Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    The text below is being circulated via Michael J. Murphy and others:

    Subject: 10 "bullet" points regarding geoengineering

    This claim appears based on a recent study in Nature:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7393/full/nature10947.html
    However, Wigington's specific claim is not backed up by the paper.
    Data within the paper states that in 70% of cases where the cause of the extinction of a plant or animal species has been an infectious disease, a fungal EID was to blame. The article does not say that "70% of all current exticntions are caused by fungi, only those extincions caused by disease.

    Furthermore, the paper cites increased frequency of human transportation of plant and animal material, not atmospheric particulates, as the means by which fungal diseases are proliferating.

    No such "shredding" of the ionosphere is being mentioned by scientists studying this region of space 8 times higher than any cloud, and no connection between contrails formed at six miles and the ionosphere has been explained by the chemtrail promoters.

    Stratospheric ozone loss is influenced by both man-made and volcanic particulates, but natural aerosols dwarf anthropogenic aerosols by almost an order of magnitude:
    http://aerosol.ees.ufl.edu/atmos_aerosol/section02.html

    Oh, yes, it is being overstated in the claims of Dane Wigington above!

    No evidence exists that SRM is taking place, as shown by aerosol optical depth measurements:
    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/11...bunks-quot-Chemtrails-are-Geoengineering-quot

    The scientists who study these methane releases are not speaking of them as a "planetary emergency":
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...imer-interview-dr-natalia-shakhova/?mobile=nc

    (to be continued)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    This forty year plot of Cloud Condensation Nuclei(CCN) taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory shows significant increases in CCN coincident with past volcanic eruptions, but also shows a steady decline in CCN since 2000, during the time in which claims of SRM have been made.
    Mauna Loa CCN.

    This data, the majority of which predates the chemtrails controversy, debunks the claim that any increase of Cloud Condensation Nuclei has taken place which could affect rainfall. Period.



    5. SAG and SRM are causing "global dimming" on a scale that can hardly be comprehended. Current figures are averaging in the 20% range globally, but in some areas, like Russia, the total amount of sun that now reaches the ground is some 30% less than only a few decades previous. This reduction of sunlight further amplifies the currently occurring global droughts. Sunlight is a major component of evaporation.

    Dane Wigington has claimed that he is a "Climate Researcher", yet he appears unaware that long term measurements by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, previous 'global dimming' has been replaced by 'global brightening':


    6. SAG and SRM greatly reduce wind flow. Again, wind is a major component of evaporation. The science regarding aerosol clouds and their effect on wind is well documented.

    Again, Dane Wigington's climate expertise is called into question. His claims of reduced wind speed are debunked by empirical data:

    7. The SAG and SRM particles are "light scattering" materials. This alters the light spectrum and will likely cause many, and as of yet unknown, negative effects on all life forms. Blocking out the sun alone is of extreme concern regarding photosynthesis, but when one considers the fact that the light which does get through the toxic particulates is in altered form, the concern is much greater still.

    Again, referring to the data, Aerosol Optical Thickness data since the 1960's shows no diminishment or scattering.
    mauna loa2. :
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

  4. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    I agree with you, Dane, on the part about "could never be quantified". Your total lack of evidence or a rationale for this claim is reason enough to doubt it, what more needs to be said?

    Here, Wigington makes a statement about "bioavailable" aluminum, but has he actually ever done any work to quantify the amount of bioavailable aluminum he claims is in every drop of rain?

    The answer is- NO!

    First, let's look at his claims about aluminum in rain. He presents as evidence the following lab test results which show an average of 489:
    storyboard48.

    However, in 1967 and 1973, average aluminum levels in rain were found to be about the same:
    storyboard50.
    storyboard51.

    The studies above show that perfectly ordinary levels of aluminum are being found in rain, but do any of these tests determine the bioavialability of the aluminum found? The answer is- NO! Let me explain.

    Bioavailability is defined as "A measure of the amount of a substance that is actually absorbed from a given dose."

    The bioavailability can only be measured by testing what has actually been absorbed by a plant or animal, and Wigington & Co. have not done so. Their analysis only tested for the total elemental concentration of aluminum in the rainwater. They found perfectly ordinary levels known for forty years and more, levels derived from suspended soil dust in the atmosphere, since about 8% of soil dust is aluminum.

    Let me discuss how aluminum becomes bioavailable. Elemental aluminum is never found in nature, since it reacts with oxygen in the air to form the compound aluminum oxide. Aluminum oxide in water is only available for absorption if it is soluble which requires ph values below 5.3 or above 9:
    solubility.
    Even within that ph range, most aluminum oxide remains insoluble because it is combined with oxygen to form insoluble minerals. Within the lattice of this mineral, the aluminum is tightly bound between atoms of oxygen, and this bond protects it from release:
    alumina.

    Thus, it is shown that Wigington has only determined perfectly ordinary levels of aluminum in rain, and has never determined any quantification of bioavailability at all.

    Of interest here is the fact that the organization to which Dane Wigington belongs actually suggests consuming aluminum oxide on a daily basis:

    https://www.metabunk.org/posts/7707

    They know.

    They know that aluminum oxide is a harmless substance.

    But what of his claim that Monsanto is "engaged in the production of "aluminum resistant" seeds"?

    Aluminum resistant seeds are indeed being developed, because many tropical soils are low enough in ph for the natural aluminum found in those soils to become soluble:
    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/341-Debunked-Monsanto-s-Aluminum-Resistant-GMOs-and-Chemtrails

    However, Monsanto is not engaged in producing such seeds, no seed company is offering such seeds, and the only patent for such seeds is held by the Brazilian and US governments, not by Monsanto:
    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7582809.html
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Again, Wigington has no quantification for his claim that "all global weather is being affected", and then astonishingly then expands the former baseless claim by stating, "it is impossible not to connect" the unquantified claim with another!

    Dane, such sophistry, you had to really stretch this till it squealed to get that tenth bullet, eh?

    QED

    Jay Reynolds
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    I have sent the above information to Dane Wigington and challenged him to debate the issue here.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    I did receive responses from Dane Wigington and Francis Mangels. Neither had any substantive response, but at least I am sure that they have been made aware of their errors, and can't say that they were innocently wrong.

    Dane is of the opinion that people are waking up fast, but he started claiming that he was being poisoned about 5 years ago.
    Carnicom was claiming to be poisoned fifteen years ago.
    Can you really claim to have been poisoned for twenty years?
    How long can you cry wolf and have people take you seriously?

    Mangels issued a challenge to debunk his updated "Geoengineering- What We Know 2012".

    Does anyone have access to that document?
     
  8. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  9. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  12. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Oh! Well then everything's FINE! Then I DIDN'T see what I saw! Move along, nothing to see, stop looking up!

    [...]
     
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Nobody is saying you didn't see what you saw.

    We are just presenting an alternate explanation of what it actually is, and backing that up with evidence.
     
  14. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Unregistered,
    Did you find the information above to conflict with what Dane Wigington has been claiming? Isn't it interesting that he doesn't want to discuss the matter? Dane knows all about the information I put forward above. If it is news to you, it is Dane Wigington's fault, certainly not mine. This sort of situation is why competent environmental scientists do not support Dane Wigington, and why that will always be the case. Until Dane is willing to address these facts, there will be no progress, just Dane repeating the same old misinformation, and denying you the opportunity to know where he failed. I'm glad you stopped by, and if there is anything I wrote above which needs further explanation or which you or Dane care to try and refute, you are welcome to bring it up.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Who's telling you not to look up? That is encouraged, as is actually identifying and understanding what you are seeing.
    Err, what DID you see by the way?
     
  16. Joe1izzo

    Joe1izzo New Member

    Jay Mick and Steve,

    I really appreciate your input and the documentation provided to back up what you're saying. I've just been introduced to this 'controversy'. Part of me accepts what's being said based on some of my observations yet your ability to refute his points is also helpful - thanks for the links.
    Have you heard of Ben Livingston - Father of Weaponized Warfare? Saw and read a bit on him - one comment he made was he was absolutely frustrated that the government DIDN'T do something to stop Katrina.
    I'm still learning.

    Looking forward to your reply.
     
  17. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    Joe1izzo,

    actually controlling the weather requires energy amounts that are at least on the same level as the natural ones we have to deal with. That's basic physics and I don't assume you will object.

    Now, what is the energy in a hurricane? This has actually been discussed:

    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html

    So the total energy is "200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity".

    There is no doubt we could turn the world upside down with today's existing technology - if we had unlimited energy. Right now, true weather control is science fiction.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Frank Doyle

    Frank Doyle New Member

    A few weeks back you asked for any images I might have that show why the contrail explanation falls shore. TI found a couple on my camera and will add here. Thanks
     

    Attached Files:

    • Funny Funny x 1
  19. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    The first picture is actually covered on Contrailscience:
    http://contrailscience.com/contrail-or-chemtrail/
    Second one: Contrails do very much stop, for several reasons. Moving into an area of lower relative humidity so that the additional water does not reach the point that a trail can form (this can either happen linearly or vertically during a change in altitude), reducing engine throttle (this can cause the stop and start trails seen in formation flying).
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  20. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    You "found on your camera" a NASA image from 1974? Wow.
     
    • Funny Funny x 17
    • Like Like x 2
  21. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    I was just about to mention that. Well maybe he took a photo of the photo in a book, which is how come his version doesn't have the NASA details at the bottom. :rolleyes:
     
  22. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member



     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  23. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    The most prominent reason why the contrail explanation is most accurate? (AND why claims of 'chem'trails fall short?):

    Physics and reality of aviation.

    Many times a claim of 'spraying' tends to ignore the reality of airplanes, and their load-carrying capabilities (especially when such claims of spraying are attributed to regularly-scheduled passenger airliners).

    It is easy to understand that some sort of stuff to be sprayed must have a certain amount of weight...yes? For any aircraft, weight is one of the most critical factors in performance...take-off length on the runway, rate-of-climb after lift-off, the actual 'ceiling' (max altitude that can be attained)...to name just a few.

    Besides weight, there is the concept of balance. Aircraft must be loaded, and operate within what is called an 'envelope' of Weight & Balance. Coincidentally, this is also true for railroads and in the trucking industry, for example....but FAR more critical in aviation.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  24. HioBoby

    HioBoby New Member

    I am so happy I found this forum before actually going through all of geoengineeringwatch.org videos for anything useful. Faith in humanity ++
     
    • Like Like x 7
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. mrfintoil

    mrfintoil Active Member

    Old claims. Old thread, I know. But still makes me wonder if Wigington ever asked himself the reason why the alleged geoengineering is destroying the earth in order to save it... Makes no sense!
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  26. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    I think it is because there is much more evidence that the globe is warming than the opposing view. It is therefore easier to maintain his position because his "corroborating" evidence comes from MSM instead of alternative sites. It gives him greater credibility despite the fact that his cohort generally dismiss the MSM.

    "The New York Times says" still carries more cred than, "Jeff Rense says".
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    There is quite a popular financial discussion blog site by one Greg Hunter called USA Watch Dog. It seems (by reputation - that is, the opinion by my colleague) to be balanced and sensible. Sometimes, though the host posts items that are a bit "off the beaten track".

    One recent item is this one featuring Dane Wigington talking about the parlous state of the world's climate and what is causing it to be in that state. It is the usual meal from Dane:

    There is a video where Greg Hunter interviews Dane about the chemtrails, and the first point Dane makes is to dismiss the "chemtrails" term in favour of more scientific terminology. Unscientific discussion/presentation then ensues.

    This has already had about 29000 views.

    I post this to draw attention to Dane's effort here to reach an ever widening audience. Granted, Greg Hunter discloses in the opening that for some time his readers have been asking for some exploration of contrails/chemtrails/geoengineering. So maybe Dane is not actively touting his wares in this instance, but he seems very keen to spread the (false) message to a new audience.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  28. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    I wrote some dissenting comments to the youtube video, but they were deleted. Probably the comments under the article are also filtered. This Greg Hunter doesn't seem to be an honest person. He pushes his agenda and suppresses dissent. Just like Dane.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  29. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Thanks, Frank.

    Your genuine and valuable find inspired me to go back and check the SD memory card for my
    little Pentax Optio 750z camera, and I was delighted to find, not only numerous chemtrail pics,
    but also this beautiful portrait that I must have taken quite a while back...

    NoParty Camera 2.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  30. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    You made a colleague. I bet he has taken you off his Christmas card list for that.
     
  31. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Hi Ross. I never heard of this site or this Greg Hunter guy (who does not appear to even rate a Wikipedia page)
    but a quick look suggests that "balanced and sensible" is not an accurate description:
    I got suspicious when seeing that Wiginton's wild assertions were not questioned at all...
    then a look at the other stories on the site showed a heavy lean to more alarmist, unsupported scary stuff.

    Then, on the "Greg’s Favorite Sites and Articles" page:
    "* Before It’s News: This is a news and information site."

    In short, I'm probably not going to be taking usawatchdog.com too seriously. (or even give it another visit)



    (That said, thanks for sharing the DW story...)
     
  32. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    OK. "Balanced and sensible" was my colleague's description, and I understood he was referring to the financial discussions/opinions of Greg Hunter.
     
  33. Engineer

    Engineer Active Member

    I too have posted a couple very reasonable and polite comments on Greg's site and found they have all been deleted during the moderation process. Doesn't give me a good feeling about the level of bias he supports. I suspect no dissenting opinions or open discussion are allowed and his agreements with Dane and his (...) assertions in the comment section are troubling.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 19, 2015
  34. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Greg Hunter continues to push Dane's nonsense:
    All-Out Assault on All Life on Earth-Dane Wigington
    He strongly moderates comments as before. Little chance to insert a dissenting comment.
    Sad to see otherwise apparently reasonable people eat up all of Dane's nonsense hook, line, and sinker.
     
  35. MikeG

    MikeG Senior Member

    Boy you weren't kidding. Too bad though.

    Screenshot.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.