Solar Radiation Management, Chemtrails and Climate Mitigation

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

it's referring to deliberate and intentional warfare by manipulation of weather to either flood or deprive an area of water, among other things.

Well make sure to add this to your thread...

1 . Convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques
New York, 10 December 1976

treaties.un.org...

That would be the UN resolution banning using weather as a weapon which has been in effect since 1976.

a reply to: MagicWand67

It's safe to assume that have already read it.

No, I just blindly post links for things I have no idea about.

Is it safe to assume you haven't?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

What in the World are you talking about? Is this your idea of a joke or something?

If you want to ask me a question can you at least make it a coherent one?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Sorry but both of those are bogus and debunked.

Here you go concerning case orange...

www.metabunk.org...

I'm really getting tired of hearing people say something has been "debunked" and then linking to another discussion on a different forum. Those people on metabunk aren't scientists. They're just people on the internet talking about the paper and giving their personal opinions. Mick West is a shill in my opinion and that cheesy little website is BUNK.

I read the link and so called "debunking" of CASE ORANGE. What exactly was debunked? Please be specific. If I wanted to discuss this on metabunk I would go join their forum. This is ATS and if you say something is bunk then you have the obligation to explain yourself in your own words. Instead you take the lazy route and link to a non-scientific discussion by regular Joe's on a different website.

Unless, one of those people is you? Were you involved in that discussion? And if so, which member are you?

This video below is a presentation of the CASE ORANGE report. They outline the topics that can be found in it.

Full 336 page version of CASE ORANGE

Contrail science, it's impact on climate and weather manipulation programs conducted by the United States and it's allies

youtube

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE for COVERT GEOENGINEERING: In 2010 Aerospace Engineers published conclusive evidence for Covert Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering, (aka "Chemtrails") in a 336 page report called "CASE ORANGE". The report was commissioned by THE BELFORT GROUP (UK), who held a "CHEMTRAILS SYMPOSIUM" where the conclusions were presented by Aerospace Engineer, Dr. Coen Vermeeren

This next video is a presentation by Kristen Megan. She is a whistle blower and provides details on why she thinks Geoengineering tests are happening.

youtube

Kristen Meghan, Ex-Military, former Air Force Sr. Industrial Hygienist/Environmental Specialist. Her job was Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 4BOX1, Bio-environmental Engineer.

Kristen gave a ground breaking presentation of what she had discovered about Geoengineering / Chemtrails while serving her Country. This BRAVE young lady has put her livelihood / life on the line for us.

originally posted by: MagicWand67
This video below is a power point presentation of the CASE ORANGE report. They outline the topics that can be found in it.
......

This post lists the summary conclusions from Case Orange and points out why all except one of them are bunk.

and the one that isn't bunk is trivial.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Again with the metabunk? I already read it.

All I see are opinions. I guess we have a different meaning of "debunked".

My understanding of debunking is that something has been proven to be false.

Nothing you provided has proven anything and certainly not proven anything to be false.

So, again no debunking. I have yet to see any actual debunking of CASE ORANGE.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Aloysius are you MikeC?

I see that metabunk member has the same avatar as you.

Can I please get a run down of who is who on that website?

I know that Mick's screen name on ATS is Uncinus right?

I would like to provide another paper for anyone who is interested in Solar Radiation Management aka SRM.

SRM is also known by another name Short Wave Climate Engineering aka SWCE.

Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies
Box 3.1.3.1 Monitoring the Earth’s Radiative Balance
...
Before field testing or deploying any SWCE, it will be critical to have in place a monitoring system that can observe both the solar irradiance (incident and reflected) and the radiance emitted by the Earth to space. Past or current systems such as ERBE and CERES may fulfill part of this need, but the monitoring requirements for SWCE will likely be beyond currently deployed capabilities and new systems will be required.

3.2 The Value and Limitations of Field Testing
Phase II field-testing involving stratospheric aerosol deployment could—if properly designed—benefit our understanding in each of the three research streams discussed in the previous section. With appropriate experimental design, even very short-term and/or very low-level field-experiments could simultaneously provide demonstration of stratospheric lofting and aerosol dispersal mechanisms, observations of stratospheric aerosol transport and chemical interactions, and the opportunity to measure immediate radiative effects of stratospheric aerosols under clear-sky conditions. Such low-level, minimal climate impact experiments would be valuable for the iterative development of a complete stratospheric aerosol SWCE system. However there are important limits to what such subscale experiments could conclusively demonstrate.

originally posted by: MagicWand67
I would like to provide another paper for anyone who is interested in Solar Radiation Management aka SRM.

SRM is also known by another name Short Wave Climate Engineering aka SWCE.

Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies
Box 3.1.3.1 Monitoring the Earth’s Radiative Balance
...
Before field testing or deploying any SWCE, it will be critical to have in place a monitoring system that can observe both the solar irradiance (incident and reflected) and the radiance emitted by the Earth to space. Past or current systems such as ERBE and CERES may fulfill part of this need, but the monitoring requirements for SWCE will likely be beyond currently deployed capabilities and new systems will be required.

Do you find it hard to deal with the murkiness of the wording used when discussing SRM, or am I just missing something? Your above link seems to imply that this SWCE, or SRM is not yet taking place, as they are stating some monitoring will be critical to have before anything is done, which I very much agree with, but then you have the "whistleblowers" claiming that this have been going on for years, although they don't have any real data to back that up.

When digging into all this stuff, it gets frustrating. Someone is full of crap. Or am I looking at it wrong?

a reply to: network dude

SWCE paper is dated 2009

The video was from Feb 2014

a reply to: MagicWand67

So we should have some scientific papers that corroborate the stories right? Or should we just use assumptions as facts?

I am not being argumentative, i am discussing things that YOU post here. Perhaps to avoid any confusion, you should refrain from posting the old outdated stuff.

I guess my search for the truth has no place here.

a reply to: MagicWand67

Aloysius are you MikeC?

I see that metabunk member has the same avatar as you.

Can I please get a run down of who is who on that website?

I know that Mick's screen name on ATS is Uncinus right?

Now you know the names can you prove any of what they say wrong?

I see you think metabunk is just full opinions, but what you seem to be missing is the fact they might be opinions but they are backed by science.

Now back to your regular scheduled thread.

a reply to: network dude

I guess my search for the truth has no place here.

:

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Now you know the names can you prove any of what they say wrong?

I see you think metabunk is just full opinions, but what you seem to be missing is the fact they might be opinions but they are backed by science.

And I should just take your word for it right?

How about providing us with some of that science you speak of?

What's your screen name on metabunk?

a reply to: MagicWand67

And I should just take your word for it right?

How about providing us with some of that science you speak of?

What's your screen name on metabunk?

No, in fact Mick has said if you find something wrong on his site tell him, so have you done that yet?

I have.

That would actually be none of your business as I'm not the topic of this thread and neither are Mick and Aloysius.

Way to go way off topic...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

You're the one who posted links to that website.

I just wanted to read your posts about the CASE ORANGE report.

You said it was bunk and offered nothing else but the link.

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: tsurfer2000h
And I should just take your word for it right?

who ever said that?

by all means do some checking - that's one of the differences between debunking and the chemtrail theory - to accept the theory you have to take peoples word for it - because if you check it it turns out to be nonsense.

How about providing us with some of that science you speak of?

ther are plenty of links to science available - many of them on, for example, www.contrailscience.com

What's your screen name on metabunk?

MikeC - what's yours?

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
Aloysius are you MikeC?
I see that metabunk member has the same avatar as you.

Yep.

Can I please get a run down of who is who on that website?

Not that I am aware of.

I know that Mick's screen name on ATS is Uncinus right?

I believe so.

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
Again with the metabunk? I already read it.
All I see are opinions. I guess we have a different meaning of "debunked".
My understanding of debunking is that something has been proven to be false.
Nothing you provided has proven anything and certainly not proven anything to be false.
So, again no debunking. I have yet to see any actual debunking of CASE ORANGE.

Here'sa nic simple example for you - the registration of NATO's AWACs in Luxembourg is said in Case Orange to be:

It is unacceptable that the Awacs aircraft fleet under NATO operates under a Luxemburg civil registration without complying with civil aviation regulations. This is a flagrant violation of the law and this should be corrected in the near future.

No - it is not a violation of any law. There is no law that prohibits the military from registering their aircraft provided they meet the standards of the state of registry.

that is not opinion - it is fact - one which Case Orange gets wrong.

Their statement that it is "unacceptable" is just their opinion - it is fine by me.

Another case where Case Orange doesn't know what they are talking about:

If possible an international ban should be placed on such weapons.

That has already been done - see international convention on weather warfare

Moreover their conclusion is actually just their opinion in the first place!

Or another -

The ambition of the United States is to control the weather by the year 2025, both for civil and military purposes (offensive and defensive strategies). This research paper contains a proven track record to support that statement.

The research paper is just that - a research paper - it is not actually US policy - so again, wrong.

If you think these cases are not debunked then you either did not read the post, or have no idea what debunking actually is.