Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?
Discussion
Notch 8 said:
Another one emerged in the early hours of today, when more Yanks were online.
The subject of chemtrails and cloud seeding came up again.
Apparently Bill Gates has an ongoing program to cool Earth down (I decided not to ask if flat or spherical), and is the James Bond-like supervillain behind them both.
I supplied the link below debunking chemtrails at least, and it was immediately dismissed as ‘Bill Gates funded propaganda’.
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/chemtrails-debunk...
If you've read Gates' book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster (I'd recommend it BTW - or the Will Wheadon narrated audio book) there's a specific mention about global dimming. After 9/11 when all flights were grounded there was a noticeable increase of lux levels and therefore solar gain.The subject of chemtrails and cloud seeding came up again.
Apparently Bill Gates has an ongoing program to cool Earth down (I decided not to ask if flat or spherical), and is the James Bond-like supervillain behind them both.
I supplied the link below debunking chemtrails at least, and it was immediately dismissed as ‘Bill Gates funded propaganda’.
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/chemtrails-debunk...
A idea posited was a means to dim the skies to reduce the solar gain. Obviously, this is projected as a worst case scenario when we really had no choice, as the book explores all aspects and ideas and also considers transport, construction, farming with all the research and ideas of options to divert a (or the) climate emergency.
As I understand it, cloud seeding is to make it rain, "chemtrails" are the vapour (or chemical death turning you into a frog) from jet engines - so the idea of global dimming isn't either right? There was a good book (Venomous Lumpsucker) which used this idea in a fictional setting to good effect.
The Gates book is worth a read as it does cover a lot of ground, well researched and well written.
This also reminds me of foolishly listening to LBC driving through London and being amazed at it being "Angry Radio" - anyway, the segment was on the s
t in our rivers and how the water companies are to blame... After a few "Mr Angry from Peckham" phone ins, expressing how they're angry, a lady must have slipped their screening, and calmly explained how she was an environmental lawyer. That the water companies account for something like 7% of waste deposited into our rivers - the vast majority of the waste and pollution in our rivers is from farming, but that's much harder to tackle than demonising 9 water companies.Notch 8 said:
jshell said:
Notch 8 said:
Notch 8 said:
I’m just stating what was brought up. As Coldel says, we know cloud seeding has been performed since the 1950s, and is for non-nefarious reasons. Many CTists seem to think it’s more of a modern, sinister thing (predictably).
The link I supplied is self explanatory.
I probably should have been clearer.The link I supplied is self explanatory.
The CTists were trying to claim that cloud seeding and ‘chemtrails’ are being used to block out the sun, therefore cooling Earth.
Yes, really.
What’s even more interesting is that the CTists have added their usual twist, and involved Bill Gates’ name (of course), and put a negative spin on it (of course).
The tipping of the balance could be deadly.
Oh, and I dunno if Gates' funds it or not, it doesn't matter.
RemarkLima said:
If you've read Gates' book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster (I'd recommend it BTW - or the Will Wheadon narrated audio book) there's a specific mention about global dimming. After 9/11 when all flights were grounded there was a noticeable increase of lux levels and therefore solar gain.
A idea posited was a means to dim the skies to reduce the solar gain. Obviously, this is projected as a worst case scenario when we really had no choice, as the book explores all aspects and ideas and also considers transport, construction, farming with all the research and ideas of options to divert a (or the) climate emergency.
As I understand it, cloud seeding is to make it rain, "chemtrails" are the vapour (or chemical death turning you into a frog) from jet engines - so the idea of global dimming isn't either right? There was a good book (Venomous Lumpsucker) which used this idea in a fictional setting to good effect.
The Gates book is worth a read as it does cover a lot of ground, well researched and well written.
This also reminds me of foolishly listening to LBC driving through London and being amazed at it being "Angry Radio" - anyway, the segment was on the st in our rivers and how the water companies are to blame... After a few "Mr Angry from Peckham" phone ins, expressing how they're angry, a lady must have slipped their screening, and calmly explained how she was an environmental lawyer. That the water companies account for something like 7% of waste deposited into our rivers - the vast majority of the waste and pollution in our rivers is from farming, but that's much harder to tackle than demonising 9 water companies.
Interesting post. I’ll look that up!A idea posited was a means to dim the skies to reduce the solar gain. Obviously, this is projected as a worst case scenario when we really had no choice, as the book explores all aspects and ideas and also considers transport, construction, farming with all the research and ideas of options to divert a (or the) climate emergency.
As I understand it, cloud seeding is to make it rain, "chemtrails" are the vapour (or chemical death turning you into a frog) from jet engines - so the idea of global dimming isn't either right? There was a good book (Venomous Lumpsucker) which used this idea in a fictional setting to good effect.
The Gates book is worth a read as it does cover a lot of ground, well researched and well written.
This also reminds me of foolishly listening to LBC driving through London and being amazed at it being "Angry Radio" - anyway, the segment was on the s
t in our rivers and how the water companies are to blame... After a few "Mr Angry from Peckham" phone ins, expressing how they're angry, a lady must have slipped their screening, and calmly explained how she was an environmental lawyer. That the water companies account for something like 7% of waste deposited into our rivers - the vast majority of the waste and pollution in our rivers is from farming, but that's much harder to tackle than demonising 9 water companies.jshell said:
We mess with the weather and climate at our own peril. If we take action, we better know how to stop it or shut it off. If we push the planet into a serious cooling phase then we are in REAL trouble. You can hide from heat, you can't hide from cold.
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
andyeds1234 said:
jshell said:
We mess with the weather and climate at our own peril. If we take action, we better know how to stop it or shut it off. If we push the planet into a serious cooling phase then we are in REAL trouble. You can hide from heat, you can't hide from cold.
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
We have plenty of examples of the 'law of unintended consequence' throughout human history...
So, where is my 'take' wrong? Is it being a CT to suggest that physically trying to alter the finely balanced wather/climate should be done with extreme caution?
jshell said:
You need to explain that. I've lived in sub-Saharan Africa and it is fertile, plenty of water and low energy requirements. Contrast that with living in the Arctic circle and all of the challenges that go with that location. Simple take, but clear polarity between the two.
We have plenty of examples of the 'law of unintended consequence' throughout human history...
So, where is my 'take' wrong? Is it being a CT to suggest that physically trying to alter the finely balanced wather/climate should be done with extreme caution?
Global dimming is at the “ should this be something we should do” phase. At the moment it’s nothing more than talk, no detail planning has taken place. Part of the reason it hasn’t got any further is precisely because people know that “ physically trying to alter the finely balanced weather/climate should be done with extreme caution”.We have plenty of examples of the 'law of unintended consequence' throughout human history...
So, where is my 'take' wrong? Is it being a CT to suggest that physically trying to alter the finely balanced wather/climate should be done with extreme caution?
If you think that water vapour and cloud seeding is putting global dimming into action then yes, you are a CT.
jshell said:
Notch 8 said:
Another one emerged in the early hours of today, when more Yanks were online.
The subject of chemtrails and cloud seeding came up again.
Apparently Bill Gates has an ongoing program to cool Earth down (I decided not to ask if flat or spherical), and is the James Bond-like supervillain behind them both.
I supplied the link below debunking chemtrails at least, and it was immediately dismissed as ‘Bill Gates funded propaganda’.
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/chemtrails-debunk...
You start by mixing chemtrails and cloudseeding together, but then end on debunking chemtrails.The subject of chemtrails and cloud seeding came up again.
Apparently Bill Gates has an ongoing program to cool Earth down (I decided not to ask if flat or spherical), and is the James Bond-like supervillain behind them both.
I supplied the link below debunking chemtrails at least, and it was immediately dismissed as ‘Bill Gates funded propaganda’.
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/chemtrails-debunk...
Why do you conflate or combine them?
We know for a fact that cloudseeding has been taking place for many years, so why don't you seperate the two subjects and focus simply on the tales of chemtrails?
Notch 8 said:
The last few posts demonstrate perfectly how a CT comes about. A few bits of info from different shelves. Splice them all together, and there we have it.
Put it out there in the right echo chamber..
in the CTist's mind, if you take two CTs and say them both in the same sentence, it makes both of them twice as truePut it out there in the right echo chamber..
jshell said:
andyeds1234 said:
jshell said:
We mess with the weather and climate at our own peril. If we take action, we better know how to stop it or shut it off. If we push the planet into a serious cooling phase then we are in REAL trouble. You can hide from heat, you can't hide from cold.
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
We have plenty of examples of the 'law of unintended consequence' throughout human history...
So, where is my 'take' wrong? Is it being a CT to suggest that physically trying to alter the finely balanced wather/climate should be done with extreme caution?
durbster said:
It may be because you've just agreed with the basis for tackling human caused climate change without realising.
That is how I read it too. Admitting that climate change is real and happening because humans have upset the natural balance of the ecosystem and pushed it in a direction too quickly than nature would normally have allowed. coldel said:
durbster said:
It may be because you've just agreed with the basis for tackling human caused climate change without realising.
That is how I read it too. Admitting that climate change is real and happening because humans have upset the natural balance of the ecosystem and pushed it in a direction too quickly than nature would normally have allowed. durbster said:
jshell said:
andyeds1234 said:
jshell said:
We mess with the weather and climate at our own peril. If we take action, we better know how to stop it or shut it off. If we push the planet into a serious cooling phase then we are in REAL trouble. You can hide from heat, you can't hide from cold.
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
We have plenty of examples of the 'law of unintended consequence' throughout human history...
So, where is my 'take' wrong? Is it being a CT to suggest that physically trying to alter the finely balanced wather/climate should be done with extreme caution?
jshell said:
coldel said:
durbster said:
It may be because you've just agreed with the basis for tackling human caused climate change without realising.
That is how I read it too. Admitting that climate change is real and happening because humans have upset the natural balance of the ecosystem and pushed it in a direction too quickly than nature would normally have allowed. But…”we push the planet into a serious cooling phase then we are in REAL trouble. You can hide from heat, you can't hide from cold.
The tipping of the balance could be deadly”
I repeat, you couldn’t make this stuff up.
mko9 said:
DonkeyApple said:
It's why, if you read the Times you should also read the Guardian and vice versa. The FT as the third paper also makes sense.
As soon as one's MSM source is the Express or DailyMail etc then one has misunderstood the difference between news media and soft porn with a side of dumbass goading and fear mongering.
The only end result of consuming tabloid media is a belief of things like World War 2 bombers being on the moon and looking at grass gives you bum cancer.
Interesting that you could only come up with two examples of right leaning bias, and none of left leaning bias.As soon as one's MSM source is the Express or DailyMail etc then one has misunderstood the difference between news media and soft porn with a side of dumbass goading and fear mongering.
The only end result of consuming tabloid media is a belief of things like World War 2 bombers being on the moon and looking at grass gives you bum cancer.
Killer2005 said:
It's a divisive article, as is this entire thread as there are 'conspiracy theorists' which many will determine as tin foil hat wearing, paranoid oddballs who'll believe every theory. There is also a mindset whereby certain things just don't sit too well and ere on the side of a conspiracy without going so far as saying the earth is flat, and denying everything. Then there are people at the totally opposite end of the scale who think it's insane that you'd even question anything and the media/news outlets are absolutely right. With regards this article, they refer to those who think Covid was a hoax but don't define what hoax refers to. Do they believe it was completely made up and Covid didn't exist? Did they think that Covid was used to scare the public, make lots of money for specific people and possibly socially engineer people and that the fear instilled was a hoax? I suspect more people fall into the latter category as everyone would have known someone who was ill with a flu (likely Covid) over that time.
I find these theories fascinating without believing them or feeling the need to shout them at people but some have proven to be true. People were concerned over the Covid vaccine but labelled conspiracy theorists, yet Astrazenica has admitted rare side effects of blood clots and it's now been removed (multiple reasons given as to why but this was one). The concept of weather manipulation was ridiculed 5-6 years ago yet is commonly accepted now.
Not every conspiracy comes true, many are utter nonsense but some do. Personally, I'd rather read about a conspiracy theory that's detrimental and it turn out to be false that's for sure.
This has got the chemtrails CTists jumping.
They claim that the Met Office have admitted they spray the sky with chemicals.
Contrails (which they refuse to acknowledge in that they are ice crystals) + Geo engineering = chemtrails.
Enter another youchoob t*at, who thinks he knows more than the scientists, and that anything official is all lies, and bingo!
They’re off!
https://youtu.be/PVUOj9eU0xg?si=9fDIVDVROFMkqxAs
They claim that the Met Office have admitted they spray the sky with chemicals.
Contrails (which they refuse to acknowledge in that they are ice crystals) + Geo engineering = chemtrails.
Enter another youchoob t*at, who thinks he knows more than the scientists, and that anything official is all lies, and bingo!
They’re off!
https://youtu.be/PVUOj9eU0xg?si=9fDIVDVROFMkqxAs
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff