|
Post by socrates on Aug 30, 2006 14:21:39 GMT -5
Thanks Halva. I haven't noticed them put your letter up yet. Geez, if a place named Unknown News won't publish a letter on geo-engineering, then they should rename the place "Unknown News According to Us". I will give them some more time.
I think there is a real need for a sincere chemtrail website like this one since CTC, Debate Both Sides, and Carnicom refuse to do proper moderating. I've noticed a few posters at those places starting to gripe about postings similar to ones which drove me over to this place. I don't know if SwampGas wants this place to expand. I'm sure if it did, most of us could chip in and help keep an eye on things.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 2, 2006 9:01:18 GMT -5
George Monbiot has joined the Crutzen debate. www.alternet.org/envirohealth/41025/What was it they said in May 1968?: "Le doigt montre la lune. L'imbecile regarde le doigt." If Socrates or anyone else wants to join in the fun, like last time at Real Climate, please do.
|
|
|
Post by chickenlittle on Sept 2, 2006 12:24:18 GMT -5
This is very interesting reading.But the part I am thrown by is they speak of it like it is something that WILL be done but dont fess up to the fact as we know IS being done and truly makes sense when I think that are crab and shell fish and fish in the pacific northwest are DEAD, dead as in the scientist say there is no repairing in the future,this should tell any normal bloke that they are indeed spending trillions on this already and we the people had no say whatsoever. Educated Idiots! thats what I think they are. chicky
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 2, 2006 17:04:05 GMT -5
It is strange how so many can't open their eyes after reading at these science forums and say hey wait a minute....... Monbiot wrote, "...They would cause some whitening of the sky." This one thread might be better than the RealClimate one. It said his article appeared in The Guardian, a reputable newspaper. We shall see. Hopefully some scientist or even Monbiot himself will check out Halva's well-written essay and respond to the idea that this crap is already taking place covertly yet in plain sight which I know makes no sense and sorry for this run on sentence. Responding to Paul Crutzen
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Sept 2, 2006 21:52:47 GMT -5
from_http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/080106EC.shtml
Scientist Publishes "Escape Route" From Global Warming:
By Steve Connor The Independent UK Monday 31 July 2006
...Snippet...
"Professor Crutzen has proposed a method of artificially cooling the global climate by releasing particles of sulphur in the upper atmosphere, which would reflect sunlight and heat back into space. The controversial proposal is being taken seriously by scientists because Professor Crutzen has a proven track record in atmospheric research. A fleet of high-altitude balloons could be used to scatter the sulphur high overhead, or it could even be fired into the atmosphere using heavy artillery shells, said Professor Crutzen, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany.
The effect of scattering sulphate particles in the atmosphere would be to increase the reflectance, or "albedo", of the Earth, which should cause an overall cooling effect.
Such "geo-engineering" of the climate has been suggested before, but Professor Crutzen goes much further by drawing up a detailed model of how it can be done, the timescales involved, and the costs."
________________________________________________
What I find interesting about Professor Crutzen's idea to put sulfur particles into the upper atmosphere is the complete lack of mentioning anything in his outline of the process with regard to using any type of aircraft to disperse all of the sulfur material that would be required to accomplish the proposed feat, why the mesuered distance from mentioning aircraft?
Instead of using the most obvious and no doubt crazy but practical means to place fine sulfur particles into the upper atmosphere, large tanker type aircraft, we have instead a learned scientist telling us that A fleet of high-altitude balloons (are you buying this?) could be used to scatter the sulfur high overhead, or it could even be fired into the atmosphere using heavy artillery shells, WHAT ?
I find this balloons and artillery shell method a convenient diversion away from what has become known as "Chemtrail's" and I think that anyone who is familiar with the aerosol spraying issue that has been going on worldwide, noticeably since the late 90's, has no difficulty in seeing that Professor Crutzen's ideas for "geo-engineering" of our sick planet's atmosphere is just part of a cover-up of "geo-engineering" that has already been going on in earnest for nearly a decade now by our government and no doubt many others governments as well.
As I see it, Crutzen offers no more than Dr. Death Teller did or the Air Force's " WEATHER AS A FORCE MULTIPLIER: OWNING THE WEATHER IN 2025", what is glaringly obvious about this non-new Crutzen earth cooling method is the absents of mentioning anything that might be related to the "Chemtrail's / Global Spraying" that we have and are currently seeing taking place worldwide.
While expressing the dire need for us to do something radical with our atmosphere to protect ourselves from global warming, the seeds of need are being sown by Crutzen and his like that we accept aerosols being sprayed into the atmosphere for our own good, whether it is actually good or not.
This leading the sheep from our secret spraying projects ( Not so secret) into the "Save our planet" spraying projects is just more government manipulation of "We the Stupid People", I don't believe that debating Crutzen's geo-engineering ideas is the point he and his kind want to effect, the effect, I believe is that we be infected with the false premise that spraying is the only way to avert a global warming catastrophe, that and avoid telling any truth of past or present spraying operations underway.
It's all so convenient, isn't it ?
I have to think that Crutzen is in no way part of the solution but in fact the same old, same old part of the problem, that being smoke and mirrors, ongoing.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 3, 2006 1:48:46 GMT -5
It is strange how so many can't open their eyes after reading at these science forums and say hey wait a minute....... Monbiot wrote, "...They would cause some whitening of the sky." This one thread might be better than the RealClimate one. It said his article appeared in The Guardian, a reputable newspaper. We shall see. Hopefully some scientist or even Monbiot himself will check out Halva's well-written essay and respond to the idea that this crap is already taking place covertly yet in plain sight. George Monbiot is not an easy person to establish contact with.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 3, 2006 2:09:38 GMT -5
from_http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/080106EC.shtml I have to think that Crutzen is in no way part of the solution but in fact the same old, same old part of the problem, that being smoke and mirrors, ongoing. Crutzen's article could be interpreted as a cry for help. Is it a cry for help? There is no way of knowing other than through trying to engage him, seeing if he is sincere in his profession of interest in winning the "trust" of the public. Seeing if he really is available for debate with us. And we must make demands of Crutzen. Make the demand that he acknowledge that ideas like his are already being implemented? That would be the ideal, but given that this activity remains illegal, it leaves open the threat of prosecution of those involved in it, which may include Crutzen. Such threats can be used for blackmailing purposes, including by the "contrarians". So let us not immediately write off Crutzen if he does not acknowledge that the aerosol spraying is actually happening. Let us make other demands which may be easier for him: such as the demand to agree that it should be illegal to claim there is no relation between human activity and climate change. This could provide us with legal weapons to use against the contrarians, so that it is not only one side (them) that has such weapons. The playing field might be levelled slightly, and then people like Crutzen may be able to find the courage to defy the contrarians in more radical ways, such as by admitting that aerosol programmes are already under way. The first objective is to find out whether he really IS interested in debate, not debate based on our expectation that he is going to solve OUR problems, but debate aimed at finding out whether he is prepared to trust us to help him solve HIS problems.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 3, 2006 3:30:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 3, 2006 5:34:11 GMT -5
It appeared in The Guardian, a reputable newspaper. This is the link to the Guardian article, followed by discussion: www.tiny.cc/BLV6hI sent the following posting. Let's see if the reputable Guardian runs it. In his critique of Crutzen Monbiot draws on the findings of the INDOEX project scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/pressreleases/indoex_water.cfm as publicised in David Sington's BBC documentary on "Global Dimming". Paul Crutzen was a participant in the INDOEX project, as can be seen by anyone following the preceding link. The Sington documentary was criticized by Gavin Schmidt at his Real Climate forum for its cavalier and sensationalistic handling of the scientific evidence of the INDOEX project. www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105 Schmidt called it "horribly premature" to declare 'global dimming' the cause of the 1980s famine in Ethiopia. I know from personal correspondence with a number of the scientists interviewed in the documentary that they felt very ambivalent about the documentary's scaremongering.
By relying on such sources George Monbiot leaves himself open to exactly the same kind of attacks that David Sington was subjected to at the time the documentary was screened. Not only from contrarians but also from non-contrarian scientists.
There is a well-known May 1968 slogan that: "Le doigt montre la lune. L'imbecile regarde le doigt." Crutzen's sulphur-spraying proposals seem to me to be in the category of the finger pointing at the (cloud-shrouded) moon. Let us, and George Monbiot, not spend too much time staring at Crutzen's finger. There is a whole dimension to this debate that is systematically buried and denied. It is available for the perusual of George Monbiot, Paul Crutzen and anyone else interested at: www.climateimc.org/?q=node/611)
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 3, 2006 6:03:18 GMT -5
If we can, in a public meeting, induce Crutzen to appear more our ally than Monbiot, this will be a gain.
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Sept 4, 2006 16:08:06 GMT -5
I would approach anything that Crutzen has to say with caution in mind, I hear that sucking sound that only an establishment scientoid can make when he speaks.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 4, 2006 20:52:49 GMT -5
The first thing to try to find out, if we can, is what his objectives are. He writes as if he really doesn't want to spray the stratosphere with sulphur and he would prefer the people who want stronger measures against greenhouse gases to have the political power to implement them. Does this mean he wants "help" from people like us? What help could we give? Would he accept it?
Can this whole "proposal" of Crutzen's be utilized firstly to put the lid on the climate change contrarians, then to stop the implementation of unacceptable "geoengineering" measures.
What is the role of the campaign against the effects of aviation emissions which postulates OPPOSITE effects to the effects claimed by the geoengineering advocates (i.e. a net warming effect of "contrails", not a mitigating cooling effect). Why is there no visible debate between aviation opponents and geoengineering advocates?
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Sept 4, 2006 23:07:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Sept 5, 2006 0:15:47 GMT -5
James Lovelock is not the only one talking about our globe overheating. More droughts, floods and fires in a warmer world (15 August 2006) Floods, droughts and forest fires will gather in strength and frequency as the planet warms, a British research study has found. Water shortages are likely to worsen in West Africa, Central America, southern Europe and eastern USA. www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=11861&channel=4Also see: Severe drought hits US farmers (1 September 2006) The United States government has allocated $780m in aid in response to a severe drought that is ravaging crops across the central United States and forcing farmers to sell off herds of cattle. www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=11942&channel=0
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 5, 2006 0:17:33 GMT -5
The first thing to try to find out, if we can, is what his objectives are. He writes as if he really doesn't want to spray the stratosphere with sulphur and he would prefer the people who want stronger measures against greenhouse gases to have the political power to implement them. Does this mean he wants "help" from people like us? What help could we give? Would he accept it? Can this whole "proposal" of Crutzen's be utilized firstly to put the lid on the climate change contrarians, then to stop the implementation of unacceptable "geoengineering" measures. What is the role of the campaign against the effects of aviation emissions which postulates OPPOSITE effects to the effects claimed by the geoengineering advocates (i.e. a net warming effect of "contrails", not a mitigating cooling effect). Why is there no visible debate between aviation opponents and geoengineering advocates? The thing about Crutzen and "people like us" is that "people like us" technically don't exist. I think since Crutzen has come up with a proposal that resembles what the skies would look like if the proposals were actually in place, his motives must be one of two things. He obviously believes that such a proposal could alleviate global warming. He either then is in on it and has been working with the "program" all these years, or he has come up with this theory and never goes outside too much. If someone could get an interview with him, show him some of our stuff along with perhaps Moyer's tv report, then ask him, doesn't that look like your proposal? Well, good luck getting that interview. Perhaps the best bet for folks like ourselves is to know someone from Frontline or 60 Minutes or Keith Olbermann or anybody with some media power and expose our concerns. If it's harmless water vapour from a change in the jet fuel then prove it. Don't lie and say everything in the skies is hunky dory. It's right there for all to see. Climate change contrarians are not really the problem anymore. Those who are anti-aviation who are unaware of "chemtrails" to me are very helpful. They and their studies can show that night time flights are trapping more heat in than the daytime ones. The ones who are the problem are the Crutzens and Tellers who with their high falutin degrees find it real easy to advocate playing God. The key for us is to get attention paid to what the skies look like. That is the first step. There has to be an explanation for how the skies turn out so yucky due to the aircraft. One Paul Moyer report is not enough. As for your ideas Halva, I believe that dangerous geo-engineering as espoused by Crutzen should be made illegal. Then we'll need Jim Garrison types to go after the criminals in power.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 5, 2006 0:26:23 GMT -5
Hi Lou, thanks for the article. A few things stood out to me as false flags. Maybe he is right that we are past the tipping point. Yet, for someone with the doom and gloom outlook, the article says he favors nuclear energy. It also says he was buddies with William Golding who wrote Lord of the Flies. That book's philosophy goes against everything I believe in. I see Lovelock as just a different version of Crutzen. These people are so full of themselves and seemingly so entrenched in the power structure, that I don't trust either of them. If they were legit, wouldn't they be on The Daily Show or be more active outside the matrix they seem to work within?
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 5, 2006 0:34:57 GMT -5
One other thing I wanted to say is that these clowns either think we're fried or think we can play God to solve it. Jerry Brown ran for President I believe in 1980 saying we could create jobs around a new way of life with the solar, windmills and whatnot. He had a pretty good following too. It looks like the Luddites knew what they were talking about. It looks like those in the Counter-Enlightenment were correct. Rousseau was right. We must find a way to make BOTH the planet and society healthy. Neither of those clowns come up with anything I feel is useful.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Sept 5, 2006 0:39:23 GMT -5
Lovelock has been discussed before here. He is an advocate for Nuclear Energy without consideration of the consequences. This is a more "carrot" approach than Dick Cheney who just says, "We gonna build them, tough". It is adding another problem to the main sources of global warming...Deforestation and Hydrocarbon-Based emissions. It also reminds me of spraying Titanium, Barium, and aluminum to block UV-B radiation and cool the planet. It we take Lovelock's approach, we can just simply continue burning fossil fuel without thought, and Nuclear energy will fill in the gaps.Love lock is another "Liberal", that is is cahoots with Big Industry Operatives, much like the Clintons, Lieberman, and Air America Radio.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 5, 2006 1:05:05 GMT -5
I can't believe how we've changed since JFK was shot.
It's kind of hard not to lean towards conspiracy theory when you see a Lieberman and Clinton still playing the cynical triangulation approach to politics. It's clear as day that it's OK to say LET's Get Out of Iraq, Let's honour the Constitution. Today our society is much more controlled and structured than most could ever imagine. I honestly am shocked at what has happened. There does seem to be a major mind f%@# going on. GW is President. They commit war crimes, break all sorts of constitutional laws, they steal elections ensuring the control of the Supreme Court.
Air America, Arianna Huffington, Lou Dobbs.... We've lost our gumption. Just remember the Red Sox and the Curse of the Bambino. That was meant to go on forever, just as "they' try to program us into believing in end times. Down 0-3 to the evil empire, the Sox came back to win the whole enchilada. So maybe we are down right now, but something will have to give. We never give up. We are feisty just like Garrafolo or Johnnie Lennon.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 5, 2006 2:19:22 GMT -5
James Lovelock is not the only one talking about our globe overheating. More droughts, floods and fires in a warmer world (15 August 2006) Floods, droughts and forest fires will gather in strength and frequency as the planet warms, a British research study has found. Water shortages are likely to worsen in West Africa, Central America, southern Europe and eastern USA. www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=11861&channel=4Also see: Severe drought hits US farmers (1 September 2006) The United States government has allocated $780m in aid in response to a severe drought that is ravaging crops across the central United States and forcing farmers to sell off herds of cattle. www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=11942&channel=0Here's another one showing that climate change debunkers are nothing but paid trolls. Ice bubbles reveal biggest rise in CO2 for 800,000 years The Independent By Steve Connor, Science Editor Published: 05 September 2006 Excerpts: The rapid rise in greenhouse gases over the past century is unprecedented in at least 800,000 years, according to a study of the oldest Antarctic ice core which highlights the reality of climate change." ... ...The ice core was drilled from a thick area of ice on Antarctica known as Dome C. The core is nearly 3.2km long and reaches to a depth where air bubbles became trapped in ice that formed 800,000 years ago. "It's from those air bubbles that we know for sure that carbon dioxide has increased by about 35 per cent in the past 200 years. Before that 200 years, which is when man's been influencing the atmosphere, it was pretty steady to within 5 per cent," Dr Wolff said. The core shows that carbon dioxide was always between 180 parts per million (ppm) and 300 ppm during the 800,000 years. However, now it is 380 ppm. Methane was never higher than 750 parts per billion (ppb) in this timescale, but now it stands at 1,780 ppb. But the rate of change is even more dramatic, with increases in carbon dioxide never exceeding 30 ppm in 1,000 years -- and yet now carbon dioxide has risen by 30 ppm in the last 17 years. "The rate of change is probably the most scary thing because it means that the Earth systems can't cope with it," Dr Wolff told the British Association meeting at the University of East Anglia in Norwich. ________________________ This kind of backs up Lovelock, and seems to be saying uh oh, we are f#@^&ed, not much we can do about it. How 'bout solar, windmill, other natural solutions. That is what must be implemented and soon. No, he probably gets a check from the nuclear power people. I guess for Halva, you might want to research Crutzen and see who he gets paid from, who utilizes his work. Now I gotta get some sleep. I am out of control lately making posts.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 5, 2006 16:26:50 GMT -5
Lovelock has been discussed before here. He is an advocate for Nuclear Energy without consideration of the consequences. This is a more "carrot" approach than Dick Cheney who just says, "We gonna build them, tough". It is adding another problem to the main sources of global warming...Deforestation and Hydrocarbon-Based emissions. It also reminds me of spraying Titanium, Barium, and aluminum to block UV-B radiation and cool the planet. It we take Lovelock's approach, we can just simply continue burning fossil fuel without thought, and Nuclear energy will fill in the gaps.Love lock is another "Liberal", that is is cahoots with Big Industry Operatives, much like the Clintons, Lieberman, and Air America Radio. One other thing about Lovelock I forgot to mention is that I think I read in the article that he is in favor of genetically modified crops. So yet again we see someone discussing a topic so very important to us who seems to have many special interests that appear to clash with honest discussion. Here's a link that attacks the credibility of such a position. Whistleblower: Genetically Engineered Crops May Cause DiseaseHere is another link from The Independent on Lovelock, and the idea that we are past a tipping point. Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return' Here is another Rense link which is from GlobalResearch.ca. I'm not sure about the credibility of such places, yet I am not so sure of the credibility of such publications as The New York Times. If this article is true, then it just shows that whenever we hear from scientists, we may need to ask them who they are and who their clients are, such as with Crutzen. 80% Of Physicists In N America Work For The Military
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Sept 5, 2006 21:40:59 GMT -5
When considering Lovelock's thinking with regard to climate change one must keep in mind that he is 88 years old and just a little more than eccentric, not that his age has anything to do with his eccentricity, he has always been something of a loose cannon, back when he was pushing his theory that the earth was loosing it's ozone layer due to human pollution as the scientific community was laughing at him, he said, "screw you all" built some test equipment in his backyard (lab) shed, went to the pole and proved that all of those laughing at him for his ozone theory were just idiots with degrees.
Even after he proved that the ozone layer was being eaten away by man made pollution there were many that branded him an unorthodox fringe scientist who did not conform to the mainstream thinking, they were right for the most part, Lovelock has never marched in step with the establishment and that cost him dearly in grant money's, thus he has taken money from the private sector in order to continue his research projects, something some see as his being bought by industry, I prefer to think that it was a means to an end that he was justified in doing to continue his life's work.
Lovelock's education was hard earned and although steeped in the traditional sciences with the emphasis on chemistry, his work in the climate field has always been cutting edge, in spite of those who criticize him, he has a knack for being correct with regard to the earth and how it changes for the better or the worst, he has also been proven to be correct in how we humans affect the earth and contribute to it's changing.
Of all of the climate scientist around the planet talking about global warming and climate change, Lovelock is one of the very few that I believe is worth listening to because chances are that he is quite right about our future and what is in store with regard to the climate.
I know, he is an advocate of nuclear power but think of it from his point of view, what single other power source does the world have that can power this planet so efficiently and cleanly, THERE IS NONE at this time and it will be many years before any green technology becomes abundantly available worldwide, other standard means of energy employed today are dirty, earth polluting fossil fuels that no industrialized nation on this planet will give up on a voluntary basis, those fossil fuel junkies will only give it up when those fuels are depleted from existence. Lovelock knows that all of the oil based societies economies are dependant on their consumption of fossil fuel's for energy, thus he supports the lesser of the energy evils that are presently available in mass.
I can not criticize Lovelock for his support of nuclear energy given our present options, down the road when the oil is about to literally run out, there is likely to be some sort of energy revolt as energy starved nations convulse in social dysfunction. ( not a pretty picture.)
Also, his position with regard to genetically modified crops I believe comes from the same lines as that of being in favor of nuclear energy, it's not because he feels that it's the best way to go but rather that it's the only option available at the present to address the needs of the masses. ( at least he doesn't advocate the culling of the world population. I believe he thinks nature will take care of that over time.)
I don't know if I will see it in my lifetime but there will no doubt in time be energy war's, water war's and food war's as the planets atmosphere continues to warm, as drought's become more widespread people will be forced to migrate in order to survive, just how many survive is anyone's guess but the future as I see it will be far different than the good life we have been enjoying for the past few thousand years, change is definitely coming whether we want it to come or not and those who think that we can somehow stem the tide of nature I believe are deluding themselves in a complete fantasy.
Our only hope of surviving as a species lies in how well we can adapt to how the earth itself changes.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 6, 2006 22:01:01 GMT -5
You make some strong points Lou about Lovelock. It looks like Crutzen is the one more pertinent to "chemtrails" as an issue. Lovelock kind of helps take care of the climate change debunker frauds.
I just posted some pics in the aerosol reports. Like the ones sent to Rense the other day, one can see that the result of the spraying is a blocked out sun. I can vouch for the pictures I posted. They were taken by friends.
I'm gonna post I think once more tonight on the fake pilot thread. There are a few threads over at Carnicom's which kind of speak to the issue of fakery on the internet. I also just fixed a post I made on pg. 16 of aerosol reports because a link was too long and messed up the format. I apologize for anything like that. It's annoying to have to scroll so much left to right.
I don't see much anything of real substance at the other places like the threads at Gastro. I'm not saying they don't exist, but good comments and links are much harder to find over at those places. I know this is off-topic, but I googled Boomer chick and Thetaloops and found some threads from even this year exposing her as a Reynold's Wrap supporter.
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Sept 6, 2006 22:02:55 GMT -5
Not so new threat from global warming. ________________________________ USA Today _Scientists find new global warming threat from melting permafrost: www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-09-06-permafrost-warming_x.htmBy Seth Borenstein, The Associated Press WASHINGTON — New research is raising concerns that global warming may be triggering a self-perpetuating climate time bomb trapped in once-frozen permafrost. As the Earth warms, greenhouse gases once stuck in the long-frozen soil are bubbling into the atmosphere in much larger amounts than previously anticipated, according to a study in Thursday's journal Nature. Methane trapped in a special type of permafrost is bubbling up at a rate five times faster than originally measured, the journal said. _____________________________________________ There is nothing new about Arctic permafrost melting and releasing gases such as methane, what is new, is the rate at which the permafrost is melting which has scientist thinking that global warming can and will with all probability surge much faster than anyone thought it possibly could, according to a few, we could see disastrous effects of global warming within just a matter of ten to fifteen years. Here is an article written on the subject in December of 2004. www.commondreams.org/views04/1215-24.htm Ticking Time Bomb by John Atcheson "The Arctic Council's recent report on the effects of global warming in the far north paints a grim picture: global floods, extinction of polar bears and other marine mammals, collapsed fisheries. But it ignored a ticking time bomb buried in the Arctic tundra." ""There are enormous quantities of naturally occurring greenhouse gasses trapped in ice-like structures in the cold northern muds and at the bottom of the seas. These ices, called clathrates, contain 3,000 times as much methane as is in the atmosphere. Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.""
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Sept 6, 2006 23:01:23 GMT -5
socrates wrote,
"You make some strong points Lou about Lovelock. It looks like Crutzen is the one more pertinent to "chemtrails" as an issue. Lovelock kind of helps take care of the climate change debunker frauds.
I just posted some pics in the aerosol reports. Like the ones sent to Rense the other day, one can see that the result of the spraying is a blocked out sun. I can vouch for the pictures I posted. They were taken by friends.
I'm gonna post I think once more tonight on the fake pilot thread. There are a few threads over at Carnicom's which kind of speak to the issue of fakery on the internet. I also just fixed a post I made on pg. 16 of aerosol reports because a link was too long and messed up the format. I apologize for anything like that. It's annoying to have to scroll so much left to right.
I don't see much anything of real substance at the other places like the threads at Gastro. I'm not saying they don't exist, but good comments and links are much harder to find over at those places. I know this is off-topic, but I googled Boomer chick and Thetaloops and found some threads from even this year exposing her as a Reynold's Wrap supporter." __________________________________________
Hi socrates,
thanks, I'm not trying to defend Lovelock, he's pretty good at doing that himself, I just wanted to point out that some of his ideas, such as backing nuclear power are not necessarily set in stone, I believe if someone showed him some better way of mass producing clean energy without mucking up the environment, I'm sure that he would endorse that also, it's just that he is something of a realist and our options for producing mass amounts of energy at this time are limited, eventually, new energy production will become available, it has to since fossil fuels are on there way out of existence.
I agree that Crutzen is more pertinent to "chemtrails" as an issue but it is important to realize that he is connected to the climate issue / environment on a whole, perhaps when entering into any form of dialogue with him, discussing aspects of climate change should be in the forefront with any climate modification issues as a side discussion. I get the impression that he is quite skittish with regard to any possibility that aerosol spraying projects are or have been underway in this country or any country.
If he is genuine and he is confronted with those who believe for a fact, as we do, that there are current spraying operations underway worldwide, even if he knows this to be true as well, he might be frightened away from the subject, not wanting to be connected to the current operations issue, etc...After all, he does work for THEM at this time, he might not want to loose his paycheck, position and perks.
Saw your photos in the aerosol reports, nasty !
I tend not to post at many other places, Oh, once in awhile I will but I like the friendly atmosphere here at Gastro, I just do not feel the need to engage a bunch of strangers in endless debate, I would rather spend my time enjoying an exchange between friends who basically tend to agree on the big issues, not that we always agree, hell, that would be some boring.
Anyway, for the time being I'm content in doing a few post here at Gastro if I feel up to it in the evenings, I'm not into chasing people across the internet (Like Reynolds) to aggravate them with endless clap trap.
Re: Boomer Chick.
As I have said, I don't really know much about her MO, past or present but I know that she has this school girl like crush on JR, don't know why, don't want to know, don't care, there are many issues that I'm interested in but she is not one of them, the way I look at it, she has her life, I have mine and hers doesn't count for anything in mine unless it's the fact that she is breathing my air and I'm undecided as to what to do about that.
Ok, it's getting late, I've got firewood to stack tomorrow, I'm back out for now.
Take care,...........Lou.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 6, 2006 23:04:59 GMT -5
This reading of the situation would not equip a person to neutralize and demoralize someone like Reynolds. (I assume until receiving proof to the contrary that this is my sole tangible achievement to date.) The friend/enemy divide is between climate change contrarians and the rest (those I choose to call "us"). As far as the anti-aviation campaigners are concerned, I don't believe it is possible to evaluate the meaning and the significance of what they are doing and saying until one can get them into debate with supporters of "geoengineering" notions. They could be just one huge diversion. Unfortunately Footsoldier, after promising to give us the benefit of her wisdom on this subject, has not proceeded to do so. And Chem 11 at Megasprayer hides a totally confused stance behind rhetoric about corrupt corporations, etc. He then encourages us to join the fan club of the Governator. Probably this link gives the most useful clues to the kind of thing we should be thinking about. www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/OriginalArticles/ThrivingPartOne.htmlAs for nuclear power and genetically modified foods, these are not subjects I expect to be arguing about with people who are on "our side".
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 7, 2006 0:57:59 GMT -5
My Crutzen article is now up at "Enouranois". Click here.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 7, 2006 20:28:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Sept 7, 2006 20:44:34 GMT -5
Halva wrote,
"My Crutzen article is now up at "Enouranois". Click here. " ______________________________________________
Not bad, not bad at all, it will be interesting to see what responses you get on that.
Good work !
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 8, 2006 1:11:30 GMT -5
Thanks for this link Socrates. I tried to post at Rigorous Intuition a link to my Crutzen article at Enouranois but the response was you have to be an administrator to post at that thread. Strange because not all posters seemed to be administrators. Thank you for your kind words Lou.
|
|