|
Post by socrates on Sept 8, 2006 2:44:21 GMT -5
...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. I've been going over old threads trying to figure out Boomerchick. I will post those thoughts under one of the ctc threads at Gastronamus Cafe. I did see that Chem11 doesn't believe in barium or military chaff being behind the "chemtrails", but he so far doesn't seem ambiguous to me. He seems to be saying there is an aerosol operation using sulfates just like with Crutzen's plan. Is he a Republican who doesn't like Sarah Connor and appreciates the work of Arnold? He posts here, and it looks like he lets you post at his site. Maybe you should be nicer and less ambiguous if you are going to criticise people who post at the places you are at. Just some friendly advice. If I am wrong I will admit it. I agree also with his rant against Rense and Prison Planet in the following thread from Megasprayer. The Gloves Are Coming Off AgainIt's good to see Lou and Halva make up after reading through a bunch of the old threads. You're on the same side, as Mech and SwampGas are. Well, I found the link on Boomerchick and it makes sense to me now and I'll post these next thoughts on the appropriate thread.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 8, 2006 8:30:24 GMT -5
Chem and I have had nastier disagreements in the past, namely about defending David Stewart from Reynolds' gay-bashing attacks, and as yet Chem hasn't thrown me off his forum.
Chem declared independence from CTC on similar grounds to what you complain about, i.e. the predominance of dopy and crazy postings.
My current disagreement with him is over the fact that he takes it for granted that the "contrails have a warming effect" theorists must be the good guys and the "contrails have a cooling effect" people the bad guys. Footsoldier has a similar stance. It just so happens that both Chem and Footsoldier never succeeded in dealing with the Reynolds problem. (Well, OK, Chem dealt with it by rigorously excluding Reynolds and all other debunkers from Megasprayer, a move that is not to be ridiculed, and whose merits I have acknowledged many times. Megasprayer is a forum with a moderator.) But Reynolds went on calling Chem 11 his "buddy" and attempting at every opportunity to use his own reading of Chem's views to smash other people.
As for Footsoldier, who is a woman and doesn't have her own forum, Reynolds had a persistently sadistic and obsessed attitude towards her. I have been forced to try to understand what underlay it and I have finally concluded that it may have been the same confusion in Chem's and Footsoldier's understanding of the chemtrails issue that fed Reynolds' obsession with them, which manifested itself in the case of the male in the form of neurotic and one-sided professions of "friendship", in the case of the female with hideous and relentless sexism and a desire to humiliate.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 8, 2006 16:43:44 GMT -5
...My current disagreement with him is over the fact that he takes it for granted that the "contrails have a warming effect" theorists must be the good guys and the "contrails have a cooling effect" people the bad guys... ...But Reynolds went on calling Chem 11 his "buddy" and attempting at every opportunity to use his own reading of Chem's views to smash other people. Halva, I think what you do best is providing "chemtrail" discussion with a scientific grounding. In my opinion, you are too involved in the emotion that exists on forums. When I first started reading through these forums, I couldn't help but be drawn towards the bickering going on. When I saw your name so often near Reynolds, I actually wondered if the fight between you two was staged. I don't believe that now, but I'll just state that I think your best talents are when you stick to the subjects at hand. I agree that when I saw Reynolds calling Chem11 his buddy, it was a bit confusing. Yet, we all have our own way of interacting on these forums. Just because you felt Chem11 needed to address that doesn't mean that he needed to address it in that way. From continued reading, I saw that he was not his "buddy". That Reynolds guy didn't even try to make his posts logical. His main objective seemed to be to add confusion and make the topic seem so insane that new people would just drop the whole inquiry and start reading on something like PlameGate. One example of the Reynold's approach was when he tried to belittle Chem11, Swampgas, and Thetaloops as being frauds. He based this on the fact that Thetaloops was wondering if inroads could be made to places like Rense.com to get more realistic reports done on chemtrails, yet Chem11 and Swamp were getting fed up with those "alternative media" reports on "chemtrails". To me, it may be impossible to prove someone is a paid troll or just a troll. Yet, what both have in common is that their efforts are directed towards derailing threads. I think you did a good job putting him in his place under trying conditions at the unmoderated Debate Both Sides. I just want to repeat that when you stay focussed on "chemtrails", you seem to me to be much more effective. I think there is much confusion over whether "contrails" cool or warm the planet. Myself and Chicky have mentioned this in previous posts. I am under the impression that night "contrails" warm the planet by trapping in the day's heat, while the daytime "contrails" cool the planet by blocking the sun's energy. I noticed in reading past aerosol reports here at Gastro that there were two observations a while back that stood out to me. One, a bunch of folks were observing night time "spraying". The other was that snow was melting rapidly. I mentioned it in the Arcadia Returns thread that he might be able to help you figure out how to post at Rigorous Intuition. If you didn't see that, maybe you can ask Sickle for some help on that. I think because that place has a ton of posters along with the guy running the site interested in this, you would make a fine addition to the discussions that go on over there as regards to this topic we are so interested in. Take it easy.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 8, 2006 23:03:30 GMT -5
I am sorry to have got dragged into this talking about Reynolds, which will make him think he is missed and motivate him to come back.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 9, 2006 10:05:45 GMT -5
I am sorry to have got dragged into this talking about Reynolds, which will make him think he is missed and motivate him to come back. No, Halva, don't feel bad at all. I will stop talking about him. He has lost the battle. He has cornered himself into being more irrelevant as the recent Crutzen material has appeared. One of my areas of interest is disinformation. For democracy to flourish, we have to weed this stuff out. I don't think we can simply ignore it. When there are "two" sides to any topic, it doesn't matter what is written. Whatever side is backed by the status quo will win the day, as the work of Herbert Marcuse showed the world. The Debate Both Sides formula is flawed. I have been there before with the Huffington Post. You think there is a chance for grassroot movement on the internet, but then when there is no moderating going on, there is no way to stop the flow of fakery. The same thing happened to Swampgas and the crew at CTC. It gets to the point where it doesn't even matter that we have good things to say. The trolls end up ruining everything. I haven't read too much of that creep. You see, I am pretty good at figuring out trolls. I am not paranoid and think everyone is a troll. Perhaps we should refer to him as he who shall not be mentioned. I read maybe three or four of his posts before I saw the stupid pattern. He is scroll material Halva. Anyone looking into chemtrail boards is gonna stumble across this. So perhaps it is now on the record of what he did and how he became irrelevant. I promise you I won't mention his name again. If I do, I will call him he who shalt not be named, how's that? The guy is a plant. He showed up right on time with his cruddy attitude and website. We could write pages and pages on how he is dishonest and nasty. Perhaps we have gotten this out of our system and can get back to reality. Who were we talking about? See Halva, it is over. He lost bad.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 10, 2006 23:52:39 GMT -5
I have received from Rosalind Peterson a very detailed response to my Crutzen article. I proposed to Chem 11 at Megasprayer, which is likewise California based, that we should try to work out an international strategy in co-ordination with this lady.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 11, 2006 0:02:27 GMT -5
On CNBC, there was someone from Greenpeace saying we should relook into nuclear power as a source for cleaner energy. The irony. The disappointment. Why are we still in denial that things don't have to change. We need electric cars, windmills, solar, etc.. Damn, I think chemtrails are part of a band aid approach to the problems. I feel that they are actually making the weather more chaotic and causing more difficulties as Gavin Schmidt, Monbiot, and many others have pointed out would happen if "cooling the planet" geo-engineering takes place.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 11, 2006 0:15:24 GMT -5
I have received from Rosalind Peterson a very detailed response to my Crutzen article. I proposed to Chem 11 at Megasprayer, which is likewise California based, that we should try to work out an international strategy in co-ordination with this lady. I thought she was impressive on the Paul Moyer report. Maybe she would like to post here and/or get quality people over here? They wouldn't have to worry about the crazy talk going on at the other places. Does anyone actually go to Carnicom's forum? There is crazy UFO talk going on there. Does Carnicom realise his website is being dominated by strange writings? There really is a need for good, realistic "chemtrail" talk. The internet is a decent forum to get things out to the masses. I think you should join forces with her. Maybe she can hook you up with Paul Moyer. Isn't it about time he comes up with a new report? Heck, he should come out with "chemtrail" material every few months until it breaks nationwide. That's what I think.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 11, 2006 8:47:31 GMT -5
I'll be putting her response to my article up at Enouranois once I get the OK from her.
Do you have the name of the nuclear energy fan from Greenpeace so that we can take it up with Greenpeace here in Greece?
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 11, 2006 20:50:11 GMT -5
Do you have the name of the nuclear energy fan from Greenpeace so that we can take it up with Greenpeace here in Greece? This must be the guy: Going Nuclear- A Green Makes the CaseThe Washington Post By Patrick Moore Sunday, April 16, 2006 excerpt: "In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change..."
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Sept 11, 2006 22:53:58 GMT -5
Who the hell is buttering Moore's Butt....er.....Bread? Exxon/Mobil, Cheney, and Bushies? www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060113/BUSINESS11/601130327/1071Greenpeace co-founder praises global warmingBy Sean Hao Global warming and nuclear energy are good and the way to save forests is to use more wood. That was the message delivered to a biotechnology industry gathering yesterday in Waikiki. However, it wasn't the message that was unconventional, but the messenger — Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. Moore said he broke with Greenpeace in the 1980s over the rise of what he called "environmental extremism," or stands by environmental groups against issues such as genetic crop research, genetically modified foods and nuclear energy that aren't supported by science or logic. Hawai'i, which is one of the top locations nationwide for genetically modified crop research, has become a focal point in the debate about the risks and value of such work. Friction between environmentalists and other concerned groups and the biotech industry surfaced most recently in relation to the use of local crops to grow industrial and pharmaceutical compounds. Last year that opposition halted a Big Island project planning to use algae for trial production of pharmaceutical drugs. Zero-tolerance standards against such research by environmental groups delay developments that could help those with unmet basic needs, Moore said. Instead Moore called for compromise rather than confrontation on the part of the environmentalists. "There's no getting away from the fact that over 6 billion people wake up each day on this planet with real needs for food, energy and materials," he told those attending a luncheon at a three-day Pacific Rim Summit on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioenergy. The event was sponsored by the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Sponsors included Dupont, Carghill and the state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, which spent $15,000 to support the conference. In direct opposition to common environmentalist positions, Moore contended that global warming and the melting of glaciers is positive because it creates more arable land and the use of forest products drives up demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees. He added that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and the emission of so-called greenhouse gases should include increased use of nuclear energy. Among the 300 or so members in the audience yesterday was Henry Curtis, executive director for environmental group Life of the Land. Curtis said he found Moore's comments "interesting." "He's obviously thought about things," Curtis said. "But I don't buy a lot of his arguments. "I think the movement dealing with (genetically modified organisms) is very wide. You can't just say everybody that's against it is against it for this reason and they're totally against it. "Part of what we're doing in the environmental movement is safeguarding the downsides," Curtis added. "We don't want to see a downside that we don't anticipate overwhelming the system."
|
|
|
Post by chickenlittle on Sept 13, 2006 7:50:34 GMT -5
I just recently was in a discussion with someone about all the dead sea life here (Crabs and fish daed article) and they asked where do I suppose Green Peace is during all this I casually said that I believe the have been bought out and Now I am quite sure that gut instinct I had must be correct,I really do think that they are with THE OTHER GUYS the money god must have had a very convincing line! And another thing is all the discussion about turing piss water into potable water soon I think before long we wont know we are drinking,for one thing also Swamp may be interested in this one I don't know if you have heard of this but a local polluting mill in our area Nipon/Dishowa is going to be involved in genetically modifying rice in an upcoming project,they just cant quit tampering until we start growing tails I guess. chicky
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 14, 2006 19:18:42 GMT -5
It's funny how for years crazy debunkers have kept repeating how they are just contrails, that they have always been there, that this is a hoax. At the least we have all been vindicated for arguing that aircraft emissions are producing major fake cloud cover. The growth in "global dimming" awareness the last year to me has been a major milestone for the clean sky movement. No wonder we aren't hearing much from these buggers of late. It doesn't fit their agenda any longer to discuss anything about the fake clouds. So now it is goodbye AA767 and Reynolds Wrap and hello UFOs. Give me a friggin' break. This observation I believe is circumstantial evidence that those debunkers and others were paid to troll the forums, knowing that they would also help create some useful idiots along the way. Here's the official coincidence theory on contrails: Air Traffic
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 14, 2006 22:45:39 GMT -5
How can the finding that someone has been paid to do what he does increase our ability to counter it?
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 14, 2006 23:32:36 GMT -5
How can the finding that someone has been paid to do what he does increase our ability to counter it? I think the more people realise there is paid trolling going on, the more likely they are to open their minds up to seeking truth. There was this movie a few years ago. Joe Pesci was the star of My Cousin Vinnie. He was no Jim Garrison, but he had a knack for seeing through lies and inconsistencies. His big line was "you can't put one over The Gambini." The more people critically thinking, the more likely we are to become truly democratic with much peace and justice. Why does anyone feed the trolls? Perhaps they feel they are letting newbies know that it's time to think like The Gambini.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 15, 2006 0:17:31 GMT -5
Here's an interesting thread going on over at Megasprayer. Barium or sulfur? metal particulates? It would seem to matter a lot. I think it is mostly the sulfur and metal particulates. It would be nice to know. What if the governator started talking about chemtrails? That would be insane. What if he listens to Hulk Hogan and Maria Schriver, pinky to side of mouth (Dr. Evil)- what if he learns from Robert Kennedy Jr. ?? I liked Paul Wellstone a lot. Feingold stood up for the Bill of Rights. Strategies against Climatic Change
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 15, 2006 0:42:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BigBunny on Sept 15, 2006 2:24:10 GMT -5
Don't get too excited - its been coming for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Sept 15, 2006 9:05:31 GMT -5
Again, I respect Chem, halva, and Big Bunny. We are all veterans of varying degrees in the exposing of Lies, and the quest for Truth. If you read all of the posts on Climate change, you will see that Chem and halva are both passionate about what they think, and that of course will lead to saying things we don't mean. We all fight online, and then realize that it is not worth it. Remember all, that name calling only fuels the debunkers. They HATE it when we discuss differences of opinion in a logical fashion. I have to read with more detail Halva's piece, and I'll be back with my point of view.
|
|
|
Post by BigBunny on Sept 15, 2006 10:36:37 GMT -5
The propaganda war is heating up: Source: National Center for Atmospheric Research www.ucar.edu/Date: September 15, 2006 Stratospheric Injections Could Help Cool Earth, Computer Model Shows A two-pronged approach to stabilizing climate, with cuts in greenhouse gas emissions as well as injections of climate-cooling sulfates, could prove more effective than either approach used separately. This is the finding of a new study by Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), published in the September 14 issue of Science. Wigley calculates the impact of injecting sulfate particles, or aerosols, every one to four years into the stratosphere in amounts equal to those lofted by the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pintabuto in 1991. If found to be environmentally and technologically viable, such injections could provide a "grace period" of up to 20 years before major cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions would be required, he concludes. "A combined approach to climate stabilization has a number of advantages over either employed separately," says Wigley. His study was supported by the National Science Foundation, NCAR's primary sponsor. The Science paper does not endorse any particular approach to reducing climate change, nor is it intended to address the many technical and political challenges involved in potential geoengineering efforts. Instead, it analyzes whether the much-discussed idea of injecting sulfates into the stratosphere could, in fact, slow down global warming and therefore provide more time for society to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide. If climate change were addressed only through mitigation (emissions reduction), then massive cuts in emissions would be needed in order to keep temperatures from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2.0 degrees Celsius) over present levels. This amount of warming has often been cited as a benchmark of dangerous climate change. Given the difficulties of making such massive cuts, scientists recently have begun to reexamine a variety of schemes proposed over the last few decades to reduce the impact of climate change through global-scale technological fixes. These approaches are often referred to as geoengineering. One strategy first proposed in the 1970s is to inject large amounts of sun-blocking sulfate particles into the stratosphere via aircraft or other means. The idea would be to cool the climate for a year or more with each injection, much as the largest volcanic eruptions do. "Geoengineering could provide additional time to address the economic and technological challenges faced by a mitigation-only approach," says Wigley. A model experiment with two scenarios Using a computer model to track sunlight and other energy flowing into and out of the Earth system, Wigley examined two scenarios that project the impact of emissions on climate from now to the year 2400. In one scenario, total emissions would have to start dropping immediately, and would have to be cut by around 50 percent in the next 50 years, in order to keep global climate from warming by more than the 2 degrees C benchmark. An alternative scenario, the "overshoot" approach, allows a period of increasing total emissions, extending to the 2030s, before stringent cutbacks begin. To see how geoengineering might change this picture, Wigley took the overshoot scenario and added three frequencies of Pinatubo-scale injections of sulfates into the stratosphere. The frequencies were equivalent to an eruption every year, every two years, and every four years. In all three cases, global temperature stayed approximately constant for the next 40 to 50 years. After 2050, the cumulative effect of greenhouse gases produced a slow temperature rise, though it was muted by the injections. Injections on a scale equal to Pinatubo were examined because that volcanic eruption did not seriously disrupt the climate system beyond a short-term cooling, says Wigley. No panacea Geoengineering is not a panacea, Wigley notes. For example, carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning has led to an increased acidification of Earth's oceans. Even if geoengineering could help limit global warming, the oceans would continue to acidify as greenhouse-gas emissions climb, threatening certain marine ecosystems. Mitigation alone can potentially solve both the warming and ocean acidification problems, but it has its own set of difficulties, says Wigley. The rapid emissions reductions required to keep below the 2 degree C warming threshold would be costly, perhaps unacceptably so, and would pose severe technological challenges. "A relatively modest geoengineering investment could reduce the economic and technological burden on mitigation by deferring the need for immediate or near-future cuts in carbon dioxide emissions," Wigley says. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060914182715.htm
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 15, 2006 14:08:51 GMT -5
Let me share with you a letter sent to George Monbiot by Graham Rickett, the English translator for Gabriel Stetter's chemtrails articles. This is in response to Monbiot's piece on Crutzen in "The Guardian". "Dear Mr. Monbiot, On 7th November 2005 I wrote you a letter which concluded with the words: "Will you never stand up to the chemical climate modifiers and save our lungs?" It was interesting for me, therefore to read your article of Tuesday August 29 in which you are challenging climate modifier Nobel prizewinner Paul Crutzen. On the one hand, your tactic in questioning the wisdom of a chemical climate change operation before it has begun is clearly very sensible. On the other hand, you seem to be implying in your article that if Paul Crutzen's proposal were to be put into practiice, such an operation would be without precedent in human history. This is either a very naive assumption on your part, or a calculated attempt to mislead your many readers in The Guardian who are genuinely concerned about the environment and who regard you as an unimpeachable authority on this subject. Surely I am not the only person to have drawn to your attention, as I did in the letter mentioned above, to the spraying operation that has been going on for several years, and which, though not identical to the hypothetical one described in Paul Crutzen's article, is clearly similar in most important respects. As you can congratulate yourself on the correctness of your prediction that such an operation would result in "some whitening of the sky", as this is being confirmed in practice as one of several observable effects of the aerosol spraying that is actually going on. You speak of P. Crutzen as someone who "knows more than almost anyone about the impact of pollutants in the atmosphere". It seems to me very unlikely that he could be unaware of the ongoing operation which could well be characterized as - to quote your own words - a "re-engineering [of] the atmosphere". But, to judge by the short-sightedness of his proposal tp "fire 5 m tonnes of sulpher into the stratosphere every year", he would also presumably regard as negligible the harmful effects of spraying vast quantities of aluminium, barium salts - or whatever the substances actually are, with which our atmosphere is being unremittingly polluted. Surely someone in your position has access to people with the level of expertise of a Paul Crutzen? Can you not, on your readers' behalf, obtain some information about the atmospheric re-engineering operation that is now in progress, in addition to the interesting facts you have given us about something similar that might be planned for the future? Yours sincerely, Graham B. Rickett" This was my reply to Graham Rickett: "Hi Graham,
Thanks for sending the Monbiot article and your response to it.
I think the right approach with Monbiot is not to try to co-opt Monbiot into disapproving of Crutzen more honestly, but to try to co-opt Crutzen into exposing the hypocrisy of Monbiot.
I have an article “Responding to Paul Crutzen” at our website: www.enouranois.gr/english/sygrafeisenglish/wayne/Responding_to_Paul_Crutzen.htm
There is a link to Monbiot’s article at the end of it, and to my comment on Monbiot’s article.
If you get any response from Monbiot (and if pigs fly!) please let me know. Our group is discussing what opportunities these Crutzen-Monbiot moves may have opened up.
etc. etc. (snip)
Best wishes,
Wayne Hall
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 15, 2006 14:25:35 GMT -5
If the objective is to scare people, Crutzen can do it much more effectively and honestly than any David Sington or George Monbiot.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 15, 2006 14:48:56 GMT -5
Again, I respect Chem, halva, and Big Bunny. We are all veterans of varying degrees in the exposing of Lies, and the quest for Truth. If you read all of the posts on Climate change, you will see that Chem and halva are both passionate about what they think, and that of course will lead to saying things we don't mean. We all fight online, and then realize that it is not worth it. Remember all, that name calling only fuels the debunkers. They HATE it when we discuss differences of opinion in a logical fashion. I have to read with more detail Halva's piece, and I'll be back with my point of view. I agree with you Swampgas. It is simply too easy to assume that unclear posts are disinfo. That being said, I don't think that Halva should have been dissing Chem11 behind his back. Does Chem11 post here at Gastro? I think what is going on is simply culture clashing. Nothing Halva has written says to me that he is in favor of air pollution. Yet it serves no purpose to continue an argument at one site and bring it over to a different one where Chem11 may not be aware he is being talked about in an unfavorable light. In my opinion Halva should apologize for doing just that. I think both of them and anyone else interested should hash out the reasonings behind what they think is in the "chemtrails". There is no reason for this to be debated in a fight club.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 15, 2006 15:13:14 GMT -5
I quite agree about the consignment to the fight club. As for apologizing, it is no way of resolving sincere disagreements.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Sept 15, 2006 15:26:33 GMT -5
I post at Megasprayer, and Chem11 has never joined Gastronamus, even though I have spoken to him many times. You should have heard him and I going back and forth on the bass line to "The Legend of Johnny Spray". He thought it was too week. He was correct, and it really kicked the song. I don't like name calling and fighting, especially when I am the perpetrator or victim. So, Chem, if you're reading this, come on over, but let's keep it civil. halva, Chem11, and bigbunny REALLY do keep the Aerosol Mitigation dialogue going, so please keep your opinions coming.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 15, 2006 15:39:09 GMT -5
"I quite agree about the consignment to the fight club. As for apologizing, it is no way of resolving sincere disagreements."
I don't think what you said about him was too bad. I think the problem was that he was unaware that the comments were being posted. So when he did find out, it set him off. I think if you apologize for "talking behind his back", that the two of you can work it out in the thread you were discussing the barium/sulfur debate. I don't see any other reason for him asking for a fight club duel other than he found out about your posts about him at Gastro and not from yourself. We need to stick to attacking the message not the messenger. Of course sometimes the messenger is the message, so things can get a bit murky.
I'd rather see both of you present your evidence for why you think the main ingredients are what they are. Hopefully it is not too late for both of you to get back on track. Sometimes an apology can stop the cycle of petty revenge. We are frail humans. We get more done when we work together. I think you should go back to the original thread and apologize for posting behind his back. Sure, what you wrote wasn't that bad, and I kind of stood up for the dude as a proxy. I don't think you will lose face by simply apologizing. If you two don't work this out, anyone who stumbles across this is gonna be muttering wtf, maybe it is just water vapor and these clowns are nuts. Keep in mind that most people aren't as interested in "chemtrails" as we are. Confusion only serves the purposes of debunkers. I am hopeful that most people do not read forums looking for noisy conflict. I think both of you should put your egos aside and continue debating the sulfur/barium in the original thread. It only takes one person to stop a bitter argument and turn it into a humanizing debate. There is something to the saying let's agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 15, 2006 15:55:53 GMT -5
I prefer to concentrate on what I am doing in my real environment. I was hoping that Chem might be interested in exchanging ideas on what might be done in California now that there is the disagreement between Schwarzenegger and Inhofer, in which the climate change contrarian Inhofer is posing as the defender of clean air as a way of undermining Californian energy policy.
I should have known better, because would-be practical discussions I have previously tried to start with Chem have always ended in arguments.
As for the barium/aluminium vs sulphates issue, Big Bunny has similar views to Chem on that subject. And unlike Chem, he is here.
I won't say anything more at this moment so as not to start the same kinds of arguments at this forum.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Sept 16, 2006 0:58:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BigBunny on Sept 16, 2006 5:39:40 GMT -5
Socrates, I commend you for your integrity and commonsense.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 16, 2006 9:19:49 GMT -5
Socrates, I commend you for your integrity and common sense. Thanks. This is a tough subject to write about. I commend all of you who have been at this a lot longer than me. Before I get going on this post, I want to correct something above in one of my more goofier efforts. I was being hopeful that maybe Arnold was listening to Jesse Ventura, not Hulk Hogan. Sorry for any confusion on that. It's not that I don't think Ventura is a nut, just that it's nice to hear someone with an independent voice even if it can be misguided at times. I'm now thinking Halva should take the discussion with Chem11 to the fight club or leave Megasprayer. It is Chem11's place and perhaps in a fight club things can be worked out, if possible. I sensed that Chem11 was hopeful that Halva could explain things better, that he wasn't 100% sure Halva is disinfo. I personally think when someone's first language isn't English, they are at a disadvantage. That being said, there are a few things I think Halva needs to qualify. I am hoping that the reason there is so much confusion here is because his ideas are so profound that a lot of it gets lost in the translation. Is air pollution good? No, obviously. Does air pollution cool the earth a bit? It would appear so. Right after 9/11 when the planes were grounded there was a noticeable increase in temperatures. Is halva promoting air pollution? I don't think so. Is he promoting geo-engineering to be legalised? Again, I don't think so. I get the impression that he is so frustrated with "chemtrails" not being in the main stream, that he thinks that by forcing a decision on the legality of Crutzen type ideas, that at the least this topic will come out from behind the shadows. The problem with this as Swampgas points out is that "they" are now trying to promote the idea that geo-engineering is good. Of course, no one is buying that. The confusion I am having with Halva is that he really seems to be pushing for barium more than sulfur as the active ingredient by backing Rosalind Peterson and dismissing Chem11's ideas. Isn't Crutzen talking about using sulfates to cool the planet? I apologize in advance if I am wrong. ___________________ The CTC Changes section at Chemtrail Central seems to have vanished. I personally learned a lot about chemtrail message boards by reading through that section. It doesn't make sense to me that Thermit would allow unpaid moderators doing a heck of a job to leave. Or maybe it does? They should change their name to conspiracy central. ___________________ I am not going to judge Halva or Chem11. We can have suspicions or ideas, but what is provable? What is the point? If the two would hash it out in the fight club, maybe they could find some middle ground, or perhaps less likely maybe something strange would emerge. I just think Halva needs to address the disinfo claims in an honest manner. Things like that simply do not vanish. ___________________ There is a strange website which promotes the idea that most everything on the internet is fake. At first the ideas made sense to me. The place was advocating peace and justice and was also expressing the idea of there being rampant disinformation going on. I feel a bit bad to now link to this "chemtrail" discussion, as I don't want to send anyone down a rabbit hole. The following is yet another example of how rabid forces or their useful idiots are trying to make us out to be crackpots. This is why I find this latest fight to be a bit distressing. It's taken so long to move beyond the fake debates between contrails or chemtrails. When I see conflict between people who agree that the skies are messed up, I see exactly what Swamp is saying about how this is exactly what the debunkers like to see. I hope that Halva can find a way to address what Chem11 has said. If he doesn't, then how does that square with how he was so willing to play "chess" with Reynolds before he hit the point of ignore-listing time? I would like to see Halva and Chem11 work through this. Perhaps at the end each would say, OK I see what you mean now, I may not agree, but thanks for clarifying. I think Halva was right to bring up this subject of sulfur versus barium. I just think that he didn't need to post about Chem11 specifically behind his back. I no longer think Halva needs to apologize per se, but that he should not simply think this over and now it's back to other things. Something has taken place here, yet what it is hasn't come into complete focus yet. Chemtrails- hidden in plane site
|
|