FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Chemtrails- hidden in plane site
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 26, 27, 28, 29  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
navari
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jeroen wrote:
However, yelling that global warming is real makes you look stupid. I've looked at the science and haven't found any evidence. We can debate it, but you have to come with something better than glaciers that have been melting since the 19th century.


Don't get your knickers too much in a twist with those who are here to
disrupt, confuse and obfuscate. I thought that this thread had died ages
ago...isn't it interesting how someone chose to bring it back to life.
Back to top
RockDock



Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 366

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just have to mention that "one" promised he would never post here again, some 16 pages ago, but then he posts here again.

As someone early on in this thread pointed out, persistent contrails are a result of improved efficiencies in jet engines.

And anthropogenic global warming is hogwash. The climate on Earth is variable, CO2 levels have been much higher than they are now and the planet did not roast itself.

There was an ice age that ended some 12K to 15K years ago and the planet has been more or less warming since.
Without my diesel truck helping one iota!

</feeding>

_________________
There are souls in the boots
Of the soldiers America
Fuck your yellow ribbon
If you want to
Support your troops
Bring them home
And hold them tight
When they get here
-Andrea Gibson - For Eli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paulo_Freire



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 204

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Denialism. Reply with quote

Hugh Manatee wrote:
rustyh wrote:

So you were warned!???? Warned about what?
And why didnt you heed that warning?


I had heard that the official and commonly-held view here was that global warming wasn't real. I don't live by expectations. I see for myself.

To deny global warming today is like those writers like John Prados who do extensive histories of the CIA and conclude 'Oswald dunnit.'

As Webster Tarpley points out, there are moles and dupes. Can't tell which is which.
When the level of knowledge displayed doesn't jibe with a denial - *TILT* - something's wrong and I'm not saying what that is other than the official and prevailing global warming viewpoint here is the same as ExxonMobil's and the White House's.

And I don't "lighten up" about disaster and atrocity.

"The fifth element is mud"
-Napolean Bonaparte 1806



So I search the site and I find Fintan The Administrator has also posted on
>Past lives woo wo
>The World Trade Center was built with bombs in it
>Global Warming Denial

Fintan: (Latest Global Warming Bunk)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=106&highlight=global+warming

So THAT's what this website is about. Crap. I was warned.
No wonder all the elbows. Is that a UK style or...? Ah. Got it.
And I thought Jeff Wells was a bit too woo-woo. Atleast his board is solid.

What was that Chip Berlet article? 'Right woo-woos left.' lol.

Um, you just wait for facts "'to become apparent." Confused
Just don't stand too close to the edge of the planet. You could fall off and hurt the turtle.


There is this emerging trend of right wingnut ideologues playing psy-ops with progressives.

Conspiracy Theories and Far-Right Disinformation

Many people are well aware that chemtrails are real. Due to the lack of subtlety with the "debunker" astroturfing, the number of those aware is likely to increase substantially. These guys might be the same exact people who post at the Democratic Undergound Sept. 11th section.

People can read between the lines and see the apparent contrived bullying going on. The truth always wins out. Chemtrails have been proven to be real. Most of the chemtrail "debunkers" are paid fakes, same as with most of the crazy "believers."



All Aircraft Are Not Involved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RockDock



Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 366

PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paulo,

As much as I would love to tell you I am a "paid fake" or a "crazy believer" I can in fact tell you I am neither. I am a sceptical earth scientist who has looked at a lot of evidence both for and against chemtrails and anthropogenic global warming.

In both cases I have found the evidence to be lacking. First chemtrails:

As somebody else here has pointed out (you will have to search for the link 'cos I am not going to), air traffic has been increasing by 7-10% every year for the last 20 years. Let's say it averages only 7% over 20 years. Without compounding that is a 140% increase in traffic since '87.

Couple that with the fact that as jet engines have become more efficient, less unburned fuel and soot is spewing out of those planes. It is the unburned fuel and soot that any produced moisture will coalesce around to make ice. That unburned fuel and soot used to make the resulting contrails disappear after a few minutes as they heat up and the moisture thaws and evaporates. Since there is less soot produced by modern jet engines (properly called turbo-fans), the moisture crystallizes around other particles in the air, notably sulfates and other dust particles. Because those particles are lighter in colour they heat up less and the ice particles hang around longer.

Increasing numbers of modern efficient planes produce more water vapour out the back. And the resulting contrails are more persistent.

Why do not all planes create persistent contrails? Because not all planes are efficient, moisture levels are variable at different altitudes and not all planes fly at the same altitudes.

Using Occam's Razor, or the KISS principle (Keep It Simple...Sir) the above is a far more likely scenario than having hundreds of airplanes coming out of tens of airports producing chemtrails hither and yon.

Second, with respect to global warming, buddy, you are sadly mistaken if you think that "consensus" is any way to conduct science. A quick example that I have used elsewhere on BFN is the concept of continental drift. It was first proposed as a possible mechanism for mountain building, the shape of the continents and other geological features by Alfred Wegener and Frank Taylor in 1912. For a decent overview of his work see www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html. <edit> Also here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html#anchor4833509 - yes it is a government site but must they all be suspect? I like to think my fellow geologists are better than that!) Cool </edit>

The "consensus" said he was nuts, it couldn't happen, wtf was he thinking etc. The theory was re-visited by other who developed the concept of plate tectonics - that is the earth's crust is made up of 7 major and several minor "plates" that move over the Earth's surface due to sea floor spreading and sea floor subduction zones. It was the analysis of the Mid-Oceanic ridges in the '60s and up that gave solid credence to the theory and indeed the proof that maybe there is something to the plate tectonics theory. As the evidence for plate tectonics grew, (for example one can plot increasing depths of earthquakes as one moves inland from a subduction zone - suggesting that there are indeed subducting plates under the continental margins in those areas), more geologists and geophysicists accepted that model, but always with a view to refining the theory to explain actual geological and geophysical phenomena.

<edit>
The theory was only taught in western universities as "likely" starting in the mid-70's - before that it was either "ridiculous" (old school) or "possibly correct" (the young Turks). </edit>

On the other hand, with AGW, there is actually very little evidence that CO2 has much effect on global temperatures. There is much stronger evidence that solar output (not the just the infrared light output either) is a much better predictor of overall global temperatures.

The thread over at http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=106&start=195 has a pile of articles regarding this FACT. I suggest you read and understand them. The evidence is quite clear - the planet has been warmer and cooler than it is now, CO2 levels have been higher and lower than now, and when one is high the other is not necessarily high.

On Friday Marlin posted an article at the bottom of the link above by Piers Corbyn that deftly shoots down the recently floated paper by Lockwood arguing that solar forcings were a non-issue in the AGW debate. I encourage you read and understand that paper.

I am troubled that I agree with the Whitehouse on this one, but hey, maybe sometimes they do get things right. As for Exxon denying it, they also have funded organizations that promote AGW as fact, so as usual they are playing one side off against the other. Nothing new there is there?

I am sorry that you feel you are being bullied. Feelings here can be strongly held, but I don't believe you are being bullied. Frankly I could give a shit whether you believe me or believe anything anyone else says.

I know what I know, and that is that chemtrails are a PsyOp to get people worked up about nothing, and AGW is a PsyOp to seperate us from our money and our freedoms.

_________________
There are souls in the boots
Of the soldiers America
Fuck your yellow ribbon
If you want to
Support your troops
Bring them home
And hold them tight
When they get here
-Andrea Gibson - For Eli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RockDock



Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 366

PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:40 pm    Post subject: more from weatheraction.com Reply with quote

<edit> Sorry for straying off-topic! Embarassed I know this thread is / was about chemtrails - but the Op does seem to be related My excuse? I got trawled into it! </edit>

The folks at weatheraction.com have an interesting letter they recently sent to the British government protesting the IPCC report.

It can be found here:
http://www.weatheraction.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=37

Some quotes from same that I find interesting.

I have read the Draft Summary for Policy Makers and note a serious omission which if not corrected would justify ‘sceptics’* such as myself in believing that some sort of cover-up is afoot and I therefore urge you request that the IPCC correct it. (* ‘sceptic’ of CO2 as a key driver of temperature rise / Climate Change, not of Climate Change itself which has been going on for millions of years).


...

It is beyond belief that a report can be published in the name of science which claims that CO2 rising levels cause rising temperatures while only reporting the presumed cause without the supposed historical consequences – ie temperature changes - which are also well documented in data in possession of the IPCC, such as from the internationally funded Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) project.

....

One other matters which causes great confusion in the public mind is the continuous reference in the media to this and other IPCC reports as being “by/from 2,500 (leading) scientists” when in fact the report is drafted and finalized by appointees of Governments who may have little or no expertise in many of the wide ranging fields covered. It should further be noted that the many scientists who undertake diligent measurement and observational or estimation work which is used to indirectly support the report conclusions have generally no expertise or locus around the key subject on which the findings of the report are actually based, namely ‘Climate Models’.


The definition of "consensus" is interesting. From http://www.m-w.com
Main Entry: con·sen·sus
Pronunciation: k&n-'sen(t)-s&s
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Latin, from consentire
1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <the> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the>
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief


I believe that in the case of the IPCC they are using definition number 2 (ie; groupthink) rather than definition 1. I have not met a geologist or paleoclimatologist who believes that current climate changes are anything other than within natural variance. I am sure there are some - I just haven't met them.

Yes, I make my living drilling oil wells so I am paid by the oil companies. However, my livelihood does not depend on my toeing the party line in any way. I disagree with the IPCC because its science is wrong, plain and simple.

_________________
There are souls in the boots
Of the soldiers America
Fuck your yellow ribbon
If you want to
Support your troops
Bring them home
And hold them tight
When they get here
-Andrea Gibson - For Eli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paulo_Freire



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 204

PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:41 pm    Post subject: NASA Propaganda/Chemtrails Addressed to European Parliament Reply with quote

Here's a new chemtrail forum for folks tired of crazy believers and closed-minded debunkers:

All Aircraft Are Not Involved


Here are two chemtrail posts I came up with yesterday:


socrates wrote:
NASA's S'COOL Cloud Types Tutorial



Quote:
Cloud Types

Introduction

Clouds are classified into twelve types. The names used for the clouds are based on three factors: the altitude at which the cloud occurs, the shape of the cloud, and whether the cloud is producing precipitation. This tutorial will help you learn about the different cloud types so that you can make accurate observations for the Students’ Cloud Observations On-Line (S’COOL) project.

There are three altitude ranges, or cloud levels. The height of the cloud base determines a cloud’s level. Clouds with a base below 2,000 meters are considered low-level clouds. Clouds with a base between 2,000 and 6,000 meters are mid-level clouds. Those with a base above 6,000 meters are considered high-level clouds.

In 1803, Luke Howard classified four main cloud types with Latin terms. Cumulus means “pile” and describes heaped, lumpy clouds. Cirrus means “curl of hair” and is used to name clouds that look like wispy locks of hair. Featureless clouds that form sheets are named stratus, meaning “layer.” Howard used the term nimbus, which means “cloud,” to name low, gray rain clouds.

* Low-Level Clouds
* Mid-Level Clouds
* High-Level Clouds
* Multi-Level Clouds
* Determining Cloud Level

Low-Level Clouds

These pictures show examples of low-level clouds. The Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) satellite cannot distinguish between individual cloud types at this level, but calls all of them “low, water clouds.” There is a continuum among these low-level cloud types, ranging from overcast, to nearly overcast, to individual clouds. This range of low-level clouds is explained in more detail in the next sections.

True stratus clouds are uniform and featureless. The sky looks flat and uniform in all directions, appearing white or gray rather than blue. Generally these clouds obscure the Sun so that its location cannot be pinpointed. When this condition occurs, the cloud is said to be opaque.

Fog is a special kind of stratus cloud: one that is low enough to touch the ground. It offers students a good personal experience of what a cloud feels like. In addition, it allows students to experience some of the conditions necessary for cloud formation, such as water vapor and cool temperatures.

Stratocumulus clouds have both layered and puffy characteristics. Cloud cover tends to be mostly cloudy to overcast, but distinct cloud pieces are visible, in contrast to the uniform and flat character of stratus clouds. There may be areas of clear blue sky, but the clouds appear to be part of a large cloud system. These clouds are common in marine and coastal areas.

Cumulus clouds are puffy, individual clouds typically associated with fair weather. They are the most common type of cloud and are often described as having a popcorn-like or cotton ball appearance. They are made of water droplets and generally have sharp outlines. Cumulus clouds occur in a variety of shapes and sizes, and with a little imagination, you can see all sorts of interesting things in these clouds.

Clouds that produce precipitation are designated with the Latin prefix nimbo-.

Nimbostratus is a layered, uniform, rain cloud. A cloud can quickly change to or from nimbostratus; that is, it can quickly start or stop raining during your observations. In a situation like that, you can pick a cloud type and make a note in the comments about intermittent rain. These clouds are generally very dark, and are associated with large areas of continuous rain. Nimbostratus can also produce snow or sleet.

Cumulonimbus clouds are convective, meaning that they are formed by the upward movement of warm air currents. They are accompanied by compensating downdrafts of cold air. These clouds are most common in warm and humid weather and can produce thunder, lightning, heavy rain, hail, strong winds, and tornadoes. They can extend through a large part of the atmosphere. They can even extend beyond the tropopause, which is the boundary between the troposphere (where we live and where all weather occurs) and the stratosphere (where the ozone layer is). Despite this range of cloud vertical development, as long as the base of the cloud is below 2,000 meters, it is considered a low-level cloud.

Mid-Level Clouds

There are two mid-level cloud types, designated by the prefix alto-: altocumulus (puffy) and altostratus (layered). Mid-level clouds may be made up of ice crystals at the higher altitudes, but they are more often composed of water droplets.

Altocumulus clouds are a mid-level version of cumulus clouds, consisting of cloud puffs. This cloud type sometimes appears like dozens of small, loose bands or ripples like waves on a sea. These clouds are often associated with the approach of a weather front, and may be an indicator of rain on the way.

Altostratus clouds are the mid-level version of stratus clouds. They are uniform and diffuse, with little appearance of individual cloud pieces. The sky appears gray or blue-gray, and sunlight is diffused, as though seen through water or frosted glass. When the cloud partially blocks the Sun in this way, the cloud is said to be translucent.

High-Level Clouds

High-level cloud types are identified with the prefix cirro-: cirrus (thin and wispy), cirrostratus (layered), and cirrocumulus (puffy). Because all high-level clouds are made of ice particles rather than water droplets, they have a fairly distinct appearance. The boundaries of ice clouds tend to be more diffuse, or fuzzier, than the generally sharp boundaries of water clouds. They can also produce optical effects such as halos and sun dogs.

Cirrus clouds are the classic and distinct high-level cloud. They are sometimes called “mare’s tails” because they appear to be brushed across the sky and are hair-like in appearance. Curled ends are common in this cloud type. They are usually quite thin and wispy, and blue sky is visible through portions of the cloud. These clouds are generally white.

Cirrostratus clouds are the high-level version of stratus. They are sheet-like, nearly transparent clouds that cover a large part of the sky. When these clouds are present, the Sun may appear to be surrounded by a colored halo due to refraction of light by the ice particles in the cloud.

Cirrocumulus clouds are the high-level cumulus clouds. They are thin ice clouds that have a patchy or wavelike appearance.

Contrails, or condensation trails, are clouds created by airplanes. They are also found at the high level. Students often mistakenly assume that contrails are smoke and exhaust from an airplane, but contrails are actually clouds formed when the tiny particles (aerosols) and warm water vapor in the plane’s exhaust combine with the ambient water vapor to form ice crystals. The presence and character of contrails can tell us about the state of the atmosphere along the plane’s flight path. If the air is very dry and there is not enough water vapor to condense, no cloud forms. If the air is a little moister, a contrail may form and quickly evaporate (which is called a short-lived contrail). If the air contains enough water vapor, a contrail may form and remain for hours (known as a persistent contrail), or even spread to cover very large areas. Researchers are very interested in these clouds that humans cause. When making cloud observations, you should therefore note the presence and number of contrails.

Multi-Level Clouds

Some scientists estimate that as much as half the time, more than one cloud level is present in the sky. When you observe multiple cloud levels, you should record the cloud information for each level of cloud that you see—but be careful to distinguish between different cloud levels and the possible occurrence of more than one layer of cloud within a given level. When more than one layer of stratus cloud occurs, for example, you may just note this in the comments.

If a thick, overcast, low layer is present, then you obviously cannot observe anything about the presence or absence of upper level clouds. In situations like these, the surface and satellite observations are very complementary: the satellite observes from above and will see any upper layer clouds, and the observers on the ground can see the lower level clouds.

Determining Cloud Level

A good way to determine the level of cumulus clouds is to assess the size of the individual cloud elements. Low-level cumulus clouds are about the same size, or larger than, your fist held at arms’ length. One exception to this rule is when a small cumulus cloud is developing or evaporating. In that case, its direction or speed of motion may indicate that it is in the same layer as nearby larger cumulus clouds. Mid-level cumulus clouds are farther away and the individual cloud pieces appear substantially smaller, about the size of your thumb at arms’ length. High-level cumulus clouds are smaller still, with individual cloud pieces about the size of the nail on your little finger at arms’ length.

Stratus clouds have no distinct cloud pieces to measure. For these clouds, a general rule is that cloud opacity tends to decrease with height. Thus, low-level clouds are generally thicker than mid-level clouds, and a high-level cirrostratus is very thin. Thus, by observing how much the cloud obscures the Sun, you can estimate the level of a stratus cloud.

If there is precipitation, the chances are very good that you are dealing with a low-level cloud. Mid-level clouds occasionally precipitate, but this is a rare occurrence.





The CERES S'COOL Project
Students' Cloud Observations On-Line

Quote:

Cloud Photo Gallery

Quote:
On the way to school this morning we saw this persistant contrail, with a lower altitude contrail crossing it. The different wind speeds and directions at different altitudes were evident.

(Photo submitted by Peru Central School, Peru, NY.)






+ Send your entries to the S'COOL team here

RULES:We will select one photo each month to be featured on the S'COOL website. Teachers and students are invited to submit an interesting cloud photo with a detailed caption. Please only send one photo each month. Photographs without captions will not be considered.






_________________________________________________________


socrates wrote:
I thought I'd try something new. I found a chemtrail forum which seems to probably have a boatload of good info. I can't vouch for it all, because I don't know Italian.

sciechimiche.org

I am simply going to try my best to translate what comes out of the archaic, robotic, internet, translating machines. Here goes. Wait a sec, I just found an English version for the link given below to the European Parliament website. The forum comments, I'll try to translate as best I can. Cool

Subject: Dutch interrogation presented to the European Parliament

Quote:

posted by tupix: In May, the European Parliament was interrogated by the Dutch about the chemical trails:



European Parliament
Quote:

Parliamentary questions
10 May 2007
E-2455/07

WRITTEN QUESTION by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Aircraft condensation trails which no longer only contain water but cause persistent milky veils, possibly due to the presence of barium, aluminium and iron

1. Is the Commission aware that, since 1999, members of the public in Canada and the USA have been complaining about the growing presence in the air of aircraft condensation trails of a new type, which sometimes persist for hours and which spread far more widely than in the past, creating milky veils which are dubbed ‘aerial obscuration’, and that the new type has particularly come to people's attention because it is so different from the short, pencil-thin white contrails which have been a familiar sight ever since jet engines came into use and which remain visible for 20 minutes at most and can only be produced if steam condenses on dust particles due to low temperatures and high humidity?

2. Is the Commission aware that investigations by these complainants, observations by pilots and statements by government bodies increasingly suggest that what is happening is that aircraft are emitting into dry air small particles consisting of barium, aluminium and iron, a phenomenon which in public debate in America has come to be known as chemtrails?

3. Unlike contrails, chemtrails are not an inevitable by-product of modern aviation. Does the Commission know, therefore, what is the purpose of artificially emitting these Earth-derived substances into the Earth's atmosphere? Does it help to cause rain, benefit telecommunications or combat climate change?

4. To what extent are aerial obscuration and chemtrails now also being employed in the air over Europe, bearing in mind that many people here too are now convinced that the phenomenon is becoming increasingly common and are becoming concerned about the fact that little is so far known about it and there is no public information on the subject? Who initiates this spraying and how is it funded?

5. Apart from the intended benefits of emitting substances into the air, is the Commission aware of any possible disadvantages it may have for the environment, public health, aviation and TV reception?

6. What is being done to prevent individual European states or businesses from taking measures unilaterally whose crossborder impact other States or citizens' organisations may regard as undesirable? Is coordination already taking place with regard to this? Is the EU playing a part in it, or does the Commission anticipate a future role, and what are the Commission's objectives in this connection?



posted by Straker:Thanks, tupix. This one escaped our notice! Smile

posted by Astral2012: ...aah, it is said that the Dutch are always ahead of the curve...

posted by Crazy Chemtrail: Spain lacks attention, France, the Portugese.... in Italy, what a change... what I do not understand is that it's been since 1999 that it started. The only ones to have open commission parliamentarians denouncing this are from foreign countries. One questioned what is up with the meteorological crews provoking the disasters that the Romanians are enduring.


posted by Salmon: Thank you Tupix for the find! Wink Wink Wink

posted by fabios:
Quote:

Spain lacks attention, France, the Portugese.... in Italy, what a change... what I do not understand is that it's been since 1999 that it started. The only ones to have open commission parliamentarians denouncing this are from foreign countries. One questioned what is up with the meteorological crews provoking the disasters that the Romanians are enduring.


It is frightening what is going on in Eastern Europe during this period, entire harvests are up in smoke.

posted by Straker: Thanks to chemtrails and HAARP. Too bad we joined NATO and the European Union.

posted by Crazy Chemtrail: Hottest temperatures in 45 years. My Romanian friend filled me in, so therefore I know what I am talking about. The past year they witnessed from 50 km from Bucharest while on a train ride a tornado... {me-Socrates. Can't follow what he is saying too well}

I have the films and the photos.... and I assure to you that they aren't pretty.


The chemtrails weren't there until they officially joined in the European union, for this vadim tudor minister and former general has denounced and opened a commission parliamentarian on the drastic meteorological changes of the country, accusing Russia and their use of meteorological crews.

posted by fabio: Now there is much activity in Romania, Ukraine, and Moldavia.

posted by Trinity: Many thanks tupix Wink

{to Crazy Chemtrail}Do you have any info or links you can help us out with?



Here are the answers given to the Dutch group:

Quote:
E-2455/07EN
Answer given by Mr Dimas
on behalf of the Commission
(26.6.2007)


1. The Commission is aware of claims that such trends and phenomena exist. However, the Commission is not aware of any evidence substantiating such claims. The extent to which aircraft condensation trails form and the speed at which they disappear are in the first instance determined by pressure, temperature, and the relative humidity of a given flight level. Fuel and combustion properties and the overall propulsive efficiency may also have an impact. Any changes or trends in the extent to which contrails are reported to remain visible and develop into more widespread clouds may thus be due to factors such as changes in

- meteorological conditions
- traffic volumes
- jet-engine efficiency

2. The Commission is aware of such claims but is not aware of any evidence that particles of barium, aluminium or iron are being emitted, deliberately or not, by aircraft.

3. No. It cannot be precluded that the release of such particles might affect precipitation and climate change, but as indicated above the Commission is not aware of any evidence that such releases take place.

4. The Commission is not aware of any evidence that such methods are being employed in Europe.

5. None of the substances referred to are hazardous per se, but some effects on environment and public health can not be ruled out if large scale releases to the air occurred.

6. As indicated above the Commission is not aware of any evidence suggesting that there is any reason to act.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike



Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 333

PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 12:52 am    Post subject: Re: Denialism. Reply with quote

Hugh Manatee wrote:
had heard that the official and commonly-held view here was that global warming wasn't real. I don't live by expectations. I see for myself.

To deny global warming today is like those writers like John Prados who do extensive histories of the CIA and conclude 'Oswald dunnit.'

As Webster Tarpley points out, there are moles and dupes. Can't tell which is which.

When the level of knowledge displayed doesn't jibe with a denial - *TILT* - something's wrong and I'm not saying what that is other than the official and prevailing global warming viewpoint here is the same as ExxonMobil's and the White House's.


Hi Hugh. You and I have known each other over the years at DU, PI, etc. (I am mberst at some boards).

Do you think the people on those boards are lefties? I don't. Not by a long shot.

Do you think that moving toward 911 conspiracy theories, believing in chemtrails and global warming, are the same as moving to the left politically? I don't see any connection.

You are trying to line everyone up on every issue into two discrete camps - the good guys and the bad guys.

"Global warming debunkers plus 'lefties' - does not compute." "TILT" as you say. "They must be the dreaded psyops disinfo agents." By the way, what is you idea of 'lefties?' Anyone who didn't vote for Bush?

Could it not be that the context within which you are weighing and assessing all of this - the good guys and bad guys, the whodunnits, the left versus the right, the grand Hollywood script you are trying to write to explain everything - is itself the way that we are being brainwashed to think?

What does accusing people of thinking "global warming isn't real" mean? You are talking about beliefs, as though we were arguing religious doctrines. It is hardly different from the fundamentalist accusing people of thinking that "Jesus Christ isn't real." Global warming is a political movement and a propaganda effort (that must be admitted by even its adherents) and that political movement and propaganda is most assuredly real, and I don't think anyone is denying that. What else is it - what is this thing you call "global warming" that you insist we must believe is "real?"

Doesn't it make you the least bit suspicious that we are called upon to change our beliefs, to raise our consciousness, in order to join the chemtrail team, or the 911 team, or the global warming team? What sort of real science, or real politics, uses the religious language the believers in those movements use?

You are dividing up the world into believers of the right stuff – Kennedy assassination conspiracy, 911 conspiracy, chemtrails, global warming - and those in denial about the right stuff. That is a religious construct – believers and heretics - and should not be passed of as politics or science or detective work.

And, again, what makes any of that stuff "Left" politically?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 2458
Location: The Canadian shield

PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:59 pm    Post subject: Left and right are just parts of the whole Reply with quote

Orientation is totally subjective. Labels like appearances mean what they are intended to mean and do not provide a measure of reality. They do, however, totally reveal the source and nature of the intention of the person wielding them.

Look at what is said and apply its purpose to the intention of the person. This revelation will answer your questions with information that will help you deal with every aspect of the situation.

_________________
The grand design, reflected in the face of Chaos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
foo



Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 140

PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There’s a difference between muttering, “What an asshole!” to oneself, when someone cuts him off in traffic and calling someone an asshole in a public forum.

Ad hominem attacks – especially using foul language – poison a forum.

We’re all equals here. We’re all entitled to be treated with respect. The other side of that coin is that it’s flat-out wrong not to show respect for everyone else.

A subtle form of ad hominem attack is the expression “in denial.” What the person is saying is that the other person refuses to accept the truth. It is also a sneaky way to equate a person with so-called “Holocaust deniers.”

When I post my disagreement with what someone else has posted, I am disputing – I am not denying.

I visited this chemtrails forum for the first time tonight. I read every post. Because of the brazenly hostile and confrontational tone of a large number of the posts, I found it impossible to sort through the evidence on each side of the issue.

I’ve noticed a disintegration of the forums over the past few weeks. I’ve about reached the point of concluding that visiting the forums has become a complete waste of my time.

Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paulo_Freire



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 204

PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

foo wrote:

I visited this chemtrails forum for the first time tonight. I read every post. Because of the brazenly hostile and confrontational tone of a large number of the posts, I found it impossible to sort through the evidence on each side of the issue.

I’ve noticed a disintegration of the forums over the past few weeks. I’ve about reached the point of concluding that visiting the forums has become a complete waste of my time.

Martin


Go cry to "Skinner" over at the democratic underground.
Or go with Steven Hertzberg and write at the WRH unofficial forum.


No, just some forums are imploding, because of deadwood like you, paid or otherwise, and tons of crazy shit that doesn't add up with webmasters.

I'm fucking out of here too you bitch astroturfers and useful idiots!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paulo_Freire



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 204

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

navari wrote:
Jeroen wrote:
However, yelling that global warming is real makes you look stupid. I've looked at the science and haven't found any evidence. We can debate it, but you have to come with something better than glaciers that have been melting since the 19th century.


Don't get your knickers too much in a twist with those who are here to
disrupt, confuse and obfuscate. I thought that this thread had died ages
ago...isn't it interesting how someone chose to bring it back to life.


Navari and Fintan are Disinfo agents.
But now the truth is known.
Same with Ormond. and Jerry Fletcher.

Maybe Navari being ex-military, and a right winger, and an internet fake explains it all. Same with Ormond's bullshit earlier in this thread, how he said he met clifford carnicom.

Fintan is full of shit. i asked him over and over to tell us what his feelings were with his chemtrails. in this thread he said he didn't have time, that he appreciated citizen journalists helping to carry the load. Then one day i finally heard his audio on chemtrails, and he was calling it a hoax. fintan dunne knew who navari was the whole time. they appear to be on the same filthy disinfo payroll.

He who laughs last, laughs best.
Fintan Dunne and Navari.
spreading their bullshit,
until it all came out in the wash.

You're done, dunne and navari.
no one will ever buy into this bullshit website again.

Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
and i



Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 302

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paulo_Freire wrote:
I'm fucking out of here

you have been a major instigator on this board from the first day you posted. you have made more baseless accusations and ad hominem attacks than most of the rest of us combined. you manage to make debate on scientific principals into something personal and political, and that is hands down the most sure mark of an agent provocateur.

please, follow through with your threats and just leave already. thanks.

_________________
Can't be beat, won't be beat, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 26, 27, 28, 29  Next
Page 27 of 29

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.