Are geoengineering deniers acting immorally?

reply to post by pianopraze


And once again.....you are way off-base:

Your comments show you did not look at my source documents in the thread. I included both cfr and congressional testimony links from geoengineers.

Oh, I saw all of the documentation in your Opening Post, rest assured.

Note I took my time to craft a response that was appropriate.....and, admittedly, waited until you tipped your hand.

Mea culpa

But, you did show your bias......(the alleged "chemtrails").....not only in the OP, and despite your protestations and the fake "Who, me?" claims. It is shown in many other threads.....really, the pattern is clear for all to view.

However, I see there was no addressing my main point of the logic, in a post up above (or a page back):

IF Human activity (or 'AGW') is not affecting the Earth's climate on a global scale, as some contend.....and, we're talking about over a century of the 'Industrial Age', here.....if this is not the *culprit* for some observed changes that have been on-going.....then, it is a "natural" process at work, yes?

If so, then "geo-engineering" is moot, no?? I mean......the natural processes that the Earth undergoes will take their own natural course, regardless of Man's interference.

Correct?

You have to use some logic, here....at least. Logic....not 'emotion'.

reply to post by Afterthought

Wow. OK. You're taking this in a whole different route to dispel what I stated about geoengineering in Africa, which has nothing to do with malaria.

Sorry, but you made the claim that the UN is spending millions on geo-engineering in Africa. The UN (and NGOs) are spending money on HIV, malaria and agriculture. I have never seen any claim by anyone other than you that they are spending money on geo-engineering.

Since you refuse to do your own research, I'll help you up the stairs.
www.onlinebusinesslist.co.za...

About the China Geo-engineering Corporation

China Geo-engineering Corporation is located in 4 Protea Ave, Masvingo, South Africa. Company is working in Engineering business activities.

Hmm. I wonder why the company's description is so vague? I'll have to take the time later to look into this more closely.

Can we both agree:

1. It is a Chinese company, not the UN?
2. It uses the phrase "engineering business opportunities," not "geo-engineering projects?"

Why do you assume that the vagueness automatically implies that it is secretive? Given that Africa is rich in mineral resources, my first impression that the "engineering business opportunities" were of an extractive nature, ie; mining.

Here's some more interesting reading (I've highlighted the cues):

I will edit for both brevity and clarity:

openarchitecturenetwork.org...

If we wish to achieve a sustainable future for humanity, new modes of living must be established which promote the efficient use of natural resources whilst preserving the environment upon which our survival depends.

In short, we must implement sustainable development on a global scale before it is too late.

Further to an extended period of research and development, FPS Ltd. have recently completed the full articulation of "The Fractal Matrix Planning System", a new model for development which has the potential to play a significant role in our efforts to establish sustainable patterns of urban development on a global scale.

The FMPS has the following key features;

- Applicable within any Environmental, Cultural or Economic context
- Capable of structuring settlements of any scale
- Generates efficient patterns of infrastructure at all stages of development
- Provides a clear framework for effective resource management
- Fosters the development of strong community relationships
- Establishes a new symbiotic relationship between our natural and built environment

Their key features seem a bit vague to me.

There is nothing vague about it; they are talking about resource management and urban planning. There is not the slightest implication of geo-engineering.

Here's some more interesing reading:
www.scientificamerican.com...

Practical applications date to the Cold War, when both Russian and American military started seeding clouds in an attempt to induce rain. When President Lyndon Johnson was briefed about the dire effects of global warming, geoengineering was the only solution prescribed by his scientific advisors.

Cloud seeding is not geo-engineering. Your source does not provide a citation for the claim that Johnson's advisers recommended geo-engineering. On the contrary:

A second warning came in 1966 from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Panel on Weather and Climate Modification, headed by geophysicist Gordon MacDonald, who later served on President Richard Nixon's Council on Environmental Quality. While examining the question of deliberate weather modification, MacDonald's committee concluded that increased carbon dioxide might also lead to "inadvertent weather modification."

www.washingtonpost.com...

And some more:
allafrica.com...

'... geoengineering cannot be tested without full-scale implementation. The initial production of aerosol droplets can be tested on a small scale, but how they will grow in size (which determines the injection rate needed to produce a particular cooling) can only be tested by injection into an existing aerosol cloud, which cannot be confined to one location. Furthermore, weather and climate variability preclude observation of the climate response without a large, decade-long forcing. Such full-scale implementation could disrupt food production on large scale.'[10]

Exactly. If geo-engineering was being implemented, it would be extremely obvious. Or do you believe that contrails are intentional?

Here's a geoengineering fellowship advertised opening:
belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu... research_group_at_harvard_kennedy_school.html
edit on 16-4-2

For research.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
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!

Carbon sequestration - it's going on right under our feet - damned evil b-stards!!

reply to post by DJW001


Regarding the comment I made about the UN spending money on geoengineering, I know that I posted this info in another thread previously, so you're just going to have to calm down until I locate it. I posted the info about China spending money in Africa because I thought you wanted proof that geoengineering projects were happening in Africa. Now that I see you wanted info specific to the UN, you'll just have to sit tight.

The fact of the matter is is that many private indiviudals and companies are donating money to this cause. It's difficult to locate where all the money is coming from. So, in an attempt to "follow the money" as they say, I'm going to try to chart who's donating what and where.

Don't expect the info right away, but I will post it as soon as I'm able.

Are geoengineering deniers acting immorally?

No, they are being objective instead of fearful, suspicious and credulous.

Men have been studying biology, the oceans, the atmosphere and space for decades. Learning the dynamics of a given system does not necessarily infer the manipulation of the system, or a nefarious purpose.

You may recall that electricity and magnetism were once viewed with suspicion; educated people believed that the human body could not survive high-speed trains and supersonic flight.

As was earlier pointed out, if climate change is a natural process, then we would be foolish not to consider mitigation and adaptive strategies.

Adaptive and mitigation strategies are, by definition, "geo-engineering."

The Luddites are prime examples of unjustified fear of progress.

jw

it depends. from a strictly moral standpoint its more 50/50 weighing against deniers because if there is truth in the conspiracies related disregarding the potential "need" to be an "obedient citizen"; then if this information is presented in light of its potential i personally feel being a denier in light means you relegate someone as your shepard and thats immoral and irresponsible from a geoengineering perspective regarding the implications.

reply to post by Ausar


Could you, please, elaborate on this??:

from a strictly moral standpoint its more 50/50 weighing against deniers...

The term "50/50" (presuming that it refers to a factor of '100' as a baseline) means....well......'50/50' is, in another sense, a "split decision".

So......if a person were to say, for "example", that they were "51/49"....well, in the concept of "100" as a baseline, then that would make a bit more sense.....you "dig" me?? (Sorry.....that is 70s slang....I just thought it sounded funny....hope it make you grin.....at least a little...maybe? A tiny smile, perhaps??....)......

reply to post by Afterthought

Regarding the comment I made about the UN spending money on geoengineering, I know that I posted this info in another thread previously, so you're just going to have to calm down until I locate it. I posted the info about China spending money in Africa because I thought you wanted proof that geoengineering projects were happening in Africa. Now that I see you wanted info specific to the UN, you'll just have to sit tight.

You failed even to prove that the Chinese are engaged in geo-engineering in Africa. You dug up the name of a mining company that had both "geo,"as in "geological" and "engineering" in it. Funny how you assured us that the UN was spending millions on geo-engineering in Africa, and now you've changed it to just "the UN spending money on geo-engineering." Why not just admit you were blowing smoke in the first place?

reply to post by DJW001


I have a feeling that even if I managed to get a deposition from someone claiming that they are physically or financially involved with geoengineering on some level, you still wouldn't believe.

Regardless, I'll post the info once it's all accumulated and if you don't feel it's viable, then you don't. I obviously can't change your mind.

In the meantime, do you believe that geoengineering should be conducted?

reply to post by Afterthought

I have a feeling that even if I managed to get a deposition from someone claiming that they are physically or financially involved with geoengineering on some level, you still wouldn't believe.

What a ridiculous statement. There is a great deal of research going on about geo-engineering. I even have a friend who is working on terraforming concepts for Mars. Of course, there are engineers who are working on mining, drilling, earthquake amelioration and so forth. They sometimes refer to their field as "geo-engineering," but that is not the subject of this thread.

Regardless, I'll post the info once it's all accumulated and if you don't feel it's viable, then you don't. I obviously can't change your mind.

Yes, please post some information from a reliable source that claims that geo-engineering is actually going on. Not theoretical papers. Not reports of small scale tests of aerosols or working models of sea sprayers, but an actual full scale attempt to modify the Earth's climate. Intentionally. Even if you can't find any, I'm sure you aren't going to change your mind.

In the meantime, do you believe that geoengineering should be conducted?

If you had read the thread, you would know my answer to that.

reply to post by DJW001

do you believe that contrails are intentional?

Yes and no.
I believe that persisting contrails are intentional. The ones that disappear quickly behind the planes are true contrails. So, to sum it up and break away from the word "chemtrails", I prefer to show the difference by using the words CONtrails and contrails.

So, are all CONtrails chemtrails or are all chemtrails CONtrails?
All chemtrails are CONtrails, but not all CONtrails are chemtrails. Get it?

See, since we cannot test each individual trail's residue, we must look at the possibilities and evidence so far disclosed/reported by professional or private entities.

One example of this is is that we do know that higher than normal levels of aluminum have been discovered in the soil and drinking water. The same can be said for barium.

Another example of concrete evidence is that we know that CONtrails help to keep Earth's surface temperatures warmer. Do we know if all of these manmade cirrus clouds contain any heavy metals and/or chemicals? My best self-educated answer is No.
If these "clouds" are designed to insulate the Earth while repelling the sun's rays, the odds are good that tiny particles of heavy metals are suspended within these wispy vapor clouds. This would be one form of SRM technology. Do all persisting trails contain metallic particles? I do believe that all persisting trails contain reflective particles.
Even if these fake clouds have metals in them, it doesn't mean that all of the trails produced also contain forms of toxic liquid chemicals. In my opinion, it's possible that a few may, but not all.

So, considering my stance, I have to believe that roughly 17% of the CONtrails are chemtrails.

Since we do know there's a good chance that the majority of the CONtrails contain reflective metallic particles for SRM, proving that they all contain chemicals is impossible. Maybe the chemicals are only in the CONtrails that form Xs. I've never seen a CONtrail 'X' before. I've seen people's photos online though, but I think someone needs to start keeping track of these formations and ask these questions: Are they only witnessed over large cities? Was there an illness outbreak within two weeks of the CONtrail 'X'? I'm just knocking ideas around at this point. Maybe since I live an hour's drive from major cities, my area is targeted for SRM technology only and not Mad Scientist chemical showers. Who knows.

Do I believe that the US, or any country for that matter, is capable of releasing chemicals or poisonous substances into the atmosphere and the population in the 21st century? Absolutely. History proves this time and time again.

If you believe that governments won't ever again expose humans, insects, animals, and plants to poisons dropped from the sky, you took the blue pill.

reply to post by Afterthought


So this thread IS about chemtrails. Surprise.

reply to post by DJW001

please post some information from a reliable source that claims that geo-engineering is actually going on. Not theoretical papers. Not reports of small scale tests of aerosols or working models of sea sprayers, but an actual full scale attempt to modify the Earth's climate. Intentionally. Even if you can't find any, I'm sure you aren't going to change your mind.

I just want to remind you that proving geoengineering is occuring as we speak is not the premise of the thread. There are more than plenty of threads to argue this point. The point of this thread is to discuss the possible ramifications of geoengineering. So, in order to stay within the context of the thread, I'll try to find info about current geoengineering activities as well as any "symptoms" that have been reported. For example, I believe that fracking is a type of geoengineering as well as oil well activities. I'm sure we can both agree that geoengineering alters the natural Earth, no?

Not theoretical papers. Not reports of small scale tests of aerosols or working models of sea sprayers,

but an actual full scale attempt to modify the Earth's climate.
No theoretical papers? No small scale reports? You really have your mind tightly locked in place.
How do you feel about transcripts? Interviews? I just want to make sure that I don't present evidence that you would automatically throw out the window.

but an actual full scale attempt to modify the Earth's climate.

Your request above is practically impossible. Large scale evidence would mean that the MSM is reporting on it and we all know that's not happening.
I'll see what I can do though.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Afterthought

 

So this thread IS about chemtrails. Surprise.

Why is this a surprise to you? This is the direction you're pulling it in.
This thread was flowing magnificently until the "debunkers" entered and started throwing around the word "chemtrail" and begging for us to open their eyes.
Often times, I have to wonder if some of you need your eyelids surgically removed.

reply to post by Afterthought

I just want to remind you that proving geoengineering is occuring as we speak is not the premise of the thread. There are more than plenty of threads to argue this point. The point of this thread is to discuss the possible ramifications of geoengineering. So, in order to stay within the context of the thread, I'll try to find info about current geoengineering activities as well as any "symptoms" that have been reported. For example, I believe that fracking is a type of geoengineering as well as oil well activities. I'm sure we can both agree that geoengineering alters the natural Earth, no?

Not exactly; the premise of this thread is "are geo-engineering deniers immoral?" Since fracking is an attempt to alter the distribution of natural gas in the surface of the Earth, yes, it is geo-engineering in the broadest sense of the term. The earthquakes and aquifer pollution it has been associated with are unintended side effects of the process. These negative environmental impacts are why the process should be banned.

Your request above is practically impossible. Large scale evidence would mean that the MSM is reporting on it and we all know that's not happening.
I'll see what I can do though

Or perhaps it's impossible because it's not happening. Why not just post some pictures of contrails and call it a day?

reply to post by Afterthought

Why is this a surprise to you? This is the direction you're pulling it in.
This thread was flowing magnificently until the "debunkers" entered and started throwing around the word "chemtrail" and begging for us to open their eyes.

Don't blame me; the OP contained a chemtrail video, and you're the one who just posted a lengthy chemtrail diatribe. Calling a "chemtrail" a "CONtrail" doesn't change the faulty logic of the premise. The first three pages of the thread consisted of chemtrailers speculating on how Shills, Disinfo Agents and Paid Debunkers cashed their paychecks. Oddly, all of that ill informed and childish speculation was more on topic than your last few posts! The clear intent of the OP was not to foster an intelligent discussion of the pros and cons of geo-engineering, but to morally equate people who understand how and why contrails form with Holocaust Deniers. Not merely offensive, but pathetic.

reply to post by DJW001

The first three pages of the thread consisted of chemtrailers speculating on how Shills, Disinfo Agents and Paid Debunkers cashed their paychecks.

If we're going to debate this in a mature fashion, please use the correct terminology.

A "chemtrailer" is a person who sprays persisting contrails into the atmosphere.
To call those you're speaking about "chemtrailers" is just as bad as calling someone a shill, but worse. I've never accused anyone on ATS of personally polluting the atmosphere. It would be nice if a bunch of chemtrailers would become whistleblowers.

For the record, I consider myself to be an independent geoengineering researcher who volunteers my time to educate people about the dangers of geoengineering. To call me a chemtrailer is offensive.

reply to post by Afterthought

If we're going to debate this in a mature fashion, please use the correct terminology.

A "chemtrailer" is a person who sprays persisting contrails into the atmosphere.
To call those you're speaking about "chemtrailers" is just as bad as calling someone a shill, but worse. I've never accused anyone on ATS of personally polluting the atmosphere. It would be nice if a bunch of chemtrailers would become whistleblowers.

You should. If you drive a car, you are polluting the atmosphere.

For the record, I consider myself to be an independent geoengineering researcher who volunteers my time to educate people about the dangers of geoengineering. To call me a chemtrailer is offensive.

And I consider myself an independent researcher who volunteers my time to educate people about science. Calling me a "geoengineering denier," just because I try to explain how contrails form, is offensive. This entire thread is based on a straw man; it intentionally conflates chemtrails with geo-engineering. No it doesn't, you say? Very well, please show me one example of someone denying geo-engineering on this thread, or speaking in favor of it.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Afterthought

 

So this thread IS about chemtrails. Surprise.

Nice straw man.

This thread is about the dangers of geoengineering. I know how much you want to twist otherwise so you can attack.

SRM is the most common listed geoengineering method. NOAA says they are detecting new particulates In the atmosphere, but refuse to list SRM As a possibility even though they admit they don't know where it's coming from. I have a whole thread on that. Circumstantial evidence of the possibility someone is geoengineering, but still sketchy as everyone well knows.

And how does one get away with having two accounts

Huh jw?

reply to post by pianopraze

This thread is about the dangers of geoengineering. I know how much you want to twist otherwise so you can attack.
SRM is the most common listed geoengineering method. NOAA says they are detecting new particulates In the atmosphere, but refuse to list SRM As a possibility even though they admit they don't know where it's coming from. I have a whole thread on that. Circumstantial evidence of the possibility someone is geoengineering, but still sketchy as everyone well knows.
And how does one get away with having two accounts

Huh jw?

You must be so full of doubt that now you're seeing TWO of me!.. Did you consider the possibility that more than one person on ATS considers geo-engineering as an adaptive strategy to be a good thing?

Contrary to the "false" jw, I believe fracking is a proven technology that is being misused and abused by the ignorant and the MSM. When our two "stripper wells" quit producing paying quantities of oil, the driller fracked them and extended their productive life another 10 years. .....In 1977!

Our stock tanks and water wells were all within 100 yards of the fracking, and they still provide excellent water to this day.

Sometimes the narrow-mindedness and anti-science on this forum are so disappointing.
As others have pointed out, some of us feel morally obligated to point out junk science and fearmongering where we see it; even in this thread.

deny ignorance
jw