1. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    I was just listening to that. Incredibly frustrating that David Santillo totally failed to call out the nonsense about "ongoing spraying". Surely that should have been the very first thing that he said after George Barnes and Dane said their piece.

    Instead he waffled and said many things that could be seen as an "admission" that deployment has already occurred.

    The scientists really need to understand what they are arguing against. I think the problem is that there is such a gulf between the two sides' understanding of "geoengineering" that they don't even realise what is being said.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    I think part of the problem is that the CT claims are so outrageous that the logical response is just to call it what it is - utter nonsense. BUT.. that tends to feed the CT that you are attacking the proponents. On the other hand, if you allow that the CT even might be possible, you lend it credence that way too. There may be no way to win in such discussions, really. The ONLY way might be to have specific factual challenges at the ready, which most people do not have.

    PS: The CT seems to win out of sheer exposure.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  3. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    It's the fact that Santillo was saying things like "you're raising very valid points" when in fact Wigington and Barnes kept on talking about "seeing grid patterns of geoengineering in the sky".

    These experts need to spell it out clearly and unambiguously: "No, what you are seeing is persistent contrails, which are nothing at all to do with geoengineering proposals." He should have taken the opportunity to tell them that the lines they see in the sky are not and cannot be "evidence of geoengineering".

    Any scientists who engage with the public on geoengineering need to make themselves familiar with the chemtrail narrative, and refute it effectively, because if the public search online for geoengineering, the top hits they will find are mostly chemtrail propaganda.

    The term has been very effectively hijacked by Dane and co, and it needs to be reclaimed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    From that page. Emphasis mine:
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2016
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Wow... Dane directly challenges Greenpeace about denying ongoing geoengineering and Santillo doesn't respond to it at all. I guess it was because the host always turned to him with another question which he could answer in a different context than what George and Dane were saying. Still... kinda odd that he would just let it go by.
     
  6. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    I think CT seems to win because the people they are talking to have sometimes never really delved into the whole hoax.
     
  7. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Precisely. When fielding claims about, say, "chemtrails", for example. One must already be familiar with the overall claims and talking points and the debunks of same. It's just not common for people to be that prepared to demonstrate the utter fallacy of the claims.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2016
  8. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Dane Wigington claimed in March that there was no orographic rain enhancement in Northern California because the atmosphere is so laden with geoengineering particulates that it prevents rainfall. But the actual rainfall data say otherwise, as shown in this video.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZn5J3tJ8A4

    If we look at rainfall totals in Northern California on March 5-6:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    it appears that there was 2-3 times more rainfall in the mountains than in the valley. Just the opposite of what Dane said.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2016
    • Like Like x 3
  9. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    The claim is ridiculous. Even a cursory glance at rain fall totals expose this lie.

    My local NorCal "mountain" ~2500 ft - and about 5 miles away as the crow flies and always gets more rain than I do- typically 2-3 times more and depending on the direction of incoming moisture sometimes much more. Its the main reason my local reservoirs are at capacity and have been for months despite CA still being in a significant drought.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Do you have longer-term totals showing the same thing?
     
  11. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  12. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    So is Wiginton's "geoengineering" California drought theory
    flexible enough to handle this much precipitation?
    Unknown.
     
  13. MikeG

    MikeG Senior Member

    It is.

    He has been promoting the idea that there is "no natural weather" for the last few years. Actually, it is pretty clever, since now he can never be wrong (in his own way) about any type of weather across the spectrum from drought to downpours.

    I have a friend who subscribes to this thinking. I am tempted to ask her just what formula the global power structure uses for a day when they decide to set their diabolical weather machine to "snow" or "cloudy." How much barium do they use? What is the HAARP frequency? You would think geoengineering would come with a specific recipe book. Patents can only go so far. ;)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

    I wonder how long it will take Dane and the like to latch onto the recent HAARP experiments?

    upload_2017-2-20_7-31-57.

    http://www.arrl.org/news/haarp-experiments-to-get-under-way-on-february-20-utc-reports-invited

    Audio clips of the recent experiments at following link.

    http://swli05639fr.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/audioclips-haarp-experiment-recorded-by.html

    Gakona HAARPoon 2017 blog link

    https://sites.google.com/alaska.edu/gakonahaarpoon/tune-in

    Twitter link for the HAARP experiments.

    https://twitter.com/ctfallen?lang=en
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Interesting article from Holly Jean Buck, the sociologist who interviewed Dane last week:
    What a “post-truth” media ecology means for climate engineering research – Holly Jean Buck

    Excerpt:
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  16. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    She also writes:

     
  17. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member



    why?

    i havent been paying attention to "news" in the geoengineering circles, are they starting to seriously consider implementing SRM in the next decade?
     
  18. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Yes, it might happen. Some researchers say the goal of the Paris agreement to keep the warming under 2 °C cannot be reached without SRM.
     
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Most geoengineering researchers consider it very unlikely to happen, as far as I can tell. I think what Buck is talking about there is the continuation of research in an environment where people like Alex Jones are given more credibility than before.



    It's similar to what Rose Cairns said (pre-Trump) in Climates of Suspicion
    http://www.geoengineering-governanc.../workingpaper9cairnsclimatesofsuspicion-1.pdf



    More simply - even though the chemtrail belief is unfounded, it's based on real fears which geoengineering researchers need to be aware of.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    didn't David Keith already try that? with no so great results?
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2017
  21. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    I consider Dane somewhat of an outlier though. Through his passion, rhetoric, and communication skills, he can attract lots of people. In countries where there is no similarly charismatic figure in the chemtrail movement, the chemtrail theory has remained much more marginal. The personality of the leading chemtrailists matters a lot. Of course, Dane also has some impact in other countries, but the local people are more imporant.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Marin B

    Marin B Active Member

    I came across a Dane Wigington radio interview from last December. A radio host from North Dakota invited him on his show after Dane posted that an engineered blizzard was used to disrupt the Dakota pipeline protests:



    The interview starts at ~30 min into the audiocllip:
    https://www.sayanythingblog.com/ent...blizzard-government-attack-nodapl-protesters/

    It's a fairly entertaining back-and-forth, Dane reminded me of a seasoned politician in a debate never directly answering a question. In the end the radio host remained unconvinced, noting that blizzards in North Dakota in November are not unusual and that he didn't hear anything from Dane that indicated that it was a man-made creation targeted specifically at the pipeline protestors.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  23. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Yes. He just dodges the direct questions about how he "knows" the specific weather in question was created artificially.
     
  24. Balance

    Balance Senior Member

    Sounds like he ragequit at the end and slammed the phone down after immediately telling the host to "do your own research".
     
  25. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    I am deeply concerned that Dane Wigington still gets attention....despite the preponderance of evidence against his assertions.
     
  26. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    He is being cited as a source of science and truth on a constant basis by chemtrail believers.
     
  27. Marin B

    Marin B Active Member

    Yes. He criticizes people for not doing their own research, yet he makes comments that he seems to expect his followers to believe without question. The latest example is in yesterday's Global Alert News, where he remarks:



    Perhaps he read only the title of the article:

    But if you read the actual article, it's a far cry from suggesting that nuclear war would "fix" global warming. It starts off:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...l-warming-environment-science-climate-change/
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1