3 ms·

The event lasted 3 hours, and the video was shortened. Sorry but I don't have a transcript. David Lim, a doctoral researcher at the University of Reading, has

The event lasted 3 hours, and the video was shortened. Sorry but I don't have a transcript. David Lim, a doctoral researcher at the University of Reading, has a much more comprehensive presentation for the curious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-zRREd8DZQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-zRREd8DZQ "This public presentation has been created to introduce the topic of geoengineering to those with limited or no knowledge of the subject. It therefore provides an overview of this lesser known area of science. The talk entitled 'Increases in extreme weather, food prices and illness: the unspoken connection' was held in Trent, Sherborne, Dorset (UK) on 27th March 2013 in front of an 80 strong audience. The 'questions and answers' session lasted 90 minutes and has been excluded from the clip for manageability. The audience consisted of members of the public; it appeared that very few people were aware of geoengineering let alone the science and political issues underpinning this vast topic. A multitude of periphery subjects were also discussed during the Q&A session, leaving many with much to consider... I was a doctoral researcher at the University of Reading (UK) looking at domestic electrical loads, when I stumbled across the science of 'environmental manipulation', encompassing Geoengineering, Weather Modification and Military Operations - all of which pose a significant risk to natural systems. Period. Having investigated the climate change debate and become acquainted with 'the bigger picture' - delineated by topics such as politics, geopolitics, history, meteorology, sociology, economics, physics, metaphysics, quantum mechanics, medicine, law, military and many others - I concluded that something was wrong. In fact many 'things' are wrong with the version of reality that is presented to us by the mainstream media and government. It has taken over 1,500 research hours to comprehensively put together the pieces of the geoengineering puzzle, which pulls in all of the other subjects mentioned afore, it just does. The vast majority of people simply don't have the energy or time to investigate such overarching topics as geoengineering, thus many are left in the dark. Herein, I simply aim to shed some light on this murky area, for those at stage one of 'the journey'..."

anigbrowl 12y ago
Look, I'm sorry if this seems rude, but do you not recognize that 90% of what you've pasted here is emotional manipulation? I'm willing to entertain your proposition but I would like to read something with specific assertions about chemicals, numbers, methods - stuff I can conduct searches on, not handwavey presentations by an expert who's dumbing it down for laypeople and so leaves me without any detail that I can check for myself. I took some time to watch this guy's video, but his argument is incoherent and it's absolutely full of logical fallacies. I'm well aware that there have been multiple proposals for geoengineering, but it's a long way from that to claims that the clouds look wrong, geoengineering is being conducted on a mass scale, and there's a giant coverup. Having grown up near an airport, I've always had trouble with chemtrail advocates claims that 'these don't look like normal contrails' because my experience is that contrails have always exhibited a great deal of variety and do not have a single consistent appearance as contrail theorists are wont to claim. I urge you to consider some of the debunking arguments that you can find at https://www.metabunk.org/forums/contrails-and-chemtrails.9/ https://www.metabunk.org/forums/contrails-and-chemtrails.9/ and search for specific written arguments that are based on empirical and repeatable observations.
- Cyther606 12y ago
  So you would agree the site you linked to is more scientific and empirical? The owner of metabunk.org, Mick, is thoroughly defeated in a public debate by Dane Wingington, who you apparently detest, here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wigington-west-geoengineering-debate.2211/ https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wigington-west-geoengineeri... Mark my words, this issue is going to become more mainstream over the next thirty years. Your position is simply anti-science. > Dane: You know, that's a great suggestion! I appreciate that suggestion, we'll do that, not just here, because we're already arranging meters for Norway, Maine, New Mexico, and Florida. So we'll do that in each location. And you know one that makes it quite clear that the numbers are that bad Mick, and again, your suggestion is a good one and we will follow that up. The bark in the pacific Northwest is literally being fried off the trees. Completely fried off to the core wood. Trees are dying everywhere up here. It takes a tremendous amount of UV to do that. Nothing grows here, which is a known consequence of excessive UV. I mean the UV seems so staggeringly high that leaves are literally falling off the trees right now. They started falling off in July. So, we see every single sign of excessive UV. Massive insect decline. We just had a US forest service biologist re-survey the terrestrial insects - 90% decline. Bark being burned off the trees. You can't stand in the sun here. So we believe those numbers. We are actually trying to use conservative math, because if you take the UVA and if you calculate 5% of the UVA measured in milliwatts per centimeter squared, you would come out with 3.5, and if you divide that into ten, which is UVB you'd get a number that's close to 3000%.

anigbrowl 12y ago

Look, I'm sorry if this seems rude, but do you not recognize that 90% of what you've pasted here is emotional manipulation? I'm willing to entertain your proposition but I would like to read something with specific assertions about chemicals, numbers, methods - stuff I can conduct searches on, not handwavey presentations by an expert who's dumbing it down for laypeople and so leaves me without any detail that I can check for myself. I took some time to watch this guy's video, but his argument is incoherent and it's absolutely full of logical fallacies. I'm well aware that there have been multiple proposals for geoengineering, but it's a long way from that to claims that the clouds look wrong, geoengineering is being conducted on a mass scale, and there's a giant coverup. Having grown up near an airport, I've always had trouble with chemtrail advocates claims that 'these don't look like normal contrails' because my experience is that contrails have always exhibited a great deal of variety and do not have a single consistent appearance as contrail theorists are wont to claim. I urge you to consider some of the debunking arguments that you can find at https://www.metabunk.org/forums/contrails-and-chemtrails.9/ https://www.metabunk.org/forums/contrails-and-chemtrails.9/ and search for specific written arguments that are based on empirical and repeatable observations.

Cyther606 12y ago
So you would agree the site you linked to is more scientific and empirical? The owner of metabunk.org, Mick, is thoroughly defeated in a public debate by Dane Wingington, who you apparently detest, here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wigington-west-geoengineering-debate.2211/ https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wigington-west-geoengineeri... Mark my words, this issue is going to become more mainstream over the next thirty years. Your position is simply anti-science. > Dane: You know, that's a great suggestion! I appreciate that suggestion, we'll do that, not just here, because we're already arranging meters for Norway, Maine, New Mexico, and Florida. So we'll do that in each location. And you know one that makes it quite clear that the numbers are that bad Mick, and again, your suggestion is a good one and we will follow that up. The bark in the pacific Northwest is literally being fried off the trees. Completely fried off to the core wood. Trees are dying everywhere up here. It takes a tremendous amount of UV to do that. Nothing grows here, which is a known consequence of excessive UV. I mean the UV seems so staggeringly high that leaves are literally falling off the trees right now. They started falling off in July. So, we see every single sign of excessive UV. Massive insect decline. We just had a US forest service biologist re-survey the terrestrial insects - 90% decline. Bark being burned off the trees. You can't stand in the sun here. So we believe those numbers. We are actually trying to use conservative math, because if you take the UVA and if you calculate 5% of the UVA measured in milliwatts per centimeter squared, you would come out with 3.5, and if you divide that into ten, which is UVB you'd get a number that's close to 3000%.