How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

[Tyger]

Sunday I woke up to a bright blue sky. This is something that we had not seen for over a month. It was clear and not a cloud in the sky. Two hours later I was going home and admiring the same bright blue sky when I turned a corner to see the familiar white streak across the sky. It was only one. I new there would be more, and there was. Walking in the country side later, I could see them busy making there many x,y,v,and w. I new that by today, Wednesday, we would have a storm which we do. It is on the third day after they start their spraying that the storm comes.

I haven't gone down this path. I am not persuaded from the little I understand of it at this point, though I have a surprising number of acquaintances who are convinced of there being chemtrails/spraying, even though the sheer logistics being suggested are problematic imo. Logic itself should fend off entertaining this idea, but I see so many convinced. It's very puzzling.

The fact is, these cloud formations have been around since way back and generally do - in a 'Farmer's Almanac' kind of way - presage a change in weather. (It's like 'Red sky at night, sailors delight; Red sky at morning, sailors take warning.') How these cloud formations got tangled up with a notion of chemical spraying is something I have decided I will do some back reading on.

Here is an article that I think all should read: Activist Post: Elite Think Tank Admits to Ongoing Climate Engineering Experiments | Global Research
Even though the above story appears to have been originally disseminated by the Associated Press, what was not mentioned in any of the establishment outlets is the backstory that indicates a much longer timeline in getting to the conclusion that geo-engineering is possibly the only hope that remains for saving the earth.

I'd be interested in a conversation on the topic but maybe there is a Chemtrail Thread already started here?

This much I will say: as I read/scanned the article(s) I do not see what you see. Since we have scrambled the weather system world-wide and since we are on this trajectory - yes, there is now more talk being reported about geo-engineering. Some scientists are suggesting that such a step is the only solution to the dilemma we are in via-a-vis Global Warming. But that doesn't mean that it's been a secret conversation in the past. The best representations of this kind of manipulation can be found in science fiction. My view is that our current science is far too rudimentary in this area to be even close to mounting such an enterprise. If it were to happen, it would be like shooting darts in the dark. The scientific understanding simply is not there yet. I see no evidence of it.

LINK: Terraforming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
TEXT: "Terraforming (literally, "Earth-shaping") of a planet, moon, or other body is the theoretical process of deliberately modifying its atmosphere, temperature, surface topography or ecology to be similar to the biosphere of Earth to make it habitable by Earth-like life.

"The term "terraforming" is sometimes used more generally as a synonym for planetary engineering, although some consider this more general usage an error. The concept of terraforming developed from both science fiction and actual science. The term was coined by Jack Williamson in a science-fiction story (Collision Orbit) published during 1942 in Astounding Science Fiction, but the concept may pre-date this work.

"Based on experiences with Earth, the environment of a planet can be altered deliberately; however, the feasibility of creating an unconstrained planetary biosphere that mimics Earth on another planet has yet to be verified. Mars is usually considered to be the most likely candidate for terraforming. Much study has been done concerning the possibility of heating the planet and altering its atmosphere, and NASA has even hosted debates on the subject. Several potential methods of altering the climate of Mars may fall within humanity's technological capabilities, but at present the economic resources required to do so are far beyond that which any government or society is willing to allocate to it. The long timescales and practicality of terraforming are the subject of debate. Other unanswered questions relate to the ethics, logistics, economics, politics, and methodology of altering the environment of an extraterrestrial world."

For those who know about the history of geo-engineering - aka chemtrails - you might be noticing a spate of admissions from the halls of establishment science and government that the "conspiracy theory" is no longer ... it is a fact.

The article you've linked to and quoted is not suggesting the admissions you indicate. imo When it is stated: "The elite UK think-tank, The Royal Society, has for years openly discussed control over the planet's weather. " - that's not an 'admission' of a conspiracy theory. Scientists discuss lots of things over the years, and in this case they've 'openly discussed it', but that means nothing near 'conspiracy' imo.

It would be mentioned now because of Climate Change and there being a confluence of ideas - how some see a possible solution to the Climate dilemma merging with long standing conversations on the idea of 'terraforming'. Far cry from implementation - either understanding how, or being able to implement such.

Anyway......

 

[flipper]

I haven't gone down this path. I am not persuaded from the little I understand of it at this point, though I have a surprising number of acquaintances who are convinced of there being chemtrails/spraying, even though the sheer logistics being suggested are problematic imo. Logic itself should fend off entertaining this idea, but I see so many convinced. It's very puzzling.

The fact is, these cloud formations have been around since way back and generally do - in a 'Farmer's Almanac' kind of way - presage a change in weather. (It's like 'Red sky at night, sailors delight; Red sky at morning, sailors take warning.') How these cloud formations got tangled up with a notion of chemical spraying is something I have decided I will do some back reading on.



I'd be interested in a conversation on the topic but maybe there is a Chemtrail Thread already started here?

This much I will say: as I read/scanned the article(s) I do not see what you see. Since we have scrambled the weather system world-wide and since we are on this trajectory - yes, there is now more talk being reported about geo-engineering. Some scientists are suggesting that such a step is the only solution to the dilemma we are in via-a-vis Global Warming. But that doesn't mean that it's been a secret conversation in the past. The best representations of this kind of manipulation can be found in science fiction. My view is that our current science is far too rudimentary in this area to be even close to mounting such an enterprise. If it were to happen, it would be like shooting darts in the dark. The scientific understanding simply is not there yet. I see no evidence of it.

LINK: Terraforming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
TEXT: "Terraforming (literally, "Earth-shaping") of a planet, moon, or other body is the theoretical process of deliberately modifying its atmosphere, temperature, surface topography or ecology to be similar to the biosphere of Earth to make it habitable by Earth-like life.

"The term "terraforming" is sometimes used more generally as a synonym for planetary engineering, although some consider this more general usage an error. The concept of terraforming developed from both science fiction and actual science. The term was coined by Jack Williamson in a science-fiction story (Collision Orbit) published during 1942 in Astounding Science Fiction, but the concept may pre-date this work.

"Based on experiences with Earth, the environment of a planet can be altered deliberately; however, the feasibility of creating an unconstrained planetary biosphere that mimics Earth on another planet has yet to be verified. Mars is usually considered to be the most likely candidate for terraforming. Much study has been done concerning the possibility of heating the planet and altering its atmosphere, and NASA has even hosted debates on the subject. Several potential methods of altering the climate of Mars may fall within humanity's technological capabilities, but at present the economic resources required to do so are far beyond that which any government or society is willing to allocate to it. The long timescales and practicality of terraforming are the subject of debate. Other unanswered questions relate to the ethics, logistics, economics, politics, and methodology of altering the environment of an extraterrestrial world."



The article you've linked to and quoted is not suggesting the admissions you indicate. imo When it is stated: "The elite UK think-tank, The Royal Society, has for years openly discussed control over the planet's weather. " - that's not an 'admission' of a conspiracy theory. Scientists discuss lots of things over the years, and in this case they've 'openly discussed it', but that means nothing near 'conspiracy' imo.

It would be mentioned now because of Climate Change and there being a confluence of ideas - how some see a possible solution to the Climate dilemma merging with long standing conversations on the idea of 'terraforming'. Far cry from implementation - either understanding how, or being able to implement such.

Anyway......

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I have seen this pattern over and over again. What looks to be a airplane leaves a white streak across the sky. The streak gets wider and has ribs. If there is enough of what looks like planes leaving their streaks across the sky, the sky will turn to a milky haze, which is what we see 99% of the time, when can see any blue at all . There was a thread called man made clouds;
Man Made Clouds | The Paracast Community Forums
I did my best to explain what I saw and my understanding of what was happening in thus forum ( at that time.) I could tell you of other experiences if you wanted to start a thread or discuss the matter further or somewhere else. I do not trust Wikipedia on matters that are important to me. Thank you again for your thoughtful reply

 

[Randall]

Omg. Will you PLEASE understand that the core problem according to your science in regards to climate IS CO2 ...

Form your extensive exploration into climate change, can you sum up in a few paragraphs and bullet points what you think the whole debate actually boils down to and what you think should be done about it ( if anything )?

 

[pixelsmith]

The global warming scam is a transfer of wealth and a means of population control. Period.

Pollution is a different subject.

Climate change is a normal and necessary planetary function responsible for the evolution of all animal species and plant life. ie: polar bears, humans and palm trees would not be here without climate change.

There is nothing that should be done or can be done about climate change.

There is something that can and should be done about pollution, deforestation and toxic run offs from rivers into the oceans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Maybe the reason the World economies are on the brink of anough deeper depression and climate change really should be on back seat until fix other problems which effect everyday joe bloggs.

 

[Tyger]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I have seen this pattern over and over again. What looks to be a airplane leaves a white streak across the sky. The streak gets wider and has ribs. If there is enough of what looks like planes leaving their streaks across the sky, the sky will turn to a milky haze, which is what we see 99% of the time, when can see any blue at all . There was a thread called man made clouds; Man Made Clouds | The Paracast Community Forums

I did my best to explain what I saw and my understanding of what was happening in this forum ( at that time.) I could tell you of other experiences if you wanted to start a thread or discuss the matter further or somewhere else. I do not trust Wikipedia on matters that are important to me. Thank you again for your thoughtful reply

Flipper, I have pm'd you.

I scanned the linked thread: there is some faulty science afoot there. When you have someone mentioning HAARP in the same breath as contrails you know there is some scrambled science happening.

When it comes to contrails: Tips for success - keep accurate records of your observations (time/location/direction), learn to read and understand weather data, and don't make any assertions you can't back up. The short answer to the question is that the contrails don't change the weather, they indicate a change in the weather on the way.

This is an area that is choked with snarled up information like a ball-of-yarn done-bad by a kitten. I would say it's worse than UFO-ology. But I'm reading. Not much holds up to real sustained scrutiny imo - but I am reading. 'Twill see if I hit a bonanza that changes my view.

 

[pixelsmith]

Flipper don't believe a word Tyger says. Keep digging.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[manxman]

Oh spare me. The only people being catered to on this thread is the two of you. You regularly sling insults and use derogatory language towards those who don't share your simplistic, conspiracy driven view of things. Your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance, and it's that very ignorant arrogance that allows you and Pixel to be so sure of yourselves, while the other posters on this thread have the decency not to pretend to be all knowing. You both come across as disingenuous and laughable.

You ask for models, but why would anyone bother at this point? We can show you the IPCC models, which, by the way, are endorsed by scientific organizations from over 100 foreign countries (American only issue my ass) with nary a dissenting viewpoint among them, but you'll just tell us it's all some giant liberal conspiracy, which is almost as ridiculous as the idea that two guys on the internet, neither of whom are climate scientists or seem to know, well, anything beyond "CO2 good, everyone who says it isn't, BAD" have this whole thing figured out. Give me a fucking break.

I hope that adios is sincere, please take Pixel with you, he's been proven to be ridiculously wrong on any number of issues within this thread and has acknowledged none of them. All he does is spew insults, generalities and typical denier talking points ad nausea until anyone with two brain cells to rub together is forced to ignore him or vacate the thread. I've literally never seen anyone so willfully ignorant in all my life.

I wasn't going to post anymore on this particular thread, but since @GeneSteinberg is here, I'd love for him to review some of the abuse you two have directed at some of the posters in this thread, especially the abuse directed towards Tyger and for him to take notice of the skads of posters driven from this thread by you and Pixels collective ignorance and downright nastiness to anyone with a conflicting viewpoint. If anyone is driving members from this forum, it's the two of you and the rest of the tinfoil hat brigade.

Doughnut.

Wow I agree with Pixel. Democracy is simply mob rule. The majority wins. What happens when the majority are a bunch of idiots? Or worse, tribal ? No thanks.

This is what happens Doughnut.

 

[Muadib]

Doughnut.



This is what happens Doughnut.

Wow, more insults, who would've guessed? Yeah, you're right manxman, everyone in this thread is a big ole doughnut, everyone but you and your bff Pixel.

I mean, who could argue with the genius assertion that global warming is an American only concern because, and I'm paraphrasing you here, nobody has posted anything about it on some obscure, Manchester based forum in the last five years.

That's some stunning insight right there, I can see why Manchester has gained the reputation, both inside and outside England, for being the very center of scientific and cultural enlightenment.

Yeah, I'm a doughnut, and you can eat my hole.

 

[flipper]

The global warming scam is a transfer of wealth and a means of population control. Period.

Pollution is a different subject.

Climate change is a normal and necessary planetary function responsible for the evolution of all animal species and plant life. ie: polar bears, humans and palm trees would not be here without climate change.

There is nothing that should be done or can be done about climate change.

There is something that can and should be done about pollution, deforestation and toxic run offs from rivers into the oceans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you not think that with all our activity on the earth that we change the climate? Therefore if we did change our behavior in these areas "pollution, deforestation and toxic run offs from rivers into the oceans" that we would lessen climate changing activity. I think you are right that focus on climate change has the cart before the horse. If we were able to win the battle against the forces that want to destroy us, and stopped fowling our own nest, that what ever negative effects to us that we have on the climate, if any, would stop or be limited.

 

[pixelsmith]

You will never stop climate change. Period.
Sure we cause pollution but so do volcanoes and methane burps in the ocean. This earth can deal with both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[manxman]

Wow, more insults, who would've guessed? Yeah, you're right manxman, everyone in this thread is a big ole doughnut, everyone but you and your bff Pixel.

I mean, who could argue with the genius assertion that global warming is an American only concern because, and I'm paraphrasing you here, nobody has posted anything about it on some obscure, Manchester based forum in the last five years.

That's some stunning insight right there, I can see why Manchester has gained the reputation, both inside and outside England, for being the very center of scientific and cultural enlightenment.

Yeah, I'm a doughnut, and you can eat my hole.

OK
But you will have to take your head out of it first.

 

[Burnt State]

What happened to that whole bit about conspiracists being the nicer and kinder people compared to conservative thinkers?

Regardless, I'm amazed that this thread continues. The only thing that generates as much ill will on this forum is talk about the underclass and poverty. It's a perplexing bit of insight into the human psyche to be certain.

 

[mike]

You will never stop climate change. Period.
Sure we cause pollution but so do volcanoes and methane burps in the ocean. This earth can deal with both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The biosphere cant, Unchecked human growth is destroying it and the other life forms at a disturbing rate.

Unchecked growth is depleting the water, the forests the biodiversity.

Lovelock has all but given up hope

The scientist and inventor James Lovelock claims we should stop trying to save the planet from global warming and instead retreat to climate controlled cities

James Lovelock, who first detected CFCs in the atmosphere and proposed the Gaia hypotheses, claims society should retreat to ‘climate-controlled cities’ and give up on large expanses of land which will become uninhabitable.

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is expected to say the world will need a ‘Plan B’ because it is unlikely countries will reduce carbon emissions in time.
In March the IPCC said that global warming would increase flooding, storm surges, droughts and heatwaves.
Violent conflicts and food shortages were also forecast to increase over coming decades due to rising temperatures, while a growing number of animal and marine species will face increased risk of extinction.
Scientists said that by taking immediate steps to reduce carbon emissions over the coming decades, there could be a reduction in potential consequences by the end of the century.
In his new book Lovelock writes: “We may have wasted valuable time, energy and resources by trying to grapple with climate change on a global scale.
“It sounds good to try to save the planet, but in reality we are not thinking of saving Gaia, we are thinking of saving Earth for us, or for our nation.
“The idea of ‘saving the planet’ is a foolish extravagance of romantic Northern ideologues and probably much beyond our ability.
“In a changing climate cities are most less vulnerable to external heat than our individuals. If most of us lived in cities, as it seems we soon will do, the regulation of the climate of these cities might be far easier, more economic and safer option in a hot climate than the regulation by geoengineering of the whole planet. “

We should give up trying to save the world from climate change, says James Lovelock - Telegraph


Hes basically saying the biosphere is beyond hope of saving now, and we should just stick to creating artificial habitats to save what humans we can

 

[mike]

Ultimately, he suggests, climate change is down to ignorance, not negligence – but while we do not yet know its exact contours, the process is both extremely serious and probably unfixable. Unlike the situation with CFCs, or chlorofluorocarbons, a generation ago, there are too many actors – countries, companies and individual humans – that would need to be cudgelled into self-denial if the status quo were to be retained.

Humanity is already concentrating itself in bigger and bigger cities, so rather than trying to “save the Earth”, or restore some artificial version of a normal climate, why not live comfortable lives in clustered, air-conditioned mega-cities? This serves ants and termites perfectly well, he argues – as well as the inhabitants of Singapore.

A Rough Ride to the Future by James Lovelock, review - Telegraph

 

[flipper]

You will never stop climate change. Period.
Sure we cause pollution but so do volcanoes and methane burps in the ocean. This earth can deal with both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well that is clear enough. Thank you for this thread pixelsmith. I have enjoyed posting to it. I would also like to thank ufology for helping to make clear what your position is. I think everybody else is clear about what they believe

 

[pixelsmith]

Well that is clear enough. Thank you for this thread pixelsmith. I have enjoyed posting to it. I would also like to thank ufology for helping to make clear what your position is. I think everybody else is clear about what they believe

That's part of the problem, believing and not understanding the science. To some here it is a belief system or religion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tyger]

Thank you @mike for the James Lovelock quotes. Very pertinent ideas. It's really all about local governance. I've never understood how anyone can believe in a future World Government. It would be so unwieldy. Nothing in my experience suggests that such a beast would be possible - human nature being what it is.

I was watching a show the other night that gave this statistic: the world's population, that has doubled since 1970, all live on a total of 5% of the earth's surface. That's a rather startling factoid imo.

I think James Lovelock has it pretty well sussed out. He may be - could be - probably is - right. It's happening already here in the U.S. The national government will become an antagonist in these matters over the next handful of years and local municipalities will have to shoulder the solutions. It certainly is happening here in California.

 

[pixelsmith]

Omg.. Lovelock? That's like praising Billy Meier. Lmao. Although he has gotten a little bit smarter recently.

 

[mike]

Thank you @mike for the James Lovelock quotes. Very pertinent ideas. It's really all about local governance. I've never understood how anyone can believe in a future World Government. It would be so unwieldy. Nothing in my experience suggests that such a beast would be possible - human nature being what it is.

I was watching a show the other night that gave this statistic: the world's population, that has doubled since 1970, all live on a total of 5% of the earth's surface. That's a rather startling factoid imo.

I think James Lovelock has it pretty well sussed out. He may be - could be - probably is - right. It's happening already here in the U.S. The national government will become an antagonist in these matters over the next handful of years and local municipalities will have to shoulder the solutions. It certainly is happening here in California.

I do have some hope for a global govt, it may even be a prerequisite for contact. It seems logical that it might
It is one planet, the problems are everyones problems.

And its getting smaller.

Regional governors made sense when we rode horses as the fastest means of transport.
You had to break areas up and assign governors to areas they could reasonably manage.

With the invention of steam (engines, trains and ships) the world went from being a size large to a size medium
With the invention of Air travel from a medium to a small
With the invention of the internet, its gotten even smaller
I still remember when sending "mail" to a remote part of the planet took weeks, even Par Avon

Now i can send "mail" to any part of the planet in seconds......... and add pictures sound and video. (3D printing is about to add another dimension to this )

So global govt is getting more and more practical imo

the world's population, that has doubled since 1970, all live on a total of 5% of the earth's surface

Thats a bit misleading though. how many acre's do you live on ?

In reality we each use about 4 acres of land a year to sustain our lifestyles. ive done the math here before but trust me we ran out of room a long time ago

edit: search is a clever thing i posted this in 2012

these figures are from 2008

Total Earth's solid surface is , 57,500,000 sq mi. Now, there are 640 acres per square mile which when multiplies together =
36,800,000,000 total acres on land to be divided up.
Latest World census figures as of Dec. 10, 2008 = 6,867,020,300 people living on Earth as of today. Divide the acres of land by the number of people and you get = 5.36 acres of land for every single person on Earth.

As you can see we are very close to the limit.
If you factor in land like deserts forests and wilderness , urban housing, mining etc that cant be used for food production that gets even tighter.

Now we have to add factors like the artificial fertiliser and soil fertility issues, we know that in practise land thats been farmed till its infertile is simply replaced by chopping down more forest and using that till its useless too.

We may only stand on 5 percent of the landmass, but our "footprint" is much larger

Ecological footprint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

its when we contrast that 5 percent number with our footprint (we use 1.5 earths each year. Higher in developed nations) that the reality gets scary