So you admit a third party . . . Who was studying a different subject matter altogether . . . connected the dots between aircraft activities and increased levels of metallic ions found in wild ungulates. . . at least it is a start. . ..Originally Posted by MikeC
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
I have a question. . . .
1) Since it is my assumption that the lack of persistent contrail mitigation efforts by the commercial aircraft industry is evidence of an intention to experiment with a from of geo-engineering there are certain things which go with this assumption . . .
A. This policy is covert or at least below the radar of all participants except for the very highest level of the policy makers
B. The evidence for this experimentation is therefore not public knowledge nor easily discovered. . .
2) If the above is true, what evidence is sufficient for those of my critics on the Forum . . . What in your mind would constitute adequate proof that mitigation has been suppressed . . .?????
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
In other words, based on your assumptions about contrail mitigation what would we need to see as evidence to agree with you that mitigation is purposely being suppressed?
I'd say that I'd need to see some evidence that mitigation is cost effective and safe for airlines and passengers.
If it's not seen as a problem by 99% of the population, why mitigate it? Just because they do nothing about it, doesn't mean they are using the persistent contrails as cover for some plot.
How about showing they are going to significant lengths to mitigate greenhouse gases while admitting persistent contrails are a problem but doing nothing to mitigate them . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
They have not admitted that contrails are a "problem"- some studies have suggested they might effect climate in a certain way but there is NO consensus as to the net effect of persistent contrails as they relate to climate change...hence, the continued and growing body of study. It is illogical to suggest a mitigation of a "problem" when no problem is agreed to exist.
Of course, persistent contrails are distinct (or perhaps a subset of) from emissions from airplanes - which are a matter of concern and exist whether a contrail is formed or not- attempts to regulate them globally have been a very contentious issue and as of yet no agreement has been achieved:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/61f90ea6-6...#axzz1p12bbYf6
So, even with the agreed on problem of simple emissions they cannot agree to cooperate....and yet somehow the failure to agree that there IS a problem and act on persistent contrails is somehow evidence of nefarious intent??
doubtful.
Last edited by SR1419; March 13th, 2012 at 09:46 AM.
Noble1965 (March 13th, 2012)
sorry for copying and pasting the entire article but when I tested the link it asked for registration- not sure it that happened to everyone so I re-googled it and thought I would paste it:
(From yesterday's -3.12.12- Financial Times)
Tracking the aviation emissions row
By Pilita Clark in London
Aviation is estimated to be responsible for less than 3 per cent of man-made carbon dioxide emissions worldwide, though this figure is expected to rise sharply in coming years.
When non-carbon dioxide effects such as vapour jet trails are taken into account, some calculate the sector’s total contribution to climate change is closer to 5 per cent.
December 1997: The row over including aviation in the European Union’s seven-year-old emissions trading system dates back to the adoption of the Kyoto protocol, the world’s only global treaty forcing wealthy countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.
Aviation emissions were excluded from the targets agreed in the 2007 treaty. Instead, industrialised countries were asked to reduce them by working with the International Civil Aviation Organization, a UN body that sets global aviation safety and environmental regulations.
ICAO asked the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body that provides regular climate science assessments to the world’s governments, to do a full report on the environmental impact of the aviation industry.
1999: The IPCC report is published and finds that the effects of some types of aircraft emissions, such as carbon dioxide, are well known but other issues, such as the impact of contrails and aerosols on cirrus clouds, remain less understood.
2004: The ICAO endorses emissions trading but agrees it should be done through national or regional systems rather than a single, global system.
January 2005: The EU’s emissions trading system begins. It does not initially include aviation but the European Commission quickly starts consulting on plans to include the industry.
2007: An update on the aviation issue is published in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report. It says that aircraft carbon dioxide emissions account for only about 2 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, but are expected to grow around 3 to 4 per cent per year.
In the same year, a decade after the Kyoto protocol was adopted, the ICAO agrees it should be “vigorously developing policy options to limit or reduce the environmental impact of aircraft engine emissions” ahead of the critical 2009 UN climate talks in Copenhagen.
2008: The EU parliament votes to approve the inclusion of aviation in the emissions trading system from 2012. Officials say this is necessary given ICAO’s continued failure to develop a global system to reduce emissions.
November 2009: The ICAO agree to a goal of 2 per cent annual improvement in fuel efficiency until 2050, and “further exploration of the feasibility of more ambitious medium and long-term goals, including carbon-neutral growth and emissions reductions”.
The industry says this is the first and only globally harmonised agreement an industry has come up with to address its carbon emissions but environmental campaigners say it is not nearly enough to address the sector’s fast-growing carbon pollution.
December 2009: The Air Transport Association of America and three US airlines launch legal action against the EU’s move to include aviation in its emissions trading system.
May 2011: The China Air Transport Association declares the EU move “violates international aviation convention and intrudes into China’s national sovereignty”. China’s intervention fuels a resurgence in lobbying by aviation industry groups in Europe. Airbus and the Association of European Airlines pen a joint letter to Connie Hedegaard, the EU climate commissioner, warning that Brussels faces a trade war with countries as large as China and the US.
September 2011: More than two dozen countries, including the US, China, India and Russia, sign a joint declaration in New Delhi opposing the EU’s move.
December 2011: The European Court of Justice, Europe’s highest court, rules against the US airlines and says that carriers outside the EU must abide by the bloc’s rules.
February 2012: China bars its airlines from complying with the EU law.
Separately, countries opposing the EU rules meet in Moscow and agree to pursue further action against Brussels, including the possibility of imposing new taxes on EU airlines.
March 2012: Airbus and six large European airlines urge Brussels to delay the inclusion of aviation in the scheme, claiming that China has put billions of dollars worth of aircraft orders on hold as a result of the row.
Last edited by SR1419; March 13th, 2012 at 09:41 AM. Reason: provide source
lol - no - it's a continuation of your non-evidence.
He posted his sources for concluding that aircraft are involved - one of which is now apparently intraceable and hte otehr 2 do not support his conclusion.
why don't you actually go examine the evidence for a change?
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Since your assumption has been shown to be rubbish, questions that rely upon it in the first place are also rubbish.
I have a question - why don't you discuss the evidence from Purdey's paper that you graphically drew to our attention?
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Ooh, tetchy.
What is non-evidence? Instead of always, and I mean always, saying: 'no evidence' - then pray tell: what evidence do you need? When it turns up on wikipedia? Or what? Exactly?
Try to be positive
anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be true but unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
You should be.
Isn't this what you guys call 'The Laundry List'? Written by? Pilita Clark. Pilita? I wonder what Pilita's background is?
The bottom line here is that no-one is going to change their position. That begs a question: why bother to debate? Is there some 'triumph of hope over experience' psychology going on? Who imagines 'winning'? And what would that entail? I think the positions are pretty well-defined. On home turf are the sayers of 'no evidence', who know each other at least through this medium - playing away are a couple of discrete people with not necessarily converging views, but a similar outlook (if I may be permitted to say?). That outlook is that not everything is apparent, revealed, out in the open - the funny thing is, all those on the 'no evidence' side say: 'no evidence is not evidence', when it actually could be. Then, when you explain to them the evidence you've collected, they say: 'that's not evidence.' I seriously recommend a bit of Raymond Chandler's Marlowe. One needs to look at these things like a detective, not a scientist. Take all possible motives into account and give them equal play. Means, motive, opportunity. We know secrecy exists, why do you always try to minimise its impact or spread? Anyone who dares suggest it might be a possibilty we don't have access to all the information (which is obviously correct to anyone sensible) is surreally asked to provide evidence that we don't have access to all the information! Get a grip! Surely. Look at the state of this world, the endless war, the fake 'war on terror' predicated on a lie to perpetuate war against an 'enemy' that barely exists, if it does at all. All this to keep a small number of peope richer and more in control than they ever were. If none of you can see that, and that your 'prosperity' has been stolen off other people, then there's no hope. Let's hear you.
Last edited by lee h oswald; March 13th, 2012 at 02:04 PM.
George B (March 13th, 2012)
I've just had a little look around the other threads, and I note that you're the biggest thanker on the whole site.
No Lee...
Its actually called a time-line...and it illustrates that the global regulation of aircraft emission is difficult to achieve. It is, in fact, evidence that non-mitigation of contrails is not a deliberate policy instead merely the result of lack of consensus and coordination.
That you choose to put more credence in vague notions of secrecy rather than knowable evidence says more about your bias than anything else.
Thats your cross to bear..
lee h oswald (March 13th, 2012)
I don't take a position. That's what George does, as an "advocate". Debunking is about improving the quality of the proposed evidence.
Unfortunately that's not that useful here, as the discussion seems to be about things that might possibly be happening, but leave no evidence.
Noble1965 (March 13th, 2012)
Im bearing it ok, thanks.
You see what I mean - you lot are just a stream of people saying phrases like 'time line' and 'no evidence'. Actually, I think there's a fair bit of evidence something ain't quite right up there. So do quite a few other people. Whatever their reasons. The very fact it's being discussed suggests a need for discussion, doesn't it?
Last edited by lee h oswald; March 13th, 2012 at 02:49 PM.
What about it do you want to talk about . . . I have nothing to add . . . it is what it is . . . elevated concentrations of metallic ions in the environment and in biological organisms in one area compared to another . . . with the inference from the author that the substances came from aircraft activity . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Until recently.
Then again - you are likely to be as wrong with this assumption as you are with all your other conjecture...
Mick, you don't take a position?
'No evidence'?
Where do George and Lee not see eye to eye...?
Perhaps you could present some so we could discuss it.
Here is some historical data showing the secrecy issue as it relates to weather modification . . .
CASE STUDY 2
WEATHER MODIFICATION: THE EVOLUTION OF AN R&D
PROGRAM INTO A MILITARY OPERATION
http://www.fas.org/search/index.html...er+as+a+weapon
Clearly, the same information base described inthe.ARPA Nile Blueprogram could also eventually provide the ability tocarry out attemptsat weather modification. It is inherent in the nature ofthe information.\~e have already noted the contention that IItheirll research isIImilitary,1Ibut lIoursll is just civil, eventhat funded by military programs. It isinteresting in view of the stated description of theNile Blue programthat by 1975 it was reported that liThe National ScienceFoundationgradually is taking over ARPA's weather/climateresearch.1I (51) The NSFalso jointly funds a substantial portion ofoceanographic research thathas direct military application. This again impacts on the questions of the importance -- or not -- of the amount of funding ,its source (which agency funds it out), its classification (public or secret), or the publicly presented rationale for the program. Page 14
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
I'm with you there...
My whole position, since day one, is that I have no position other than the fact that what has been presented as evidence of "chemtrails" is no such thing. I keep asking for it. And nothing comes. It's always ignorance about aviation/science or it's complete assumption/speculation.
What's worse is that I can't understand how anyone can come to such conclusions based on the lack of evidence that anyone is intentionally spraying anything as part of any secret global operation. There is an absolute dearth of evidence. It's just plain odd!
Spongebob (March 13th, 2012)
Lee,
Here is some interesting information regarding the need for research into weather modification years and years ago . . . wonder what happened . . . ???
Discussion and LessonsThis study has sketched a process that began in theearly and mid-1950's.The military literature and public and Congressionalcommentatorsdescribed both the most dire consequences if a militaryweather modificationcapability should be developed by the USSR, as well as agreatcornucopia of possible military applications for USforces. John von Neuman,one of the most influential American science advisors tothe Dept. ofDefense, stated in 1965Present awful possibilities of warfare may give way toothereven more awful. After global climate control becomespossible,perhaps all our present involvements will seem simple.We shouldnot deceive. ourselves: once such possibilities becomeactual,they will be exploited. It will therefore, be necessarytodevelop suitable new political forms and procedures.However, within a year of his remarks, the United Statesinitiated thefirst recorded use in warfare, covertly, of a new weapontechnology neverbefore used, for which there were quite enormousimplications, almost inestimabledangers, of the extensive use in either military orcivil applications.Within a short time there was built up a sufficientdegree ofinterest in this new form of warfare by the US militaryfor them to activelyoppose porposals between 1972 and 1974 for international measures toprohibitits use as a weapon. The interest was not so strong,however, that itprevented the relatively rapid achievement of a treaty.The degree ofrestraint that this imposed will remain to be seen inthe future. Page 38, http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/leitenberg/weather.pdf
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
One can take this discussion in several different ways . . . however, I feel it is evidence that the Secretary of Defense cannot ignore the possibility of Weather Modification as a threat to the US . . .
COHEN ADDRESS 4/28 AT CONFERENCE ONTERRORISMQ: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scarehere in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are todeal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.
Terrorism,Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy
Sam Nunn Policy Forum
April 28, 1997 University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia
A: Well, itpoints out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat underthe circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we hadsomething called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address thisquestion about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within anagency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole whichcan paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. Thesame thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind ofa chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example,that some countries have been trying to construct something like an EbolaVirus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written aboutthis in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certaintypes of pathogens that would be ethnic-specific so that they could justeliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sortof engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use ofelectromagnetic waves.
So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding waysin which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's thereason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is soimportant.
Last edited by George B; March 13th, 2012 at 03:07 PM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
No good evidence.
The point is that I'm not arguing TO a position. I'm arguing about if the evidence is good or not, and then if it's good, is it relevant. George seems to be assuming chemtrails are real, and then, like a lawyer, simply trying to find ever single fact in the universe that seems to in some small way support his position, while dismissing everything that does not.
The things he brings up are incredibly unconvincing - vague inferences, and appeals to his "intuition". This is not good evidence.
But that's not my "position", it's the provisional conclusion I've reached based on what he's presented.
Debunking is about evidence, not positions. I'm a fact-checker, not an advocate.
Last edited by Mick; March 13th, 2012 at 03:09 PM.
Spongebob (March 13th, 2012)
Ahhh...so the ASSUMPTION is that "chemtrails" are "weather modification". Got it...
They couldn't be working on a "ray" or a "beam" to heat oceans or air...it must be "chemtrails" they are referring to above...because you say so.
qft
You can discuss that quote in this thread:
http://metabunk.org/threads/159-Debu...terrorism-quot
If one were to look at the player here in the middle of the cold war and project forward . . . seems good evidence of the players Dr. Edward Teller was interested and involved with weather modification issues well before he took on Aerosol Injection proposals . . ."Dr. Edward Teller -a frequent
participant of many of these campaigns - could serve up the following
vision to a US Senate Preparedness Subcommittee:"Please imagine, a
world ... where the (Soviets) can change the rainfallover Russia ... and
influence the rainfall in our country in an adversemanner." (21)
Dr. Henry G. Houghton of the Dept of Meteorology, Masachusetts Institute
of Technology, spelled out this image in somewhat moredetail:
I shudder to think of the consequences of prior Russiandiscovery
of a feasible method of weather control •..International control
of weather modification will be essential to. the safetyof
the world as control of nuclear energy is now. Unless weremain
ahead of Russia in meteorology research the prospectsfor
international agreements on weather control will be poorindeed.
An unfavorable modification of our climate in the guiseof a
peaceful effort to improve Russia's climate couldseriously
weaken our economy and ability to resist." (22)
Weather warfare scenarios were presented, and conceptsof "meteorological
deterrence and parity" were invoked. Members of Congress themselves
also joined the chorus of exhortation. SenatorL.B.Johnson (then Chairman
of a Senate Committee on Space) told the Congress"From space one
could contr.o l the earths weather, cause drought and floods, changetides
and raise the level of the seas, make temperate climatesfrigid." (23),Page 5
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Hmm, how were they going to raise the level of the seas from space?
something that is presented as if it is, or might be evidence of something, but actually has no connection to it at all, or if it has a connection it is irrelevant to the point being discussed.
got any evidence to support that claim?Instead of always, and I mean always, saying: 'no evidence'
There are lots of things that are evidence - you saying "chemtrails exist" is actually evidence that chemtrails exist. Of course it is crap evidence that is easily discarded, but it is actually evidence.- then pray tell: what evidence do you need? When it turns up on wikipedia? Or what? Exactly?
I am positive that you saying chemtrails exist is crap evidence that chemtrail exist.Try to be positive
I am positive that Georgie-boy is a troll who avoids any actual factual position and derails the conversations with pointless sidelines.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
There is sure a LOT of that going around...
Why did you raise it?
What do you think of the evidence in it?
do you think it is true or not in its assertions regarding aircraft as a source?
You know - the usual sorts of things that someone bringing a document to a discussion might normally be prepared and expected to talk about in regard of that document.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Where do Lee and George disagree?
Or detection system or countermeasures to the same. . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
The public discussions of issues are very different story from the classified details and these were discussed some forty plus years ago. . . .I know you don't think the same fears and solutions are static. . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
In a court there is at least a judge and most times a jury. . . Here we only have attorneys arguing the merits of their position. . . .when there is a jury, they are the determiner of facts not an opposing attorney. . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
1) As I stated above it establishes that an investigator links metallic ions found elevated in wild grazing animals to primarily anthropomorphic activities and feels aircraft activities, specifically military aircraft, is a likely source. . .
2) Like a study of any kind method, assumptions, conclusions can be questioned. . .however, It is the only study that I know of that has found levels of substances in a large enough sample and geographic distribution and pattern to raise a link between aircraft emissions and biological testing. . . .
3) If this was found other studies may be eventually found to support the same or similar inferences. . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
So George, have you got any photos of the equipment in the airliners yet?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks