What do chemtrail debunkers have to gain?

reply to post by network dude


if you follow the money in the global warming camp it leads to bankers and carbon credits and collages getting big grants to do research into global warming .

when it has been proved that the data is being altered by the warming camp one only hopes that is not the case for chemtrails

reply to post by geobro


contrails are frozen water. Nothing to fear. Chemtrails are misidentified contrails.
Global warming/climate change is a different discussion altogether.

network dude

Urantia1111
reply to post by network dude

 

YOU'RE a chemtrail debunker. you tell US what you get out of it. clearly you must get something. who would have time to devote to that cause unless they were compensated?

How much do you get paid to post here?

Do you get a health plan?

What do you get out of this?

I also don't believe in Bigfoot, but I read every thread I see about it just in case someone finds something that hasn't been found before.

I read UFO threads and post in them but I am not sure they are from space.

The things I post about contrails is science fact. I enjoy discussing them. But unlike you, I don't get paid for it. Follow the money.

Follow the money? OK, here is where that led to:

"Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts Meeting
September 10, 2013 - September 12, 2013
National Academy of Sciences Building
2100 C St. NW
Washington D.C.

Room: NAS 125

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

OPEN SESSION

9:00 AM Introductions Marcia McNutt, Chair
NRC/Committee introductions, study background, and meeting objectives and ground rules

9:10 AM Discussion of Committee’s Task
Discussion continued from first meeting on what this study should address
9:10 AM Gary Geernaert, Department of Energy
9:30 AM Daniel Schrag, Harvard University
9:50 AM Committee Discussion

10:30 AM Break

10:40 AM Session 1: Observations and Natural Analogues
What can be detected with satellites now that would be relevant to observing the experimentation or deployment of solar radiation management (SRM) techniques? (in particular for Earth’s albedo and Stratospheric aerosols) What can be learned from natural analogues (e.g., volcanoes) about the effects of SRM techniques? And how well can we anticipate a volcanic eruption?
10:40 AM Ralph Kahn, NASA – Observational capabilities in radiation, clouds, albedo, and aerosols
11:00 AM Charlie Mandeville, USGS – Volcano eruption warnings
11:20 AM Alan Robock, Rutgers University (remote presentation) – Volcanic eruptions as analogs for stratospheric geoengineering
11:40 AM Committee Discussion

12:30 PM Working Lunch

1:30 PM Session 2: Geoengineering and the Public; Ethical and Equity Issues
How does society view geoengineering? What are the ethical and equity issues involved with geoengineering?
1:30 PM Nick Pidgeon, Cardiff University (remote presentation) – How does society view geoengineering?
1:50 PM Stephen Gardiner, University of Washington (remote presentation) – Ethical and equity issues with geoengineering
2:10 PM Committee Discussion

2:45 PM Break
3:00 PM Session 3: Direct Air Capture; Carbon Sequestration and Storage
What do we know about the technology of direct air capture right now? What do we know about the potential for biological carbon storage? What do we know about how to store carbon for the long term? Where is the technology? What is the capacity (globally and in U.S.)? What is the role of climate policy?
3:00 PM David Keith, Carbon Engineering – Direct air capture
3:20 PM Robert Jackson, Duke University – Biological storage of carbon
3:40 PM Jae Edmonds, PNNL– Bioenergy, CCS, terrestrial sequestration, and climate policy
4:00 PM Kurt House, C12 Engery (remote presentation) – Geological storage of carbon
4:20 PM Committee Discussion

5:30 PM Open session ends



Wednesday, September 11, 2013

OPEN SESSION

9:00 AM Introductions Marcia McNutt, Chair

9:10 AM Session 4: Policy, Governance, and Legal Issues
What existing legal structures relate to geoengineering? What types of governance structures have been proposed for geoengineering and/or what structures exist that are relevant?
9:10 AM Susan Solomon, MIT (remote presentation) – Volcanoes as natural analogues to solar radiation management (carry over from Tuesday discussion) and relevance of Montreal Protocol to geoengineering
9:30 AM Scott Barrett, Columbia – Governance of geoengineering
9:50 AM David Keith, Harvard – Governance and solar radiation management
10:10 AM David Reidmiller, State Department – Geoengineering in the context of international environmental policy
10:30 AM David Winickoff, UC Berkeley (remote presentation) – Governing Geoengineering Research: Are New Institutions Necessary?
10:50 AM Committee Discussion

12:30 PM Working Lunch

Open session ends"

www8.nationalacademies.org...

Continuing on the money trail we find this:

"Atmospheric projects
These projects seek to modify the atmosphere, either by enhancing natural processes such as the sulfur cycle, or by using artificial techniques such as reflective balloons.

1.Stratospheric sulfur aerosols modify the Earth's albedo with reflective or absorptive materials spread over portions of its surface.
2.Reflective aerosols or dust methods would use tiny metal flakes or silica compounds added to the fuel of jet airliners, so that particles would be emitted from the jet engine exhaust.
3.Cloud whitening / marine cloud brightening / cloud reflectivity enhancement projects recommend that ships spray seawater into the air to create clouds, shielding the earth from the sun.
4.Cloud seeding proposes the use of airliners to distribute the cloud-seeding materials or the burning of sulfur in ships or power plants to form sulfate aerosol in order to stimulate additional low marine clouds to reflect sunlight.
5.Ocean sulfur cycle enhancement would enhance the natural sulfur cycle in the southern ocean by fertilizing a small portion with iron in order to enhance dimethyl sulfide production and cloud reflectivity. The goal would be to slow Antarctic ice from melting and raising sea level.
6.Reflective balloons suggests billions of aluminized, hydrogen-filled balloons be placed in the stratosphere to provide a reflective screen.
7.Low stratospheric soot could be created by decreasing the efficiency of burning in engines of aircraft flying in the low stratosphere to maintain a thin cloud of soot to intercept sunlight."
www.climatechangesask.com...

So the idea is to enhance natural processes such as Stratospheric sulfur aerosols. How would that be done? Assisting volcanoes? Inducing earthquakes in areas of volcanoes?

en.wikipedia.org...:VulcanoPinatuboJune1991.gif

"Reflective aerosols or dust methods would use tiny metal flakes or silica compounds added to the fuel of jet airliners, so that particles would be emitted from the jet engine exhaust."

The aviation experts assert that this can't be, yet that's what is being done by the geo-engineers (chemtrail creators).

Here is a Canadian version of Al Gore, by the name of David Keith. He has a radical idea to inject the atmosphere with soot or ash.

www.ted.com...
I'm sure he was paid a decent sum to peddle this fear mongering drivel. Just following the money as you asked.

"David divides his time between Boston and Calgary where he serves as president of Carbon Engineering—a start-up company developing industrial scale technologies for capture of CO2 from ambient air."
belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu... There $$$$$ to be made here!
carbonengineering.com... $$$$$$$$

reply to post by network dude


One thing I have noticed is the fact debunkers seem to get quite emotional.

reply to post by Mikeultra


That's following the money? One guy getting paid to give seminars and setting up a company to carry out a much safer form of geoengineering than injecting aerosols?

reply to post by Mikeultra


A meeting to discuss geo-engineering. Right. And why have a meeting to discuss the implications of a project that has been supposedly going on since 1990? Logic, the forgotten art.

superluminal11
reply to post by network dude

 

One thing I have noticed is the fact debunkers seem to get quite emotional.

Have you ever seen a chemtrail proponent get emotional? if not, browse this forum a bit.
It can be comical.

mrthumpy
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

That's following the money? One guy getting paid to give seminars and setting up a company to carry out a much safer form of geoengineering than injecting aerosols?

They're like rats, if there's one you know there's many, many more. The global warming crowd are the ones who are behind the chem-trail solution. A solution for a non existent problem (global warming). Here's a brilliant idea the global warming freaks have come up with. Cutting down northern forests so that there will be more snow covered ground to reflect sunlight. The cure is worse than...

"Removing trees from snowy landscapes can help reflect more sunlight into space"
en.wikipedia.org...
More global warming madness, a space lense.

reply to post by Mikeultra


LOL, you just helped prove my point.

Is there a giant space lens in place?

Logic, the lost art.

dazbog
I normally don't get involved in these discussions because my only input is my experience an these extended trails are unquestionably a fairly resent phenomena. If this was not the case these conversations would not occur, correct ?

Where were you going to talk about this kind of thing 20 years ago?

Oh, and persistent contrails have been around since powered flight. Just because you don't remember, doesn't mean they weren't there.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I am acutely aware of all the issues you mention. Getting a bit old seeing that WWII bomber pic. The balance of your debunking points are overtly laughable. I have no desire to elaborate. As I mentioned in my original post I normally do not discuss Chemtrails [ ? ] vs Contrails. I have no reasonable explanation for the former other then they most certainly do not reflect the characteristics of the latter. Feel free to satisfy your desire for the last word .

reply to post by dazbog


What characteristics do they not reflect? Only every other sighting posted on here of chemtrails is exactly like a contrail, so what do you see that is different?

reply to post by geobro


I would say that chemtrail debunkers like any other debunker have nothing real to gain aside from a feeling of (I assume) satisfaction from their responses.

dazbog
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I am acutely aware of all the issues you mention. Getting a bit old seeing that WWII bomber pic. The balance of your debunking points are overtly laughable. I have no desire to elaborate.

then I have no desire to believe you

As I mentioned in my original post I normally do not discuss Chemtrails [ ? ] vs Contrails. I have no reasonable explanation for the former other then they most certainly do not reflect the characteristics of the latter. Feel free to satisfy your desire for the last word .

Thanks -

I find it suspicious that you will not say why chemtrails are different from contrails - if there is a verifiable difference then you would be the first person I know of to have such evidence - and since I follow the evidence I would give it great credence indeed.

chemtrails would be a crime in most countries - "spraying stuff" from aircraft is illegal unless it is properly authorized, and I know of no such authorization. interference with fuel would be illegal too.

so by not revealing this verifiable evidence you are actually concealing a crime.

AFAIK concealing a crime is often a crime itself.

Why would you do that?

reply to post by Mikeultra

I'm sure he was paid a decent sum to peddle this fear mongering drivel. Just following the money as you asked.

And maybe you should actually learn what he has to say about geoengineering...







It helps to learn before calling someone a fearmonger.