering and Chemtrails forum!

edit on 2/8/2014 by Sergeant Stiletto because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I don't think you will ever be able to get a "clean" and serious "geo-engineering" sub-forum since in the last few years, all "chemtrail people" have changed the purpose of "chem trails", probably after decades where it was impossible to prove their allegations that chemicals are actually dispersed. In the last years, chemtrails miraculously transmuted into "geo-engineering".

So you would get the same nut cases in your geo-engineering forum and your dream of a clean separation of the chemtrail believers and those who like to debate geo-engineering WITHOUT any of the nonsense will remain exactly that, a dream : )

Look, I am TOTALLY thinking that "chemtrails" and all the speculation about ti is pure nonsense.

But this IS a conspiracy forum. And from that PoV it wouldn't make sense to move even the most controversial topics in a special forum to separate the less speculative discussions from the more speculative ones. This would, sort-of, defy the reason for the existence of a conspiracy forum : )

The problem is, since this is a conspiracy forum, we (as skeptics) WILL have to accept the fact that we won't agree with many (all?) theories there....but it would be hypocrisy to go on this site and then "complain" about that this or that theory is nonsense or want the forum to be cleaned-up by the admins. Then why be on a conspiracy forum in the first place?



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I'd have to disagree, like others said, geo-engineering is just another term clutched onto by chemtrailers to help give their claims more validity.

Before geo-engineering became a household word, chemtrail's purpose was to kill us or weaken our immunity.

Now, it's part of geo-engineering.

It's convenient.

Back in the early 2000's, do you recall the old chemtrail websites?

As far as I can remember, geo-engineering was never mentioned. Anactodtal I know but it strengthens my belief that chemtrails get attached by whatever is popular at the time.


Cloud seeding anyone?


edit on 8-2-2014 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AlphaHawk
 


(shrug).. You're disagreeing with the United Nations climate change panel and it's experts from around the world. The words and definitions set there are theirs, not mine. Geoengineering is defined there with the overlap into airborne dispersion of particulate into the atmosphere as part of the official international conference.

I just share it..I don't write it.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The words and definitions set there are theirs, not mine. Geoengineering is defined there with the overlap into airborne dispersion of particulate into the atmosphere as part of the official international conference.
To clarify, are you saying that what people are calling "chemtrails" is evidence of ongoing geoengineering projects? Or are you saying that cloud seeding is geoengineering?

The IPCC defines geoengineering this way:

Geoengineering, or the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment, is increasingly being discussed as a potential strategy to counteract anthropogenic climate change.
www.ipcc-wg3.de...
Weather modification (cloud seeding) is not large scale, its aim is not to affect the planetary environment (climate), and its purpose is not to counteract climate change. It is small scale, localized, and its intent is to affect precipitation.

The UN enacted a moratorium on geoengineering in 2012. Apparently no one was paying attention, or perhaps it's because the UN does not consider cloud seeding to be geoengineering either. www.unep.or.jp...

Seems it pretty much the "chemtrail" crowd that claims cloud seeding is geoengineering.

edit on 2/9/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well, I'll be happy to discuss it more on the thread I wrote pages of OP for...but I'm not rehashing the whole thing here to explain what really was presenting the report and discussions they were having. It was a look at what was being considered..not more or less, for the report. I added more context to weather modification methods I was surprised to find were on the market as accepted commercial services..in addition to China's weather modification being a State policy for the Olympics.

I think, overall, it just forms a supporting argument for why it all is mixed by those discussing it now and a forum covering both fits well.

After all, the thread here isn't about what is written elsewhere on either subject but wether Geoengineering and Chemtrails should be covered in the same place. Well, say they were separated .... I can say now the report I did cover could fit into either one in technical terms and it was referring to science across a wide number of fields and nations for the scope of the concepts and real world consideration.

They're related topics, IMO. Not the same thing....and not necessarily cause/effect. Certainly related though. For many people, both Geoengineering and Chemtrails are near equal for speculative nature, too. That's not the case among those who focus on the topics, but for general thinking? Well, overlap comes from official presentation of the topics as much as anything, but it is what it is in the end.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I added more context to weather modification methods I was surprised to find were on the market as accepted commercial services..in addition to China's weather modification being a State policy for the Olympics.
Yes. Many who are new the the discussion seem to be surprised. The trouble is, it is often presented as an "Aha! See! They spray things!" The trouble is, it has no relationship to "chemtrails" any more than crop dusting or smoke trails for airshows do.


Well, say they were separated .... I can say now the report I did cover could fit into either one in technical terms and it was referring to science across a wide number of fields and nations for the scope of the concepts and real world consideration.
That's debatable. For several reasons, not the least of which is that there is little reason to think that, in practice, SRM would visibly resemble "chemtrails". Unless you are redefining "chemtrails" to include anything emitted from aircraft, or any moving object for that matter.

The thing is, this is a conspiracy forum so it is appropriate for "chemtrails" to be here (if not skunk works), but geoengineering actually is science so it really doesn't belong here. It belongs in the science section, along with Fragile Earth.


edit on 2/9/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well Phage, I'm giving my opinion on this thread, simply because I have recently put a great deal of time into making a thread directly related to something that touched on both sides of what is being discussed and what the forum in question is designed to cover.

However, I'm just a member in this thread, and the decisions on forums are a couple levels above my line of sight, so to speak. Unless others above me figure it's worth changing? Then it simply is how it is, and kinda like arguing with water about being wet. There may be aspects to debate, but the water won't have changed at the end of it.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




There may be aspects to debate, but the water won't have changed at the end of it.

On that I agree.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join