The Bogus "Doing It for the Money" Argument

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: ConnectDots

At 22:47 the subject of “climate change” comes up. The point is made that the term was introduced in 1998, when the geoengineering programs were totally unleashed, and a term was needed to explain away radical swings in weather.

This is hogwash.

Global warming vs climate change

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years:

originally posted by: ConnectDots

The IPCC stated in 2013 that chemtrails are necessary: www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

No, they never ever did. This is a bold faced lie. This goes beyond common ignorance, this is outright bull #.

a reply to: network dude

Here is the link to “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis”: www.climatechange2013.org...

The quote in question:

“If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.”

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

from the “Summary for Policymakers,” is found on page 27 of the .pdf, which can be downloaded.

a reply to: ConnectDots

There is no such text in eth "Summary for Policy Makers" at the link you give or here

Ther is considerable text relating to SRM in the document "Social, Economic, and Ethical Concepts and Methods" available to download here.

Section 3.3 of that document makes it plain that IF SRM WERE EVER STARTED then it would have to be maintained to continue to have any effect:

Furthermore, it has been pointed out that geoengineering could make the situation worse rather than better (Hegerl and Solomon, 2009; Fleming, 2010; Hamilton, 2013) and that several technologies lack a viable exit option: SRM in particular would have to be maintained as long as GHG concentrations remain elevated (The Royal Society, 2009).

(section 3.3.7 - Geoengineering, ethics, and justice)

congratulations on having pointed out more lies from Wiggington!!

a reply to: ConnectDots

Here is the link to “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis”: www.climatechange2013.org...

The quote in question:


“If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.”

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...


from the “Summary for Policymakers,” is found on page 27 of the .pdf, which can be downloaded.

Here you go debunked...

www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

congratulations on having pointed out more lies from Wiggington!!

He seems to be getting more easy flowing with his lies as of late.

a reply to: ConnectDots

I really have to ask you this...

Are you really Dane Wigington, because you sure do like to push his/your site pretty hard?

I am just curious...

originally posted by: mrthumpy at this point we're reduced to the "just pointing and laughing" stage since the poster is clearly unable/unwilling to discuss anything.

i see nothing else from the assembled debunkers. OP is right to ignore such juvenile crud.

a reply to: RoScoLaz4

did you miss this?

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4

originally posted by: mrthumpy at this point we're reduced to the "just pointing and laughing" stage since the poster is clearly unable/unwilling to discuss anything.

i see nothing else from the assembled debunkers. OP is right to ignore such juvenile crud.

Here's a thread debunking many of Geo-engineeringwatch's lies:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Feel free to contribute to the factual information it contains.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: ConnectDots

I really have to ask you this...

Are you really Dane Wigington, because you sure do like to push his/your site pretty hard?

I am just curious...

The sanity levels appear similar

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

Here is the link to “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis”: www.climatechange2013.org...

The quote in question:

“If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.”

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

from the “Summary for Policymakers,” is found on page 27 of the .pdf, which can be downloaded.

no, show me this:

The IPCC stated in 2013 that chemtrails are necessary

You said it, you own it. this is the way chemtrail promoters operate. Lie and hope your target audience is too stupid to fact check.

a reply to: network dude

You said it, you own it.

This should be interesting..

Lie and hope your target audience is too stupid to fact check.

Funny that is one of their by laws for the chemtrail pusher union.

And as you know it never works well for them.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

Here is the link to “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis”: www.climatechange2013.org...

The quote in question:

“If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.”

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

from the “Summary for Policymakers,” is found on page 27 of the .pdf, which can be downloaded.

It's cherry picked out of context from page 29. Here's the complete paragraph for context

Methods that aim to deliberately alter the climate system to counter climate change, termed geoengineering, have been proposed. Limited evidence precludes a comprehensive quantitative assessment of both Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon D ioxide Removal (CDR) and their impact on the climate system. CDR methods have biogeochemical and technological limitations to their potential on a global scale. There is insufficient knowledge to quantify how much CO2 emissions could be partially offset by CDR on a century timescale. Modelling indicates that SRM methods, if realizable, have the potential to substantially offset a global temperature rise, but they would also modify the global water cycle, and would not reduce ocean acidification. If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing. CDR and SRM methods carry side effects and long-term consequences on a global scale. [6.5, 7.7]

Now you know that quote has been used deceptively. Any thoughts?

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4

originally posted by: mrthumpy at this point we're reduced to the "just pointing and laughing" stage since the poster is clearly unable/unwilling to discuss anything.

i see nothing else from the assembled debunkers. OP is right to ignore such juvenile crud.

Right. So you are in favour of lies being pushed unchallenged to promote an "awareness" of made up chemtrail stories?

I never understand why people get angry at people exposing lies, instead of getting angry at the ones who told them.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4

originally posted by: mrthumpy at this point we're reduced to the "just pointing and laughing" stage since the poster is clearly unable/unwilling to discuss anything.

i see nothing else from the assembled debunkers. OP is right to ignore such juvenile crud.

OP just ignores anything if it isn't said with enough passion and conviction

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: mrthumpy

The IPCC stated in 2013 that chemtrails are necessary: www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

The alleged statement:

“If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.”

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

Looking further this morning I see that the above outside quote had been taken out of context.

Here is a screenshot of the context, from page 27 of the .pdf:




But what about the rest of the article:

. . . the IPCC admits in AR5: “New and improved observational aerosol datasets have emerged since AR4. A number of field experiments have taken place.”

One of the programs listed, the Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment, covered the Northern Hemisphere, measuring aerosols originating in Asia and crossing the Pacific into North America, then continuing across the continent, across the Atlantic Ocean and into Europe. Headed by the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry Project, these flights ran in 2004 and 2006, and reportedly numbered less than four dozen.

Another “experiment,” the European Aerosol Cloud Climate and Air Quality Interactions project, started in January 2007 and ended in December 2010 – running for a full four years, and included Africa.

In addition to the joint regional projects, several nations also perform similar field trials within their own borders. India admits to running SRM programs for over ten years.

Surely, field trials move way beyond “experiments” when they cover continents and cross oceans and are performed over a period of years.

Another inconsistency in AR5 is its discussion of persistent contrails. Despite the dire warning in the Summary urging policymakers to continue with their solar radiation management programs lest the planet’s surface cooks, the body of AR5 sees persistent contrails as responsible for only a very slight increase in radiative forcing (where solar energy is radiated back into space).

Overall, the IPCC has “medium confidence” that these persistent contrails and their induced cirrus clouds do not change surface temperatures on the planet. This contradicts what scientists found during the 3-day grounding of all US planes after 9/11 (except those scooting Saudis out of the country). Ground temperatures increased 2-3 ºC during the absence of contrails, persistent or not.

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

a reply to: ConnectDots

They were monitoring the spread of pollutants from various parts of the world and how they spread and interacted with the atmosphere. Aerosol =/= spraying.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: mrthumpy

The IPCC stated in 2013 that chemtrails are necessary: www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

The alleged statement:

“If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.”

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

Looking further this morning I see that the above outside quote had been taken out of context.

Here is a screenshot of the context, from page 27 of the .pdf:

But what about the rest of the article:

. . . the IPCC admits in AR5: “New and improved observational aerosol datasets have emerged since AR4. A number of field experiments have taken place.”

One of the programs listed, the Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment, covered the Northern Hemisphere, measuring aerosols originating in Asia and crossing the Pacific into North America, then continuing across the continent, across the Atlantic Ocean and into Europe. Headed by the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry Project, these flights ran in 2004 and 2006, and reportedly numbered less than four dozen.

Another “experiment,” the European Aerosol Cloud Climate and Air Quality Interactions project, started in January 2007 and ended in December 2010 – running for a full four years, and included Africa.

In addition to the joint regional projects, several nations also perform similar field trials within their own borders. India admits to running SRM programs for over ten years.

Surely, field trials move way beyond “experiments” when they cover continents and cross oceans and are performed over a period of years.

Another inconsistency in AR5 is its discussion of persistent contrails. Despite the dire warning in the Summary urging policymakers to continue with their solar radiation management programs lest the planet’s surface cooks, the body of AR5 sees persistent contrails as responsible for only a very slight increase in radiative forcing (where solar energy is radiated back into space).

Overall, the IPCC has “medium confidence” that these persistent contrails and their induced cirrus clouds do not change surface temperatures on the planet. This contradicts what scientists found during the 3-day grounding of all US planes after 9/11 (except those scooting Saudis out of the country). Ground temperatures increased 2-3 ºC during the absence of contrails, persistent or not.

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

So are you admitting you lied? Or were you just tricked into looking like you are hugely dishonest by that wonderful guy Dane Wiggington?

a reply to: ConnectDots

Oh look :

India admits to running SRM programs for over ten years.

How about you prove this one true as well. It's from your source, Dane Wiggington's site.

Just show me where this is listed on any main stream news. (for it to be a "fact" in one of Dane's articles, there must be a citation, right?)


ETA: seriously, at some point, even the most naive person in the world would have to realize they were being played and lied to.