The Bogus "Doing It for the Money" Argument

a reply to: network dude

I did not lie.

And no, Dane Wigington is not as you sarcastically described, either.

There are other alternatives that you might consider, should you choose to open up your mind.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

I did not lie.

And no, Dane Wigington is not as you sarcastically described, either.

There are other alternatives that you might consider, should you choose to open up your mind.

Please list the other alternatives for deliberately cherry picking that quote to make it appear that SRM is already underway.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ConnectDots
Aerosol =/= spraying.

Please explain to me what you mean there. I don't understand the meaning of "=/=."

a reply to: mrthumpy
"Rady made me do it"?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ConnectDots
Aerosol =/= spraying.

Please explain to me what you mean there. I don't understand the meaning of "=/=."

Does not equal. Most among the chemtrail community do not understand the meaning of the word aerosol and automatically take it to mean something that has been deliberately sprayed

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

I did not lie.

And no, Dane Wigington is not as you sarcastically described, either.

There are other alternatives that you might consider, should you choose to open up your mind.

Actually, it doesn't work like that. You posted an article, and claimed it offered proof that SRM had been underway for 10 years and was admitted.

You also stated that the IPCC claimed that chemtrails were necessary.

Back that up, or just admit you lied.


ETA: and just to ensure this post is firmly on topic, please tell us how Dane Wiggington makes his money to pay for his Mt. Shasta estate.
(since he isn't in it for the money, as you claim)

a reply to: mrthumpy

I see.

The rest of the post I was inquiring about: "They were monitoring the spread of pollutants from various parts of the world and how they spread and interacted with the atmosphere."

Zaphod58,

Please explain how the word "aerosol," which I flagged in brackets and bolded, is misunderstood by some in the subject matter you were commenting on:

. . . 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

An aerosol can be defined as a system of solid or liquid particles suspended in air or other gaseous environment. Aerosols vary in size and composition, they can be naturally or manmade generated, and thus there are a wide range of them, from flame synthesized nanoparticles and nanomaterials (good aerosols), with fundamentally new properties and functions because of their small size (< 100 nm) to airborne particulate matter resulted from the industrial production of nanomaterials, and viruses that have a negative effect in visibility and human health (bad aerosols)

Source

Taking a look at your source web address. Standby.

a reply to: eriktheawful

HAHA! Even the great and powerful ATS Moderator has the same issue!

while I am not sure where this leaves us, I am glad it wasn't just a stupid mistake on my part.

From eriktheawful: yah, I know, looks like it's because your web address has spaces in the web page addy.
Was something else.

a reply to: eriktheawful

There are three sentences in the outside quote in question:

. . . 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.

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.

Any comments?

Fixed for you.

U2U me and I'll explain what was wrong.

a reply to: ConnectDots

You're cherry picking the definition. An Aerosol is any kind of particle in the atmosphere. It could be volcanic ash, soot from a fire, pollution from a power plant or mine. It doesn't mean spraying.

a reply to: Zaphod58

When the author Rady Ananda quoted the IPCC:

"New and improved observational aerosol datasets have emerged since AR4. A number of field experiments have taken place."

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

Considering the quote within the context of the overall article, do you hear her insinuating a false meaning for "aerosol"?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Zaphod58

When the author Rady Ananda quoted the IPCC:

"New and improved observational aerosol datasets have emerged since AR4. A number of field experiments have taken place."

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

Considering the quote within the context of the overall article, do you hear him insinuating a false meaning for "aerosol"?

Can you show how this in any way equates to spraying? Otherwise, it's nothing.


ETA:
it's interesting how you used the term "context" correctly, yet failed massively to understand that the entire article you are using as a basis for your arguments is due to taking a paragraph OUT of context in the first place. The article is false, it's a lie and you are perpetuating it. Like a good sheep would.

a reply to: ConnectDots

not that you are expected to realize your errors, but here is the IPCC paper in question and PROPER context.

www.ipcc.ch...

(it's a PDF)

a reply to: ConnectDots

No, I hear the chemtrail crowd inserting a false meaning. She's using it exactly how it is meant to be used. They're tracking pollution and other particulates that are aerosols. It's the chemtrail believers that insist that aerosols can ONLY mean spraying, just as you are doing.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Don't put words in my mouth. I have made no statements about aerosols.

The "chemtrail crowd" did insert some editorializing in the title of her article.

On Global Research it is "IPCC warns policymakers not to stop ‘solar radiation management.’"

But on Geoengineering Watch it is "IPCC Warns Not To Stop Chemtrails, aka ‘Solar Radiation Management.'"

It was Ms. Ananda who took a statement by the IPCC out of context.

Yes, Geoengineering Watch is responsible for articles from other websites that they post.

a reply to: ConnectDots

So you're not making statements about chemtrails, but you're quoting Dane Wiggington, and quoting articles that cherry pick and misinterpret what's being said.

So what the hell ARE you saying then if you're not saying anything about chemtrails?

They're not responsible for the article, they ARE responsible for the spin they put on it, and the deliberate misinterpretation they post on their site. Or aren't they responsible for that either?

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm saying that Dane Wigington is not the liar and out for the money guy that he is alleged to be.

I'm saying that we have whistleblowers who have told us what's going on and I believe them.

I'm saying that we have a shadow government running the show on planet Earth and the general public better wake up to it.

I'm saying you can't trust the mainstream media, academia, or the elected government.

I'm saying we live in a culture of lying.