Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did it ever cross your mind that there might not be anything to blow the whistle about? That's far more likely than what you guys insist is happening.
Not really. People are free to be as crazy as they want. It's not like he's actually right about much of anything...
Yeah... the government goon's are not that worried about people talking about geoengineering because they have the majority believing it's all tin foil hat stuff and talking about it makes people reject it more. The government is very good at programming the population with propaganda.
But when people expose the truth about certain political figures it's a much different story as was the case with Breitbart.
Thanks. I really did look at every page in the thread for "czar," but I guess you posted this link without using that term.
Onward...
I'm going to post my interpretation of what he said. If you disagree with any of it, please cite the original quote (which I'm including), why you believe my interpretation is incorrect, and what your interpretation is. We shall have a rational and reasonable discussion, on your terms, about your source. This is what you wanted, correct?
"My personal opinion"
The first three words of the video tell you where he's heading in the next 109 seconds, and they don't bode well for your argument.
"...we have to keep geoengineering on the table. We have to look at it very carefully, because we might get desperate enough to want to use it."
He's saying that they're NOT using it now.
"...we don't understand the system well enough to predict its responses in detail, and that means there's always a danger, if you try to engineer the system on a large scale, that you will do something that has side effects that are worse than the dimension of the problem that you are trying to cure with the geoengineering in the first place."
Here he says that they don't understand the system well enough to attempt it, and that if they tried, they could make things much worse than they already are. It's pretty straightforward.
"There are a variety of schemes that have been discussed for geoengineering. A classic example is injecting reflecting particles into earth orbit that would deflect some of the sunlight that would otherwise be warming the earth, and in that way, try to produce a cooling effect to offset the heating effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses."
Now I'm sure that you think this is the smoking gun. It's not. Not only is there no admission of current geoengineering activities, but did you notice the word "orbit" in there? That would be far outside the earth's atmosphere. You know - where jets can't fly.
"Current estimates are that that would be very expensive; that it would be problematic from the standpoint of injecting things into orbit that our other orbiting space assets would have trouble with; and it doesn't solve the whole problem..."
Very expensive, indeed. The kind of expensive that's impossible to hide. But I have never even needed to touch on that to crush the chemtrail theory - rudimentary science does that very well, all by itself.
On the concept of our "other orbiting space assets" having to contend with this stuff. That's an extremely important point. There's an entire team at NASA that tracks every piece of "space junk" we have up there. They literally know about every nut and bolt that's been lost or released. They have to - that stuff's moving at nearly 18,000 miles per hour, and they have to deal with it on an ongoing basis with the space station and whatnot.
"It also doesn't even fully address the atmospheric heat transfer effects of the greenhouse gasses, because essentially, you're interfering in the visible part of the energy spectrum, in order to offset an interference in the infrared part of the energy spectrum, and you can't expect that to be completely effective."
He's saying that IT WOULDN'T EVEN WORK.
Thank you, Don, for providing me with yet another source - in this case, it's someone you seem to give a high amount of credibility to - that disproves your theory. Not only was there no admission that there is anything even in the planning stages, much less happening right now, but he actually said that IT WOULDN'T WORK!
Now, if you disagree with any of my interpretations, please, rationally and reasonably, explain which ones and why, along with your own interpretations. Virtually every sentence in the video was transcribed (except for some fluffy stuff about the oceans and cute little mollusks and whatnot), so you can't claim that I cherry picked quotes.
Thanks. I really did look at every page in the thread for "czar," but I guess you posted this link without using that term.
Onward...
I'm going to post my interpretation of what he said. If you disagree with any of it, please cite the original quote (which I'm including), why you believe my interpretation is incorrect, and what your interpretation is. We shall have a rational and reasonable discussion, on your terms, about your source. This is what you wanted, correct?
"My personal opinion"
The first three words of the video tell you where he's heading in the next 109 seconds, and they don't bode well for your argument.
"...we have to keep geoengineering on the table. We have to look at it very carefully, because we might get desperate enough to want to use it."
He's saying that they're NOT using it now.
"...we don't understand the system well enough to predict its responses in detail, and that means there's always a danger, if you try to engineer the system on a large scale, that you will do something that has side effects that are worse than the dimension of the problem that you are trying to cure with the geoengineering in the first place."
Here he says that they don't understand the system well enough to attempt it, and that if they tried, they could make things much worse than they already are. It's pretty straightforward.
"There are a variety of schemes that have been discussed for geoengineering. A classic example is injecting reflecting particles into earth orbit that would deflect some of the sunlight that would otherwise be warming the earth, and in that way, try to produce a cooling effect to offset the heating effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses."
Now I'm sure that you think this is the smoking gun. It's not. Not only is there no admission of current geoengineering activities, but did you notice the word "orbit" in there? That would be far outside the earth's atmosphere. You know - where jets can't fly.
"Current estimates are that that would be very expensive; that it would be problematic from the standpoint of injecting things into orbit that our other orbiting space assets would have trouble with; and it doesn't solve the whole problem..."
Very expensive, indeed. The kind of expensive that's impossible to hide. But I have never even needed to touch on that to crush the chemtrail theory - rudimentary science does that very well, all by itself.
On the concept of our "other orbiting space assets" having to contend with this stuff. That's an extremely important point. There's an entire team at NASA that tracks every piece of "space junk" we have up there. They literally know about every nut and bolt that's been lost or released. They have to - that stuff's moving at nearly 18,000 miles per hour, and they have to deal with it on an ongoing basis with the space station and whatnot.
"It also doesn't even fully address the atmospheric heat transfer effects of the greenhouse gasses, because essentially, you're interfering in the visible part of the energy spectrum, in order to offset an interference in the infrared part of the energy spectrum, and you can't expect that to be completely effective."
He's saying that IT WOULDN'T EVEN WORK.
Thank you, Don, for providing me with yet another source - in this case, it's someone you seem to give a high amount of credibility to - that disproves your theory. Not only was there no admission that there is anything even in the planning stages, much less happening right now, but he actually said that IT WOULDN'T WORK!
Now, if you disagree with any of my interpretations, please, rationally and reasonably, explain which ones and why, along with your own interpretations. Virtually every sentence in the video was transcribed (except for some fluffy stuff about the oceans and cute little mollusks and whatnot), so you can't claim that I cherry picked quotes.
Spin it, DJ Don!
And I thank you for yet again proving my point that you can't grasp the big picture.
Of course he is not going to come out and say "yes, we are covertly spraying the skies with chemicals or nano-particles. Is that what you expected? If he did, we would not be having this conversation and Obama and his cohorts would be impeached and put in jail for illegally spraying our sky's and controlling the weather.
The Obama administration and other governments around the world are working a propaganda campaign to convince the people that there is a great imminent threat with Global Warming and that they have a solution after carefully examining the options. This is the story or propaganda being released today. The next step is to pass legislation to allow geoengineering to begin and more importantly to pay for it openly with tax payer money. They are about at that point now and we can expect legislation in congress very soon and its probably already in the works. Back in 2005/2006 the Senate and House each introduced bills to fund and allow experimental geoengineering but both bill's went nowhere. It was again attempted in 2007 but again went nowhere. As soon as Obama took office the propaganda started to make the case about this great threat and to come up with a solution that people would except. The aerosol spraying program also went into high gear once Obama took office and our weather patterns have been going crazy with warm dry winters, severe storms and ultra hot heat waves. This is a result of geoengineering and the intent to to convince the public that its real and to make them beg for a solution.
And just why did you do that, Don? We all know, but we want to see what your excuse is.
BTW, it's considered a sign of mental illness to talk about yourself in the 3rd person.
Because you and your cohorts are all using the same tactics, making the same bogus cases and being nothing but a nuisance to the spirit of this thread. I got tired to answering the same thing to different people so I "managed" the situation and picked only a few that I would respond to. You should fill honored that you were picked as the main nuisance and to allow you to speak for the group. I picked you because of our history and for some reason I have this deranged thought that I can actually get you to see the light. I know ... silly me and I'm just setting myself up for disappointment as you are too far gone to make the breakthrough. But time is on my side. Soon everyone will hear the administration admit that they have been geoengineering our skies as that is part of the plan. The only problem is that they will lie and say it was for our own good and they are hero's for saving mankind and the planet.
Oh btw .., why I put plwhit on the list should go without saying ...
And I thank you for yet again proving my point that you can't grasp the big picture.
And what is the big picture don? The picture you have painted in this thread is so disjointed not even Houdini would be able to unravel it....
Quote:
Of course he is not going to come out and say "yes, we are covertly spraying the skies with chemicals or nano-particles. Is that what you expected? If he did, we would not be having this conversation and Obama and his cohorts would be impeached and put in jail for illegally spraying our sky's and controlling the weather.
But don, as per historical record chemtrails have been seen in the sky for centuries....
Quote:
The Obama administration and other governments around the world are working a propaganda campaign to convince the people that there is a great imminent threat with Global Warming and that they have a solution after carefully examining the options. This is the story or propaganda being released today.
don, people don't believe in global warming the way al gore and the other FUD experts expoused it years ago. Science and the environmental models they used back in those days have been found to be in error.
You should read scientific journals that are based on facts not the conspiracy garbage you post here as "facts"........
The next step is to pass legislation to allow geoengineering to begin and more importantly to pay for it openly with tax payer money. They are about at that point now and we can expect legislation in congress very soon and its probably already in the works. Back in 2005/2006 the Senate and House each introduced bills to fund and allow experimental geoengineering but both bill's went nowhere. It was again attempted in 2007 but again went nowhere. As soon as Obama took office the propaganda started to make the case about this great threat and to come up with a solution that people would except. The aerosol spraying program also went into high gear once Obama took office and our weather patterns have been going crazy with warm dry winters, severe storms and ultra hot heat waves. This is a result of geoengineering and the intent to to convince the public that its real and to make them beg for a solution.
If you bothered to follow what is transpiring around the world you would see mankind has been manipulating the weather for a good 20 years now...
Now go back and worship one of the pictures that shows the immense stupidity of your chemtrail conspiracy...
Witness THE CHEMSPRAYING BOOM!!!!!!!!!!!
AKA the NKC-135A (55-3128) with the refueling boom modified to spray water.
This was used by the US Air Force to test icing of planes in flight.
But of course don will insist the white vapor we see coming from the boom is a chemtrail and what it contains is nano particles of <take your pick> to destroy <take your pick>
Thanks. I really did look at every page in the thread for "czar," but I guess you posted this link without using that term.
Onward...
I'm going to post my interpretation of what he said. If you disagree with any of it, please cite the original quote (which I'm including), why you believe my interpretation is incorrect, and what your interpretation is. We shall have a rational and reasonable discussion, on your terms, about your source. This is what you wanted, correct?
"My personal opinion"
The first three words of the video tell you where he's heading in the next 109 seconds, and they don't bode well for your argument.
"...we have to keep geoengineering on the table. We have to look at it very carefully, because we might get desperate enough to want to use it."
He's saying that they're NOT using it now.
"...we don't understand the system well enough to predict its responses in detail, and that means there's always a danger, if you try to engineer the system on a large scale, that you will do something that has side effects that are worse than the dimension of the problem that you are trying to cure with the geoengineering in the first place."
Here he says that they don't understand the system well enough to attempt it, and that if they tried, they could make things much worse than they already are. It's pretty straightforward.
"There are a variety of schemes that have been discussed for geoengineering. A classic example is injecting reflecting particles into earth orbit that would deflect some of the sunlight that would otherwise be warming the earth, and in that way, try to produce a cooling effect to offset the heating effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses."
Now I'm sure that you think this is the smoking gun. It's not. Not only is there no admission of current geoengineering activities, but did you notice the word "orbit" in there? That would be far outside the earth's atmosphere. You know - where jets can't fly.
"Current estimates are that that would be very expensive; that it would be problematic from the standpoint of injecting things into orbit that our other orbiting space assets would have trouble with; and it doesn't solve the whole problem..."
Very expensive, indeed. The kind of expensive that's impossible to hide. But I have never even needed to touch on that to crush the chemtrail theory - rudimentary science does that very well, all by itself.
On the concept of our "other orbiting space assets" having to contend with this stuff. That's an extremely important point. There's an entire team at NASA that tracks every piece of "space junk" we have up there. They literally know about every nut and bolt that's been lost or released. They have to - that stuff's moving at nearly 18,000 miles per hour, and they have to deal with it on an ongoing basis with the space station and whatnot.
"It also doesn't even fully address the atmospheric heat transfer effects of the greenhouse gasses, because essentially, you're interfering in the visible part of the energy spectrum, in order to offset an interference in the infrared part of the energy spectrum, and you can't expect that to be completely effective."
He's saying that IT WOULDN'T EVEN WORK.
Thank you, Don, for providing me with yet another source - in this case, it's someone you seem to give a high amount of credibility to - that disproves your theory. Not only was there no admission that there is anything even in the planning stages, much less happening right now, but he actually said that IT WOULDN'T WORK!
Now, if you disagree with any of my interpretations, please, rationally and reasonably, explain which ones and why, along with your own interpretations. Virtually every sentence in the video was transcribed (except for some fluffy stuff about the oceans and cute little mollusks and whatnot), so you can't claim that I cherry picked quotes.
Spin it, DJ Don!
Figures you would try to defend this creaton. He is evil!
Quote:
In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things.
The only question is, why did Obama appoint him as our nations Science Czar? Because they think alike, and can do more outside of oversight by Congress or that pesky Constitution of ours.
Because you and your cohorts are all using the same tactics, making the same bogus cases and being nothing but a nuisance to the spirit of this thread. I got tired to answering the same thing to different people so I "managed" the situation and picked only a few that I would respond to. You should fill honored that you were picked as the main nuisance and to allow you to speak for the group. I picked you because of our history and for some reason I have this deranged thought that I can actually get you to see the light. I know ... silly me and I'm just setting myself up for disappointment as you are too far gone to make the breakthrough. But time is on my side. Soon everyone will hear the administration admit that they have been geoengineering our skies as that is part of the plan. The only problem is that they will lie and say it was for our own good and they are hero's for saving mankind and the planet.
Oh btw .., why I put plwhit on the list should go without saying ...
This is what you're dealing with Don. Stop feeding them.
The internet uses special trolls to govern the debate: 1. Make outrageous comments designed to distract or frustrate: An Alinsky tactic used to make people emotional. 2. Pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement. 3. Dominate Discussions in order to throw them off course and frustrate the people involved. 4. Many trolls are supplied with a list or database with pre-planned talking points designed as generalized and deceptive responses to honest arguments. 5. False Association. Deliberately associating anti-globalist movements with racists and homegrown terrorists, because of the inherent negative connotations. 6. False Moderation: Pretending to be the “voice of reason” in an argument with obvious and defined sides in an attempt to move people away from what is clearly true into a “grey area” where the truth becomes “relative.” 7. The troll will accuse his opposition of subscribing to a certain point of view, even if he does not have it, and then attacks that point of view. Or, the troll will put words in the mouth of his opposition, and then rebut those specific words.
This is what you're dealing with Don. Stop feeding them.
The don9 and claud show, pat each other on the head congratulating each other that the other knows THE TRUTH.....
So now the topic is THE NEW WORLD ORDER claud?
Remind ya'll of Beavis and Butthead?
Last edited by plwhit; 09-16-2012 at 08:59 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the situation and picked only a few that I would respond to. You should fill honored that you were picked as the main nuisance and to allow you to speak for the group. I picked you because of our history and for some reason I have this deranged thought that I can actually get you to see the light. I know ... silly me and I'm just setting myself up for disappointment as you are too far gone to make the breakthrough. But time is on my side. Soon everyone will hear the administration admit that they have been geoengineering our skies as that is part of the plan. The only problem is that they will lie and say it was for our own good and they are hero's for saving mankind and the planet.
If you bothered to follow what is transpiring around the world you would see mankind has been manipulating the weather for a good 20 years now... 
