It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
First of all this thread is about geoengineering, not chemtrails. Chemtrails is the term those who want to avoid addressing geoengineering use to make people sound crazy.
Imagine our surprise when we discovered extensive proof of government involvement, funding, sponsorship, multidisciplinary research, policy making and implementation of global atmospheric modification under the classification of 'Geoengineering.' This is the chemtrail smoking gun we have been looking for.
The Chemtrail Smoking Gun
Proof of global atmospheric geoengineering
by: Bruce Conway
For a non dis-info guy, you sure use some slick techniques there.
Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
So you say chemtrails are a term so people use instead of addressing Geoengineering?
Are you sure about that?
See the difference?
I am willing to bet if the title used was "Are chemtrail deniers acting immorally?" this thread would already be at page 46
Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by FissionSurplus
Chemtrail deniers are acting immorally only when they know it's true but they are paid to get online and tell people they're crazy, paranoid liars.
Could you possibly point me in the direction of those you say are paying the chemtrail deniers, because someone owes me an explanation as to where my paycheck has been since I have yet to see it.
Do you honestly believe what your saying?
In September 2009, the Royal Society published its seminal report Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty, describing this emerging field.
The history of geoengineering actually pre-dates much of the science fiction literature on terraforming. The Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius ForMemRS (1859–1927), who first recognised the important link between carbon dioxide (CO2) and the ‘greenhouse effect’, considered the climatic implications of industrial activities and the burning of coal. He wondered whether coal burning should be increased in order to enhance greenhouse warming, considering it beneficial because of the harsh Swedish winters.
Originally posted by zorgon
using the term "Chemtrails" here at ATS invokes a certain anticipated response from a certain type of people... almost like Pavlovian conditioning. In fact I could swear they have a robot trigger set for that term to notify them
Also research using the term "Chemtrails" gets you mostly conspiracy websites with opinions as opposed to actual data when you use the term "Geoenginneering"
I am willing to bet if the title used was "Are chemtrail deniers acting immorally?" this thread would already be at page 46
First of all this thread is about geoengineering, not chemtrails. Chemtrails is the term those who want to avoid addressing geoengineering use to make people sound crazy.
It could be that you're missing a paycheck because you are choosing to remain in the dark until you hear from a declared "leader" admitting it.
Just look at the cloud seeding activities, we already know that this has been declared geoengineering just recently by the Royal Society.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by pianopraze
First of all this thread is about geoengineering, not chemtrails. Chemtrails is the term those who want to avoid addressing geoengineering use to make people sound crazy.
Then why did you post videos about chemtrails? If you expect anyone to take you seriously, using discredited chemtrail sources is the worst thing to do.
Also, who are these "Geoengineering Deniers" you speak of?
Without naming names, they have been exposed in this thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Without naming names, they have been exposed in this thread. www.abovetopsecret.com...
Do you think climate engineering is a positive activity? If so, what specific types of geoengineering do you think would help humanity and the Earth equally?
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Afterthought
Where? It's not in the article you link to.edit on 14-4-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)
24. While there was a measure of debate that some—CDR, in particular—technologies fell within the definition of geoengineering, there was greater disagreement about weather modification techniques should be included. The Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group) considered that geoengineering should also encompass weather modification techniques such as hurricane suppression and cloud seeding.[52] Cloud seeding causes precipitation by introducing substances into cumulus clouds that cause condensation. Most seeding uses silver iodide, but dry ice (that is, solid carbon dioxide), propane, and salt are also used.[53]
25. These techniques are in use to precipitate rain and to suppress precipitation and hail.[54] Dr James Lee, from the American University, Washington DC, pointed out in his memorandum that cloud seeding was first scientifically demonstrated in 1946[55] and "is a geoengineering tool that is widely used by more than 30 countries" and that with climate change, fresh water resources will be in decline in many parts of the world and one "result may be an increase in the use of cloud seeding".[56] He cited the example of China, whose:
Frankly, I don't care if you're a paid talking head or not. Why should I care how you put food on your table? That's your business.
It could be that you're missing a paycheck because you are choosing to remain in the dark until you hear from a declared "leader" admitting it.
Sorry, I got side tracked and forgot the link.
We conclude that weather techniques such as cloud seeding should not be included within the definition of geoengineering used for the purposes of activities designed to effect a change in the global climate with the aim of minimising or reversing anthropogenic climate change.