Are geoengineering deniers acting immorally?

reply to post by pianopraze


Speaking of morals, the creators of what in the world are they spraying in my opinion are acting immoral.

Instead of using their budget to collect proper data and blow this conspiracy out of the water, they make a rubbish documentary that cloudys the waters even further.

So may I ask you, as someone who has caught them in the act, what method are they using anyway?

Is it stratospheric sulfur aerosols?

Or cloud reflectivity?

Or something else?

Please share!

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.

If you google chemtrails you get conspiracy.

But... Michael Murphy calls them chemtrails.

And you used his documentary to "strengthen" your argument for geo-engineering

Is that moral?

Brilliant! If you deny man made geo engineering you are a racist, just like if you deny man made climate change you are a racist. Lol. I love using their words against them.

reply to post by Worldsgonenuts

You may not be sick today, you may not be sick tomorrow, but rest assured BECAUSE OF THE CHEMTRAILING, your immune systems will fail and you will eventually die of cancer, and THAT IS THE REASON FOR CHEMTRAILING OF GEO ENGINEERING. WAKE UP

So do you have any evidence or possibly a link that backs up this statement? Also can you even prove chemtrails are even real, but lastly the OP says that chemtrails are not geoengineering only a word used to keep people from discussing geoengineering?

Originally posted by Worldsgonenuts(...)
This is an assault on humanity....

Greetings:

[color=Chartreuse]This is an assault on humanity ...

We cannot agree more.

However, what continues to amaze us is the easy access to derailing points that those same 'intrepid defenders of nothing is going on here' have in each and every thread about chemtrails or now, geoengineering."

If, in fact, nothing is going on, then how come peoples across the globe have provided photographs of 'anomalies' and formed groups to gather and share data about chemtrails and now, geoengineering?"

Would those same 'defenders' have us believe this is some planet-wide mass delusion that something is not right with our once-blue, once-pristine skies?

Check this out:

U.N. Body Urges Caution on Synthetic Bacteria, Geoengineering

(...) Acting as the world's guardian on biodiversity, it also expressed deep concern about the potential impacts of geoengineering schemes to combat climate change on the Earth's ecosystems.

Please pay close attention here.

Remember, this information comes from the final session of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA).

"We are worried about the negative impacts of geoengineering and synthetic life forms on Africa," said a representative from Malawi at the final session of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA). This group is made up of scientific and technical experts from more than 100 countries that are signatories to the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

The CBD is charged with reducing the dramatic loss of species that underpin the Earth's life support systems, and the SBSTTA offers expert advice and recommendations.

Responding to a glowing, waving tentacle in the back of the room bleating, "What's the point here?"

We're glad you asked.

[color=Cyan]"Geoengineering" refers to any large-scale human-made effort to intentionally adjust major planetary systems, and includes proposals such as giant vertical pipes in the ocean, pumping vast amounts of sulfates into the stratosphere to block sunlight or blowing ocean salt spray into clouds to increase their reflectivity.

As always, follow the money.

Companies backing some of these schemes hope to profit from the rising public clamour for action on climate change, and politicians desperate to avoid serious reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Last March, scientists and geoengineering proponents attended an invitation-only conference in Asilomar, California to discuss various geoengineering ideas and a "voluntary code of conduct".

ASILOMAR INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE INTERVENTION TECHNOLOGIES

[color=FFF000]The Climate Response Fund is coordinating an international conference to develop norms and guidelines for controlled experimentation on climate engineering or intervention techniques.

These sound like fun people.

Who's involved and who funds this?

The Climate Response Fund gratefully acknowledges the following contributors to the Asilomar Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies:

Strategic Partners
 
• The State of Victoria, Australia

Strategic Partners are organizational partners that are also major donors supporting the conference.
 
Major Donors
 
• The Altman Family Foundation
• The William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation
• Robert Klein/Danielle Guttman-Klein
• The Franklin P. and Catherine Johnson Family Foundation
• The Swig Foundation
• The Qualcomm Matching Gift Program
 
Contributing Donors
 
• Mr. John Freidenrich
• Carin and Alan Trounson
• The Ueberroth Family Foundation
 
Organizational Partners*
 
• The Climate Institute
• The Environmental Defense Fund
• The Royal Society
•
* Several organizations, together with the Climate Response Fund, have heard the calls for research on climate intervention/geoengineering.  These organizations join with us in recognizing the need for risk assessment and management guidelines/norms for this research.  

They have joined with us in supporting interdisciplinary international discussion of frameworks to assess and manage risk associated with climate intervention.

[color=Cyan]The agricultural risks of climate engineering are serious.

Food is a global commodity – shortages anywhere can give rise to global price hikes that put vulnerable communities worldwide at risk of not being able to afford basic foodstuffs.

Consequently, any adverse effect of geoengineering research could couple with market conditions to raise food prices and increase risks of hunger and malnutrition among poor communities.

Many involved scientists acknowledge this risk and have called for serious global discussions before geoengineering research might proceed.

Blackstock and Long are at the forefront of this effort: [color=Chartreuse]“Emerging national research programs—and even individual scientists—must forswear climatic impacts testing and carefully restrict subscale field-testing until approved by a broad, legitimate international process.”

They insist: “Vulnerable developing countries so far absent from [solar radiation management] discussions must be engaged, and all stakeholders need to consider whether existing frameworks can facilitate this process, or whether new forums, treaties, and organizations are required.”

While these sentiments certainly can be applauded, the issues here are not just technical; they are loaded with ethical judgments, value considerations, and political pitfalls, not to mention the ethical and moral considerations.

[color=FFD700]Yet, for many, phrases like “legitimate international process” and “all stakeholders” sound too much like climate scientists and government diplomats getting together to decide the fate of the planet.

That hasn’t worked so well so far, and not only because vulnerable developing countries have not been adequately consulted.

So what kind of governance process do we need?

To many minds, a potentially potent analogy is that of informed consent in human subjects research. Just like geoengineering research, human subjects research brings potentially significant public and private benefits by alleviating disease, injury, and even death.

Yet, because such research is also very dangerous, societies have adopted strict regulations for the conditions under which that research can be done.

One of the most important such conditions is informed consent. Under U.S. Federal Code of Regulations, Title 45, Part 46, Protection of Human Subjects, human subjects research that “obtains … data by … manipulations of the subject or the subject’s environment” (USFCR 45.46.102(f)) must seek "informed consent … from each prospective subject” it puts at risk (USFCR 45.46.111(a)(4)).

For geoengineering, of course, that would be everyone on the planet.

"A nation...cannot survive treason from within...the traitor ...wears the face of his victims,...and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.

He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly...he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared..." Cicero, 42 B.C.E.

Oh Beautiful for Chemtrailed Skies

Don’t ya just love the new paradigm?

I mean, it has so much to offer!

New skies, integrated circuits into human chemistry, molecularly altered fake food, plants and animals, and remote control war against anyone who challenges it. Wow!

We’ve got it all.

CONTROLLING CLIMATE: Catastrophic climate change may require technological fixes, such as mimicking the cooling impact of volcanic eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo here.
Image: NASA

What Is Geoengineering and Why Is It Considered a Climate Change Solution?: Scientific American

Holmestead - Index of Chemtrail pages

And a great thread by esteemed member OzWeatherman.

Contrail/ Chemtrail Research Thread

Not to leave out the U.K.

U.K. Researchers to Test "Artificial Volcano" for Geoengineering the Climate: Scientific American

Someone mentioned that other people worldwide are involved in the research as to what in the world in going on in our skies...

“Today's aspiring climate engineers wildly exaggerate what is possible and scarcely consider the political or ethical implications of attempting to manage the world's climate.” - James Fleming

At Stake:

First and foremost is the international control of planetary systems: our water, lands and air.

[color=00FF00]Second, is the commitment to climate change mitigation and adaptation.

If some rich governments and industry see geoengineering as a quick, cheap fix for climate change, their money and technologies will be devoted to this “scientific solution” and there will be no resources to help the global South fend off the chaos ahead.

[color=Cyan]'No matter how great the scientific wizardry, the modern Archimedes still has no place to stand, no acceptable lever or fulcrum, and no way to predict where the Earth will roll if tipped.' - James Fleming

Is anybody really listening?

Peace Love Light
tfw
[align=center][color=magenta]Liberty & Equality or Revolution[/align]

There's that saying that people don't see the world as it is, but as they are. I think that only applies to:

People^with^little^self^awareness^

An alarmist bitching about perceived alarmists.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
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.

If you google chemtrails you get conspiracy.

But... Michael Murphy calls them chemtrails.

And you used his documentary to "strengthen" your argument for geo-engineering

Is that moral?

asked/answered

primary source documentation in that movie of geoengineers at a conference saying geoengineering is dangerous.

Now lets talk about you. You throw straw man chemtrail argument and ignore a mountain of evidence i present in my op from Nature, Scientific American, CFR, Congress, Royal Society, NOAA and more.

let me ask all of you outraged people...what are you personally going to do about it?...write an e-mail, blog, send a letter to your congressmen?...no nothing...it's out of your hands...if you confront them and just happen to get a public hearing...they will just go to another country and continue on, there is no fairy tale, good wins over evil, ending.

Originally posted by jimmyx
let me ask all of you outraged people...what are you personally going to do about it?...write an e-mail, blog, send a letter to your congressmen?...no nothing...it's out of your hands...if you confront them and just happen to get a public hearing...they will just go to another country and continue on, there is no fairy tale, good wins over evil, ending.

True.

But... nothing is going to change if only a small bit of the population is aware of this evil they are about to propagate.

So I choose to spread awareness of this issue of geoengineering and its dangers.

The more people are aware the more it can be fought.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by pianopraze

 

Speaking of morals, the creators of what in the world are they spraying in my opinion are acting immoral.

Instead of using their budget to collect proper data and blow this conspiracy out of the water, they make a rubbish documentary that cloudys the waters even further.

Please share!

gday chad

or what about the immorality of monsieur Poussin's stealing your idea from you and not giving you credit?
i mean it was a hit piece straight from the gutter [and avoided like the plague by most of the usual players it seems]
as opposed to your well written and civil presentation Chemtrailers: Your time is NOW!, page 1 www.abovetopsecret.com...

i could be wrong but it was you who 1st made that proposal so credit was due

i'll kill 3 birds with one stone and continue to reiterate my reply to that thread and the recent chicken crapnuggets version:

attempting to obtain samples from a suspected chemtrail/geo-engineering flight
in the manner proposed will bring about a violent response by those who have secrets to keep

the contrail sampling in your thread
WAS DONE WITH PERMISSION OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED HAVING PREPARED[read RIGGED] the experiments outcome beforehand

woe to the naive investigator who would request criminals
to allow their crimes to be evidenced for exposure to the public
reply to post by pianopraze


3rd bird is to thank Pianopraze for the invite to as yet another quality thread
S&F

I don't know anyone that denies that geoengineering isn't happening, nor have I ever seen anyone post that geoengineering isn't happening at all that I can remember, therefore I reckon the question is moot.

And I'm surprised it took someone so long to ask this strawman question.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I don't know anyone that denies that geoengineering isn't happening, nor have I ever seen anyone post that geoengineering isn't happening at all that I can remember, therefore I reckon the question is moot.

And I'm surprised it took someone so long to ask this strawman question.

Then why are you posting here if the question is moot?
I am surprised that it took you three days to find this thread.
Then again you might have been here much quicker if the title had chemtrails in it.

This is an excellent thread loaded with very good information that is there for your reading, please don't try to derail it or bring it back to your platform.

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by pianopraze

So I choose to spread awareness of this issue of geoengineering and its dangers.

I read your entire OP...and held my tongue.

But now....once again, the effort to discuss geoengineering proposals and ideas is all well and good. The problem is you soiled your own yard, here, by including the nonsense of "chemtrails" into the OP.

It's that simple.

And, just above, I see again.....the confusion about the "awareness" that some here have attributed to these (completely imaginary) "chemtrails" that has led (according to those who make these claims) to the "awareness" of geoengineering.

Problem with that illogical argument is: Geoengineering proposals and concepts and discussions are NOT clandestine!! They are not secret, and are obviously being openly talked about and published and reported.

AND, yes...it IS controversial --- just as AGW and whether it is occurring (or not) and whether it is, thus, affecting the global climate (or not) is controversial.

GIVEN these facts, and these very public and open discussions, it boils down to this ----

Side 1: "AGW is real, and one day there will be a dire need for a way to mitigate its effects, in order to either prevent disaster, or ultimately, worst case, to save ourselves as a species".

Side 2: "AGW is hogwash, is not happening".

Side 3: "Geoengineering is still a worthy science to consider as a 'just-in-case' option. Better to be prepared, than to do nothing. This way, we control our destiny. But, the implications of not fully understanding it, and implementing it without fully comprehending the possible adverse effects are very important, and much caution will be made going forward. So far, there is no immediate, 'emergency' need at this time. But, having the knowledge will lead to better decision-making in the future, if or when the time comes".

reply to post by Iwinder


I am posting to say it is moot so that you know that I think it is moot - what with me not being a telepathic reptiloid it is the best way I know of of letting you know what I think.

I didn't see it before because I prefer to spend my weekend time elsewhere - like with my kids - since I don't have them much during the week I have more time to read marginal woo like this.

I have read the thread - yet again I see supposition, assumption, presumption and future studies being presented as if they were actual fact and have been for some time. If the title was changed to "SRM atmospheric geoengineering believers" then this thread would apply

There is no new information in here.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

And I'm surprised it took someone so long to ask this strawman question.

It's more than a strawman question; it's a whole strawman campaign! I'll be back in the morning to try to sort things out.

reply to post by pianopraze


Please, if you will:

So may I ask you, as someone who has caught them in the act, what method are they using anyway?

Is it stratospheric sulfur aerosols?

Or cloud reflectivity?

Or something else?

Please share!