I Have Been Wrong

Originally posted by OratoryHeist

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
And this is also the main reason they are taking so long researching the effects of geoengineering, and not just tossing things into the atmosphere.

Except ...

Geoengineers

Will

Release Tons of Sun-Reflecting Chemicals Into the Air Above New Mexico

... researchers will release the chemicals from a balloon 80,000 feet above Fort Sumner, then measure the effects on the ozone's chemistry. (To answer the big question: no, this can't be pulled off in a lab.) This will be a test, not a full-on attempt to stop climate change, the researchers say, and it won't have any major effects on the environment.
Nonetheless, geoengineering strategies like this are controversial, to say the least.

As I said, as some point you have to give it a go, you have to start experimenting to see if the computer models are accurate or not.

WILL.



WILL



WILL

Notice it does not say "they HAVE"

The difference is very important. Please learn it.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by OratoryHeist

 

If you want to believe this so badly, please go on believe it. For me, I have a brain and plan to use it. I require more than "faith" that since they planed it, they must be "doing it".

It's not about belief or 'faith'. It's about having an open mind and accepting (based on current and past evidence) that experimenting has/is/and (possibly) will be taking place.

The documentation I provided in previous posts clearly state various nations have geoengineering projects. That documentation clearly states that the US has extensive geoengineering programs. That same documentation clearly states that the US has been practising it for years.

Cloud seeding is something that has been going on for many years. I do not dispute that. If you wish to call it geo-engineering, go nuts.

Cloud seeding is geoengineering. Plain simple fact. If you want to deny that and look foolish, so be it.

But none of that is proof that anyone is spraying anything into the sky.

So what is cloud seeding if it's not spraying stuff into the skies?

I am not saying they won't, I am saying very, very clearly that as of this moment in time, I have not seen any proof that anyone has done this.

Then you should have read the previous document link I posted. 30 countries with projects, US with extensive projects, US with projects going back years, US using it as a 'weapon of war' - Operation Popeye, etc.

The motto of the website is Deny Ignorance. Not spread it.

My biggest reason for even being in this forum is the dumb ass logic that makes people fear clouds. Contrails are contrails/clouds.

I dont think anyone fears clouds. If they fear anything, its the unknown. People are simply concerned about possible effects of said experiments. If you are a farmer you will be concerned about the possible impact to your crops. If the crops get damaged then prices will be affected. etc etc.

... but since you seem to think I am on some payroll with an agenda I feel I must make this clear.

Where exactly have I made that claim? Guilty conscience showing through hmmm Network?

Maybe instead of trying to label other people, point the finger at them, suggesting some people have 'dumb ass logic', maybe you should spend more time looking at yourself and ask if you are in some way at fault. Are you simply being a naysayer? Is your credibility starting to wane? By taking the 'naysayer' approach have you simply backed yourself into a corner?

Take it easy Dude, have a great weekend!

reply to post by OratoryHeist


If you think that trying to make it rain in a small area for a very limited time is geoengineering then, yes cloud seeding is geoengineering. Most people consider geoengineering to be an effort to change the global climate lo g term though. There's a difference between climate and weather.

reply to post by OratoryHeist


You may not be scared of clouds, but you cannot have failed to see references to chemtrail grids etc on here so some people people clearly are.

Accepting that documents talking of possibilities for future GE experiments equates to things actually being done is certainly requiring of faith, since no evidential links have surfaced,but my main argument is with those who think contrails are evidence of GE, when no such description exists in any of the documents linked, even the excellent one you posted

reply to post by OratoryHeist

If you are a farmer you will be concerned about the possible impact to your crops. If the crops get damaged then prices will be affected. etc etc.

That would be true if your planting crops at 30000 ft., but since you don't your crops are safe from those pesky chemtrails...

reply to post by OratoryHeist

By taking the 'naysayer' approach have you simply backed yourself into a corner?

And what corner is that?

You may not be scared of clouds, but I do think your afraid of something.... could this be it?

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by OratoryHeist

 

You may not be scared of clouds, but you cannot have failed to see references to chemtrail grids etc on here so some people people clearly are.

Yeah, I've seen them. You wouldn't think pilots had designated air corridors to fly in.

Accepting that documents talking of possibilities for future GE experiments equates to things actually being done is certainly requiring of faith, since no evidential links have surfaced,but my main argument is with those who think contrails are evidence of GE, when no such description exists in any of the documents linked, even the excellent one you posted

It's not just about the proposals, it's also about taking what they have done in the past, adding that to their current concerns and their proposals and the possible implications to the climate. To say 'no, definitely nothing is happening' is a foolish stance to take, in my opinion.

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by OratoryHeist

 

And what corner is that?

You may not be scared of clouds, but I do think your afraid of something.... could this be it?

Yeah, Tom Cruise makes me cry, he's a shocking actor!

reply to post by OratoryHeist


I wouldn't say nothing is happening for definite, GE is obviously real and I think our disagreement, if any, is likely to be about how far it has progressed in terms of practical applications.

I do say, however, that contrails aren't "it"and those on here that are fixating on those pesky lines in the sky are looking the wrong way. whether they are the hoodwinked or the hoodwinkers is sometimes hard to tell but I find their presence on here, the way they attack other members, and the way they try to keep GE discussions focussed on contrails, albeit under the term 'chemtrails', sinister.

Originally posted by OratoryHeist

Cloud seeding is geoengineering. Plain simple fact. If you want to deny that and look foolish, so be it.

From Dic.com:

cloud seeding
noun
any technique of adding material to a cloud to alter its natural development, usually to increase or obtain precipitation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1945–50

and:

ge·o·en·gi·neer
[jee-oh-en-juh-neer] Show IPA
verb (used without object), verb (used with object)
1.
to make a large-scale effort to modify (the earth or its environment), especially to counteract global warming: Pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is one way to geoengineer the planet.
noun
2.
an engineer who works on such projects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
geo- + engineer

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

It appears cloud seeding doesn't actually meet the definition of geoengineering, what with it being local and not actually trying to change the earth and its environment.....perhaps you could write to Random House and tell them they look foolish.

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by OratoryHeist

 

I do say, however, that contrails aren't "it"and those on here that are fixating on those pesky lines in the sky are looking the wrong way. whether they are the hoodwinked or the hoodwinkers is sometimes hard to tell but I find their presence on here, the way they attack other members, and the way they try to keep GE discussions focussed on contrails, albeit under the term 'chemtrails', sinister.

To be fair, that argument can work with both sides. When you have two polar extremes there will always be a clash. Which is why I originally suggested people should try and sit on the fence, have an objective view instead of a biased view.

Take your own words you just used. You are immediately labeling the other side, using manipulative words such as 'sinister' to try and paint a derogatory picture of your 'opponents'. It could quite easily be said that you are indeed a 'hoodwinker' yourself.

Both sides are as bad as each other.

reply to post by OratoryHeist


In what way can I be said to be a hoodwinker? What have I posted that is untrue?

Are you saying that you think contrails ARE evidence of chemtrails and these ARE linked to GE?

In that case perhaps you are less well informed than I was giving you credit for. To me these falsehoods are

reply to post by waynos

In what way can I be said to be a hoodwinker? What have I posted that is untrue?

You don't believe in chemtrails...

Those white lines in the sky are only contrails....

The "atmospheric scientists" and "meteorologists" of this dear forum have already taken the 'defensive' status.

Just like the 'proof' that NSA was never really collecting citizens data over the past few years, is the same formula of the Geo-engineering denier takes in this forum.

Cloud seeding IS a form of Geo-Engineering, hence the DEFINITION. Can't be any more clear.

And if you think the Navy, Haarp, Daarpa, or any other derivation will let the general public and civilian academia to have any idea of the geo-engineering capabilities of said departments without a fight, your heads are all up your a**es so far this forum cannot go on any further.

reply to post by Goldcurrent

Cloud seeding IS a form of Geo-Engineering, hence the DEFINITION. Can't be any more clear.

Actually, it is three posts up...

reply to post by Goldcurrent

Just like the 'proof' that NSA was never really collecting citizens data over the past few years, is the same formula of the Geo-engineering denier takes in this forum.

Well, can you please show me where geoengineering is in fact taking place other than in computer models?

And please don't say cloud seeding, as that by definition is not geoengineering.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h

geoengineering, the large-scale manipulation of a specific process central to controlling Earth’s climate for the purpose of obtaining a specific benefit. Global climate is controlled by the amount of solar radiation received by Earth and also by the fate of this energy within the Earth system—that is, how much is absorbed by Earth’s surface and how much is reflected or reradiated back into space. The reflectance of solar radiation is controlled by several mechanisms, including Earth’s surface albedo and cloud coverage and the presence in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2). If geoengineering proposals are to influence global climate in any meaningful way, they must intentionally alter the relative influence of one of these controlling mechanisms.

www.britannica.com...


Yeah, I guess if I cherry picked my sources I could make a case that the sky is chartreuse.

reply to post by Goldcurrent


Clearly then cloud seeding does not fit that definition - is that your point??

Relying on technologies developed during World War II, such proposals were designed to alter weather systems in order to obtain more favourable climate conditions on a regional scale. One of the best-known techniques is cloud seeding

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul



I'm pretty sure you can comprehend plain English so I'll assume the tactic is confusion and misdirection. Glad to see you've muddied this forum to complete semantics like any good DEFENSE lawyer would.

reply to post by Goldcurrent


By the way....Clinton's lawyer called. He wants to know what the definition of "is" is.