Debunked- Dane Wigington's 10 "bullet" points regarding geoengineering

[Jay Reynolds]

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

Subject: 10 "bullet" points regarding geoengineering

1. Global aerosol spraying (SAG and SRM, stratospheric aerosol geoengineering and solar radiation management) are literally poisoning all life on earth day in and day out. Every breath we take contains ultra fine toxic nano particulates in the 10 nanometer range. Such minute particles are extremely damaging to the respiratory and neurological systems and can not be filtered out with any readily available filtration mechanisms. They are so small that they penetrate straight through the lung lining and into the blood stream. There, they can adhere to cell receptors like a plaque, slowly but surely damaging our health and bodily functions such as the immune system. The particulates are also a platform on which fungal proliferation runs wild. Recent studies state 70%+ of all current plant and animal extinction is now caused by fungal infection.

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.

2. The protective layers of the atmosphere, most specifically the ozone layer and the ionosphere, are being shredded by the aerosol clouds. This renders all life on planet earth exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. The science on "particulate clouds and their effect on the ozone layer" is very clear. Such clouds destroy ozone. Period. UV levels are already increasing dramatically around the globe.

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

3. SAG and SRM have very likely been major contributing factors to the current methane "planetary emergency" now occurring on the East SIberian Shelf. This emergency, as stated by the research scientists involved, is the massive methane expulsion from the sea floor. Methane hydrates have now reached a temperature which will no longer allow its former retention in hydrate form on the sea floor. This warming of the oceans has been fueled in large part by the spraying. Though SAG and SRM can achieve significant cooling anomalies over large areas, it comes at a cost of a far worse overall global warming. The gravity of this methane event can not be overstated.

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)

 

[Jay Reynolds]

4. Saturating the atmosphere with geoengineering particulates "diminishes and disperses rainfall". Period. The excess of condensation nuclei causes moisture droplets to adhere to these nuclei and thus droplets do not combine and fall as precipitation, but continue to migrate in the form of artificial cloud cover. This is one of the reasons SAG and SRM cause devastating global drought.

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.


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':

The results showed that on average the surface solar radiation decreased by two percent per decade between the 1950s and 1990.

In analyzing more recently compiled data, however, Wild and his team discovered that solar radiation has gradually been increasing again since 1985. In a paper published in "Science" in 2005, they coined the phrase "global brightening" to describe this new trend and to oppose to the term "global dimming" used since 2001 for the previously established decrease in solar radiation.

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:

Studies of climate change typically consider measurements or predictions of temperature over extended periods of time. Climate, however, is much more than temperature. Over the oceans, changes in wind speed and the surface gravity waves generated by such winds play an important role. We used a 23-year database of calibrated and validated satellite altimeter measurements to investigate global changes in oceanic wind speed and wave height over this period. We find a general global trend of increasing values of wind speed and, to a lesser degree, wave height, over this period. The rate of increase is greater for extreme events as compared to the mean condition.

http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/...nd-substantial-increase-in-global-wind-speed/

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.
:

 

[Steve Funk]

re point #2 on ozone, he seems to be conflating the real problem of aerosol cans that contained CFC's, with generic aerosols. CFC's did do damage to the ozone layer, and were banned in 1978. http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/airpage.nsf/webpage/Repairing+The+Ozone+Layer

 

[Jay Reynolds]

8.Soils and waters are quite literally being poisoned and thus sterilized by the highly toxic fallout from SRM and SAG spray programs. The totality of damage already caused by this fallout could never be quantified.

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?

9. "Bioavailable" aluminum, now in nearly every drop of rain falling around the globe, is very harmful to most plant life. When the organisms detect the contamination, they shut down nutrient uptake to protect their DNA. This can cause a very slow and protracted death of the organism. The effects of "bioavailable aluminum" are also well documented. A point of interest is the fact that Monsanto is engaged in the production of "aluminum resistant" seeds.

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:


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



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:

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:


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

 

[Jay Reynolds]

10. All global weather is being effected by these spray programs. At this point, there is little or no weather that could be considered "natural". Again, there is no way to even begin to quantify the damage being done to all life on earth by SAG and SRM. However when one considers the current extinction rate, which is now 1000 times "natural variability" (100,000% of normal) it is impossible not to connect the issue of SAG and SRM to the mass die off once the impact and gravity of these programs is well understood.

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

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I have sent the above information to Dane Wigington and challenged him to debate the issue here.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

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?

 

[Steve Funk]

http://www.latenightinthemidlands.c...ails-what-we-know-as-of-2-22-12-tonights-show
This is the latest version I have found.
We talked about it a little on # 25-35 of this thread. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/154-The-Claims-of-Francis-Mangels-a-Factual-Examination

 

[Steve Funk]

I have a point by point debunking which I am trying to upload to my blog, http://shastainquirer.blogspot.com/
The photos in the original are not uploading.

 

[Mick West]

Florida contrail cloudiness discussion moved to:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1183-A-day-of-SRM-or-Geoengineering

 

[Mick West]

Methane bubbles sinking ships discussion moved to:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1184-Can-methane-bubbles-sink-ships

 

[Unregistered]

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

[...]

 

[Mick West]

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

[...]

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.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

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:
View attachment 515

However, in 1967 and 1973, average aluminum levels in rain were found to be about the same:
View attachment 517
View attachment 518

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:
View attachment 521
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:
View attachment 520

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

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.

 

[Pete Tar]

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

[...]

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?

 

[Joe1izzo]

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.

 

[JFDee]

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.

 

[Frank Doyle]

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

 

[Hevach]

The first picture is actually covered on Contrailscience:
http://contrailscience.com/contrail-or-chemtrail/

This plane also looks at first glance like it might be dumping fuel (click image for full sized photo):



But the trails are actually coming from six smoke generators. It was part of a NASA test to study wake vortices, you can read about it here:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/B-747/HTML/ECN-4242.html

Six smoke generators were installed under the wings of the 747 to provide a visual image of the trailing vortices. The object of the experiments was to test different configurations and mechanical devices on the747 that could be used to break up or lessen the strength of the vortices. The results of the tests could lead to shorter spacing between landings and takeoffs, which, in turn, could alleviate air-traffic congestion.

Here's another image of the same plane:



—————————————————————————————————-

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).

 

[Trailblazer]

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

You "found on your camera" a NASA image from 1974? Wow.

 

[Efftup]

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.

 

[TEEJ]

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

This 36 second movie clip shows the Boeing 747 Wing Tip Vortex Test.

As part of the overall National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) study of trailing vortices -- the invisible flow of spiraling air that trails from the wings of large aircraft and can "upset" smaller aircraft flying behind -- the NASA Flight Research Center (FRC) borrowed a Boeing 747 jetliner for testing. The B-747 had been purchased by NASA for the space shuttle program and assigned to the Johnson Space Center. Six smoke generators were installed under the wings of the B-747 to provide a visual image of the trailing vortices.

The objective of the tests was to test different configurations and mechanical devices on the B-747 that could be used to break up or lessen the strength of the vortices. This could lead to shorten spacing between landings and take-offs, thereby helping to alleviate air traffic congestion. Over about 30 flights the B-747 aircraft was flown using combination of wing spoilers in an attempt to reduce wake vortices.

To evaluate the effectiveness of the different configurations chase aircraft were introduced into the vortex sheets to probe their strengths and patterns at different times. Two of the chase airplanes used were the FRC's Cessna T-37 and the NASA Ames Research Center's Learjet. These aircraft were representative of the business jets and smaller aircraft which might encounter large passenger carrying aircraft on approach or landings around major airports, on in flight.

Tests without the B-747 wing spoilers deployed produced violet "upset" problems for the T-37 aircraft at a distance of around three miles. From the magnitude of the problems found, distances of as much as ten miles may be required if spoilers were not employed. With two spoilers on the outer wing panels used, the T-37 could fly at a distance of three miles and not experience an "upset" problem. The wake vortex study continued even after the B-747 was returned to its primary mission of carrying the Space Shuttle Orbiter.

 

[WeedWhacker]

...why the contrail explanation falls shore.

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.

 

[HioBoby]

I am so happy I found this forum before actually going through all of geoengineeringwatch.org videos for anything useful. Faith in humanity ++

 

[mrfintoil]

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!

 

[TWCobra]

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!

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".

 

[Ross Marsden]

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:

Wigington says the greatest true threat is chemicals and heavy metals being sprayed globally. Wigington contends, "Although geoengineering, or solar radiation management, is sold as a runaway warming mitigation, we have enough data to know it is making the situation worse and not better. So, at this point, it is an attempt to hide the problem. . . . Climate engineering is shredding the ozone layer, which allow more thermal energy to come in. So, the more they spray, the more they have to spray. It is also redirecting upper level wind currents, which is also redirecting ocean currents. We have warm water now pumping into the artic, and that is releasing methane. We have a global methane cataclysm going on right now. Geoengineering is making a host of bad things worse."

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.

 

[skephu]

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:

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.

 

[NoParty]

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

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...

 

[David Fraser]

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:

Wigington says the greatest true threat is chemicals and heavy metals being sprayed globally. Wigington contends, "Although geoengineering, or solar radiation management, is sold as a runaway warming mitigation, we have enough data to know it is making the situation worse and not better. So, at this point, it is an attempt to hide the problem. . . . Climate engineering is shredding the ozone layer, which allow more thermal energy to come in. So, the more they spray, the more they have to spray. It is also redirecting upper level wind currents, which is also redirecting ocean currents. We have warm water now pumping into the artic, and that is releasing methane. We have a global methane cataclysm going on right now. Geoengineering is making a host of bad things worse."

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.

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

 

[NoParty]

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...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.

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...)

 

[Ross Marsden]

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

 

[Engineer]

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...)

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.

 

[skephu]

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.

 

[MikeG]

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.

Boy you weren't kidding. Too bad though.