DEBUNKED: David Lim - Public talks on geoengineering / chemtrails in the UK

This is the advertisement going the rounds...

"This Friday 19th July at 7pm at Glastonbury Town Hall.

Many of you must have noticed all the trails in the skies of late and
wondered why there are so many planes on some days and none on others.
You may also have been wondering about the strange weather we have
had over the past few years. This is all related to the trails and
David Lim, a researcher from Reading University explains all this
(what and why is being sprayed in our skies) in his talk on Friday.

Here is the Facebook event page for anybody on Facebook and also, here
are a couple of links for further info:

https://www.facebook.com/events/144902952376115/

Sherborne researcher lifts the lid on government weather manipulation
through geoengineering:
http://www.thisisblackmorevale.co.uk/Sherborne-researcher-lifts-lid-government-w\
eather/story-18423796-detail/story.html


http://www.uk-skywatch.co.uk/

Please come along if you can. Admission is by donation only and I can
promise it will be a very interesting evening."

Of course we're in the middle of a heat-wave and ever since the 'weather' changed the 'chemtrails' have miraculously just disappeared... I guess they must've gone on holiday... sigh
 
Thanks Mick okay I'll try, but of course the overload of material presented at these talks blinds people with science that most of us (me included) don't understand... the aluminium meme is a perennial favourite - and of course Barium... but when I try to explain that the aluminium levels are 'normal' and nuke tests and Chernobyl sent loads of Caesium into the atmosphere 30 years+ ago... and explain that caesium decays into barium... it just goes over their heads... sigh
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Earl, he is claiming that geoengineering is taking place. If this were true, it would be detectable. The short story is:

"The idea of geoengineering came from an observation that volcanoes produced aerosols which became denser and blocked solar transmission through the atmosphere. There exists a fifty year record of this which shows the volcanoes but no ongoing perturbations beyond the ordinary persistent variability seen over the fifty year record.

He cannot overcome the data, it is rock-solid and unrebuttable.

Here is the long story with background:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/hi...ss-debunks-chemtrails-are-geoengineering.111/

I suggest you print out this graphic as large as you can:
source:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/annualconference/previous/2011/pdfs/101-110418-A.pdf

Solar Transmission.JPG

and hold it up and make a clear concise statement of what I just said. As Mick said, you must hammer the point home. He says he believes in science. Science doesn't rely on baseless claims, it relies only on accurate factual data to discern reality. The audience needs to understand clearly that his entire premise is invalid when no change in solar transmission is found. Without a change in solar transmission, there simply is no evidence for geoengineering taking place.

When he falters, you must ask him why he hasn't already made himself familiar with the facts surrounding geoengineering, how it can be detected and monitored.
You must then tell the audience that Lim has been aware of this since I informed him abut it two months ago:
see: https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=4gLTJG4ZGaU

David Lim.JPG

The audience must understand that there are two possibilities, David Lim doesn't know what he is talking about, which seems clear enough considering he believes geoengineering is taking place and hasn't learned, or he is saying this despite his being informed of the facts and hoping that the audience doesn't discover his deception.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great graphic Jay. Thanks for that (saved). I have to admit that even *I* think geoengineering is going on... but not in the sense that the chemtrail bods do... clearly the carbon from fossil fuel pollution and other man made sources is causing 'Global warming/climate change' and that is a form of geoengineering (albeit chaotic and not by 'design'). Hansen even states categorically that mankind is now in charge of the 'climate'... so we're 'geoengineering' whether we like it or not.
 
Also - wasn't it the sulphates in coal pollution that were causing 'acid rain'? Didn't they introduce 'scrubbers' in the coal plant cooling towers specifically for that (which of course didn't address the carbon and other pollutants and so now we get the full force of the co2 without the so2 no2 masking that)? Surely if they wanted to re-introduce sulphates, the simplest thing to do would be to take those scrubbers out of coal plants, not jets? And surely if they were 'spraying' on that sort of scale we'd be experiencing acid rain all over the planet again? Personally I think all these techno-fixes for acid rain or climate change are just avoiding the obvious one... stop coal pollution in the first place. I saw a chemtrail/geoengineering video which used clips of Michael Mann and James Hansen talking about geoengineering *but* they cut it in a way that made it look like Mann and Hansen were advocating doing geoengineering when in fact when one watches the original discussions, they both say it would be a *bad* idea and potentially do more harm than good... but of course that bit was cut out from the conspiracy video... it's just dishonesty.
Even the above video from which the geoengineering conspiracy bods cherry-picked Mann and Hansen's comments which was discussing 'possibly' doing it 30-40 years in the 'future'... the conspiracy hacks just leap to the assumption that therefore it *must* be going on... in fact been going on for years... It just astounds me how this is now being used as part of 'Climate Change Denial' but at the same time trying to suggest that it is 'causing' climate change (I mean it's one or the other surely?)... a bit like the denialists going from... "it's not happening", to... "it's happened before", to... "it's being caused by those evil 'scientists' "... who also just happened to warn us about it 50 years ago for some reason... the twisting 'logic' is enough to drive a guy bonkers... like 'cult' stuff... and how does one de-programme someone who has bought into that nonsense and is now sick with worry (and blaming any symptoms of stress on the 'toxins')? There are vulnerable people in the world who can go into horrid dark depressions if they believe that someone is 'spraying' them like bugs. I actually think this sort of deliberate 'misinformation' is dangerous for some folks.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
If are not confident discussing most of what he presents I would do as Mick advises and stick with one issue.
For me that would be the Aluminium issue as Mr Lim really has n done much research into it except repeat the party line. There are number of good links that can be referred to. A good one is here and data for the UK air monitoring network
http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/networks/network-info?view=rm
following the data link at the bottom and it give you data presented like this


aluminium.JPG

The detail is not that important it is more the fact that DEFRA monitor these metals as part of the Clean Air Act and our EU obligations. This is something chemtrailers conveniently ignore.

It may be said that DEFRA make up the data but a counter to that us this recent court case in which the UK government was found to be failing in its EU obligations for air quality by the Supreme Court
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/01/government-pollution-supreme-court

The case was based on data provided by DEFRA, and one would have thought they could have manipulated it to avoid massive EU fines.

Good luck, lets hope there are some scientifically minded people around.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
If are not confident discussing most of what he presents I would do as Mick advises and stick with one issue.
For me that would be the Aluminium issue as Mr Lim really has n done much research into it except repeat the party line. There are number of good links that can be referred to. A good one is here and data for the UK air monitoring network
http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/networks/network-info?view=rm
following the data link at the bottom and it give you data presented like this


aluminium.JPG

The detail is not that important it is more the fact that DEFRA monitor these metals as part of the Clean Air Act and our EU obligations. This is something chemtrailers conveniently ignore.

It may be said that DEFRA make up the data but a counter to that us this recent court case in which the UK government was found to be failing in its EU obligations for air quality by the Supreme Court
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/01/government-pollution-supreme-court

The case was based on data provided by DEFRA, and one would have thought they could have manipulated it to avoid massive EU fines.

Good luck, lets hope there are some scientifically minded people around.

What needs to happen if you broach a topic is to bring it into a clear enough level that non-scientifically minded people can understand it.


For instance, could you say:
1. I am going to show you exactly why Lim is wrong, and what he doesn't want you to know. I'm not going to do so by speculation as he does, I have the documented facts to back it up. (You need to lead with a bold statement of your intent, and alert people to what you are going to do.
2. Defra has been monitoring forx years at x number of sites across the UK for aluminum on a continuous basis.
3. Looking at the site data for x site (near Glastonbury), you can see xyz (analyze the data, explain what it is showing, trends etc. in concise layman's terms).

Then, you must put the burden on Lim, ask why he isn't familiar with the data. Explain that since he isn't, he is relying on hearsay and hyperbole, and isn't acting as a scientist should. Mind you, don't expect to have even five minutes to do this. In a Q&A you will likely only get one chance unless you are very persistent, maybe one follow up question after Lim responds, and some people will start dozing after more than a 2 minute explanation. If he is sly, he will try and run out the clock or deflect/defer and not answer directly. You must be prepared to counter that.

So, Dave,
-which site would you choose?
-how would you accomplish the analysis?

Help Earl out here as best we can.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
What needs to happen if you broach a topic is to bring it into a clear enough level that non-scientifically minded people can understand it.


For instance, could you say:
1. I am going to show you exactly why Lim is wrong, and what he doesn't want you to know. I'm not going to do so by speculation as he does, I have the documented facts to back it up. (You need to lead with a bold statement of your intent, and alert people to what you are going to do.
2. Defra has been monitoring forx years at x number of sites across the UK for aluminum on a continuous basis.
3. Looking at the site data for x site (near Glastonbury), you can see xyz (analyze the data, explain what it is showing, trends etc. in concise layman's terms).

Then, you must put the burden on Lim, ask why he isn't familiar with the data. Explain that since he isn't, he is relying on hearsay and hyperbole, and isn't acting as a scientist should. Mind you, don't expect to have even five minutes to do this. In a Q&A you will likely only get one chance unless you are very persistent, maybe one follow up question after Lim responds, and some people will start dozing after more than a 2 minute explanation. If he is sly, he will try and run out the clock or deflect/defer and not answer directly. You must be prepared to counter that.

So, Dave,
-which site would you choose?
-how would you accomplish the analysis?

Help Earl out here as best we can.

Good point Jay, although I did post at around 2:30pm and the talk is 7:30pm so did not realistically think it would be seen.

I would say the closest would be Wytham Wood, which is owned by the University of Oxford.http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/non-auto-data?uka_id=UKA00278&network=rm&s=View+Site

wytham wood.JPG

For me I would hammer the point of getting him to explain the variances for a rural area. I would be asking as to the sources of Al in the air and even pointing out that all the academics involved at Oxford must be in on this. My main argument would not be one of the interpretation of the data but more from the point of "If the government are spraying this, why are they making all this data available?" It is really easy to verify this sort of data, all some group needs to do is set up a sampling regime close by. There are a great deal of academics live in Glastonbury, although a few new age hippy types, but people in general are not stupid.

End of the day my angle would be to ask questions, questions which a Phd researcher should be able to answer.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
How would you explain what 55 nanograms per cubic meter of aluminum really means to a 50 year old housewife in Glastonbury?

What can she relate this to?
Hint: Most housewives have been sweeping up dust for a long time, and are more expert on the subject than many men.

Biggerdave said:
End of the day my angle would be to ask questions, questions which a Phd researcher should be able to answer.

Dave, I would always ask questions which I already know the answer to, and which my opponent does not. Makes it more fun for me and hopefully interesting for the audience.
 

TheMindBoggles

New Member
Unfortunately, having been to one of David Lim's 'talks', it appears he doesn't like "questions" all that much. Well, when I say he doesn't like them, what I mean is he doesn't like questions which dare to challenge him or his subject. You can also expect to have the whole room of 50-something year old hippies turn and look at you as if YOU'RE the crazy one. These people have been brainwashed [...] and I feel it is nothing more than a scare mongering cult - to which I am convinced David Lim is well aware of.

(ADMIN NOTE - Edited for politeness)
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
If anyone is interested I really do recommend visiting the DEFRA Air Quality site http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/

I have been using it for a few weeks and there is wealth of useful stuff. I mentioned in another thread I have taken an interest in air pollution, especially PM10, as if they are spraying surely air quality would be affected. On the site there are some useful tools to play with like this nifty interactive map.

http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/gis-mapping

air quality.JPG

If you are statistically minded there are some data analysis tools you can use to look at trends in your area. http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/openair Just have a look and see what you think.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Unfortunately, having been to one of David Lim's 'talks', it appears he doesn't like "questions" all that much. Well, when I say he doesn't like them, what I mean is he doesn't like questions which dare to challenge him or his subject. You can also expect to have the whole room of 50-something year old hippies turn and look at you as if YOU'RE the crazy one. These people have been brainwashed [...] and I feel it is nothing more than a scare mongering cult - to which I am convinced David Lim is well aware of.

(ADMIN NOTE - Edited for politeness)

TheMindBoggles, I have sent you a Personal Message because what I have to say might also be considered impolite.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
It really puzzles me that David Lim has gone so far off track. On the surface, he seemed to have everything headed in the right direction, a Doctoral candidate expected in 2012 (whatever happened?), and a great future in some part of the renewable energy field. From my perspective, despite his youth and inexperience, I know he has great access to the full spectrum of information that we have, has taken advanced engineering courses of all types, and should have had no problem determining the falsehoods he is now perpetuating.

For example, it only took a one second google search to find that the University of Reading where he attends school is home to some excellent contrail research. The University is member of an EU partnership called REACT4C:

Despite significant progress has been made in reducing the specific emissions of aircraft, in particular CO2, the absolute emissions have been increasing rapidly during the recent decades and are projected to continue to grow. Furthermore, aviation substantially impacts upon climate from non-CO2 effects such as ozone formation and methane destruction from aviation's NOx emissions, the formation of contrails and contrail cirrus, the emission of H2O at high altitudes, emission of aerosols (e.g., soot) and aerosol precursors (e.g., SOx), which are directly radiatively active and which modify cloudiness and cloud micro-physical and radiative properties.
Current flight planning is performed with the objectives of achieving maximum punctuality or minimizing the operational costs, whereas the target of minimal fuel consumption, minimal CO2 emissions or minimal climate impact has a lower priority.

Impact of aircraft non-CO2 emissions on the atmospheric composition and on climate depends on the altitude and location of the emissions. Therefore climate impact via NOx, contrails and contrails cirrus can be reduced e.g. by flying lower and by avoiding contrail regions. On the other hand this results in a higher fuel burn and hence in higher CO2emissions.

The project REACT4C will perform an optimisation approach for alternative or environmental flight planning in order to assess the potential for reducing fuel consumption, CO2 emissions and climate impact from aviation.

At Reading, Dr. Emma Irvine is personally studying contrail prevention strategies:

Emma A. Irvine.JPG
Working with:
Professor Keith Shine (University of Reading)
Professor Sir Brian Hoskins (Grantham Institute for Climate Change, Imperial College London)

We also work with the Aviation Outcomes team at the Met Office: Helen Wells, Andrew Mirza, Paul Agnew and Bob Lunnon (retired)

Our project partners in REACT4C are: DLR, CICERO (Oslo), L'Aquila (Italy), MMU, Airbus and EUROCONTROL

Project Description:
Aircraft emissions contribute to anthropogenic climate change through emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapour, and oxides of nitrogen (which influence ozone and methane), as well as forming contrails and possibly influencing natural cirrus. Aircraft emissions contribute around 3.5% (range 2-14%) of current anthropogenic radiative forcing (Lee et al., 2009); this is likely to increase as the aviation industry is forecast to continue to grow by 5% per year. There is therefore considerable pressure on the aviation industry to reduce its emissions and impact on climate.

The REACT4C project (Reducing Emissions from Aviation by Changing Trajectories for the Benefit of Climate) will explore the feasibility of mitigating aviation climate impact through climate-optimal aircraft routing, for trans-Atlantic flights. The Reading component of the project will define typical weather situations in the North Atlantic Flight Corridor and tropical Atlantic, that characterise the expected range of climate impacts from aviation in those regions. The benefits of climate-optimal routing as a way of mitigating aircraft climate impact is that it uses existing technology, and is quick and cheap to implement, however it does not negate the need for cleaner fuels and more fuel-efficient aircraft.

For flights between Europe and North America, we have identified 5 weather types (commonly occurring weather patterns) in winter and 3 in summer; the types can be characterised by the jet stream strength and location, and simple proxies for the climate impact of aviation emissions vary by weather type. The results are in a paper in press at Meteorological Applications, see Publications.

For the North Atlantic weather types, we have been investigating the frequency of cold ice-supersaturated regions, using the ERA-Interim re-analysis dataset. If an aircraft flies through a cold ice-supersaturated region, a persistent contrail will form, which can have a lifetime of several hours and spread to become indistinguishable from natural cirrus. We have found that the frequency of cold ISSRs has a maximum in the region of the storm track, and over Greenland, and a minimum over Hudson Bay. Moreover, flying higher does not always produce fewer contrails - this is dependent on the weather pattern! These results are being further investigated and a paper is in preparation.
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~gb902035/PDRA_Work.html

Now, why hasn't David Lim taken advantage of this excellent resource which would have certainly explained how the original thesis of "chemtrails" is utterly false, why doesn't he include research from his own University in his talks, and why hasn't he told his chemtrails cohorts about this?

Dr. Irvine has already published on the subject:

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~gb902035/Publications/Irvine_MetApps_revised.pdf

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~gb902035/Publications/Irvine_GRL_accepted.pdf

=============================================================
So, what went wrong with David Lim? Why has he abandoned a factual and logical path to head down into the underworld of un-reason?

To me this is a very important question which needs answered because it presents a puzzle in which something major seems to have gone awry.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Reading is home to a number of research centres that he could have approached. He has clearly bought into the GM part of the conspiracy yet Reading has a Centre for Food Security http://www.reading.ac.uk/food-security/ as well as a Soil Research Centre http://www.reading.ac.uk/soil-research-centre/src-index.aspx

It concerns me that he is still insinuating that he has secret information that will blow the university field apart, yet he will not share until he has completed his thesis. He is quite happy to use the accolade of "Doctoral Researcher" while at the same time muddying the name of Reading and academia in general. For someone that has put 1500 research hours into this one suspects his research will always now be biased.
 

geeksquad100

New Member
Yes, it seems like he's been rather selective in the sources he used for research. I've posted a few points in the comments.
Mick your funny, the government DID make up the term chemtrails, http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2013/03...t-published-by-the-air-force-academy-in-1990/. "Ohh but the manual doesn't have to do with weather modification" so the government still coined the term. funny how you just ignore information, cherry picking i think its called or "rather selective in the sources he used for research" i.e. wikipedia, and your other website. what about the 150 patents on geo-engineering? http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/links-to-geoengineering-patents/
geoengineering is real and is going on!
http://www.water.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/55919/BR9_An-overview-of-cloud-seeding.pdf

Heres the Texas Weather Modification Advisory Committee
http://www.tdlr.state.tx.us/weather/weathermod.htm

North American Weather Consultants
http://www.nawcinc.com/wm.html

The UN urged to put a freeze on geoengineering.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/21/us-geoengineering-idUSTRE69K18320101021

By the way Mick its curious on how you can afford a ten year lease on this domain and your other websites, webmaster fees, server fees, etc. etc. Because you post at least 20 times a day for the past 3 years equaling 1000s of posts on this forum alone. Do you have a job? How do you make a living just posting on this forum and your other websites (not including all the other websites that you post at)? It seems impossible if your on here posting that much.......
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
Mick your funny, the government DID make up the term chemtrails, http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2013/03...t-published-by-the-air-force-academy-in-1990/. "Ohh but the manual doesn't have to do with weather modification" so the government still coined the term.

This claim debunked here -

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-1990-usaf-academy-chemtrails-manual.352/



What about them? Here's a thread debunking the infamous Welsbach patent - https://www.metabunk.org/threads/chemtrail-geoengineering-patent.295/

...and here is a patent for learning to walk through walls -

http://illuminutti.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/us20060014125-walk-through-walls.pdf


Cloud seeding is not geoengineering. Here's a thread about a video making the same claim -

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...-iodide-causes-chemtrails-global-warming.777/

Please take the time to read around this website for threads more relevant to your claims before posting further in this thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Mick your funny, the government DID make up the term chemtrails, http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2013/03...t-published-by-the-air-force-academy-in-1990/. "Ohh but the manual doesn't have to do with weather modification" so the government still coined the term.
If the same word was independently coined in a completely different context and with an entirely different intended meaning, how is that in any way relevant? Do you think that the first people who promoted the "chemtrails" conspiracy theory got the term from the title of a USAFA chemistry lab manual?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I wrote this over at ATS this morning and it seems appropriate:

 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Fees for hosting a site are not that high. The cost of 10 years of a .org name is less than the 2 for $20 special at Applebee's. Forum hosting per month is less than a movie ticket, popcorn and drink.

How much do some folks spend on games like WoW a month? Folks have hobbies and it seems that debunking is one of Mick's, me too.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Thanks Mick okay I'll try, but of course the overload of material presented at these talks blinds people with science that most of us (me included) don't understand... the aluminium meme is a perennial favourite - and of course Barium... but when I try to explain that the aluminium levels are 'normal' and nuke tests and Chernobyl sent loads of Caesium into the atmosphere 30 years+ ago... and explain that caesium decays into barium... it just goes over their heads... sigh
Wow. Just goes to show it's impossible to know everything. Thanks, I wasn't aware of cesium decaying to barium.
 

RF101C

New Member
I watched the whole video. Substantially rubbish with the odd big words and lots of hints that I know something I cannot tell you. The first sign of a snake oil salesman's presence :) Watch out for your wallets would be my warning:)

Well I dont know about the chemistry in any detail as I am not a chemist, but the aviation parts, such as flight paths, the mysterious data points caused by crossing trails etc display a complete lack of understanding of aviation operations. A simple bit of reading and understanding of typical normal commercial operations over the UK would explain all of the civil stuff . As for the military created contrails, some of that is pretty obvious to anyone who took the time to actually research it, rather than regurgitate the ridiculous claims made elsewhere.

The Lynton floods weather phenomena has quite rightly been dismissed as complete rubbish, as in any case with the typical UK weather pattern, the effects of seeding two or three days earlier would have been felt somewhere over North Germany or Scandinavia having travelled at a typical 40kts average groundspeed for some 50 hours or so that weather patterns travel at over the UK

Now throw in the total lack of any evidence of the mystery tanks of goo on aircraft, the systems to store and deliver it to the aircraft and in 35 years and 17000 hours in the cockpit of a lot of different aircraft I have never seen any switches either. As a flight safety and technical person with a pretty good knowledge of what is on-board an airliner, I can state that there are no systems or chemicals as alluded to by this crowd that exist in civil aircraft full stop.

Given that total lack of credibility on these aspects of the video of his talk, then I can only suggest that the rest is unlikely to be any better.

I don't rate his chances at getting a doctorate very high if this is how he works, but he may have done OK supplementing his income from donations at the talks he has been giving.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Here's David Lim's presentation as advertised above, now on Youtube -


I skipped straight to 20 mins, and already have heard the premise that geoengineering is ongoing right now, and am being assailed with pictures of aircraft contrails.

It would appear that he has removed his videos.
 

TEEJ

Senior Member.
He is apparently still doing the presentations.



Perhaps he will be attending the protest tomorrow in London?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Hid doctoral candidate page is indeed gone. Too bad if another person has ruined their life over this. Many others have been down that road, and sadly many more to come.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
We all know, with dreary certainty, how the chemmies will spin this however.
It is sad though, obviously a bright person. I wonder if this will follow him around?
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
David Lims assessment of the UK floods

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke8OuG6i_AM&desktop_uri=/watch?v=Ke8OuG6i_AM

He is linking it all to Agenda 21 and weather modification (but mentions geoengineering) but at least he did not mention HAARP, after all they must be busy creating storms over North America and causing bushfires in Australia.

I find it incredulous that he finds it suspicious that the government have discussed letting the Somerset Levels flood, after all they were underwater until the 11th or 12th Century. It is a high maintenance area when it comes to drainage and it has long been recognised that we may have to retreat from some areas. A consultation called "Making Space for Water" http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sws00rsp/teaching/consultation[1].pdf described some options. Mr Lim attributes all this to Agenda 21 which is not inaccurate as it does envelope sustainable land management, however talk of retreat from some lands predates Agenda 21. I am from East Yorkshire and the stretch of coastline suffers some of the highest rates of erosion. Managed realignment of the East Coast was discussed for decades prior to Agenda 21 with actions beginning in the 80's in cliff areas but it was not until 91 that a scheme for the lowlands, in Essex, actively flooded an area to restore it to saltmarsh. Since then there have been more saltmarsh restoration schemes as well as policy for high coastlines that in some cases means relocation of homes rather than hard defences. The thinking is adapt and mitigate to nature rather than stand and fight.

In light of this it seems perfectly reasonable to discuss letting a floodplain, like the Somerset Levels, flood. That's why they call them floodplains. Unfortunately for Somerset the present situation looks set to continue for some time and even when the waters start to subside chances are groundwater flooding will occur as the aquifers overload.

Out of interest I am wondering exactly how weather modifications in its truest sense can cause storms on this scale. There must be a shitload of planes flying over the mid North Atlantic. Also how do they manage snow in one part of the world, rain and floods in another and drought somewhere else? Bloody miracle workers the NWO.
 
Last edited:

FuzzyUK

Active Member
Out of interest I am wondering exactly how weather modifications in its truest sense can cause storms on this scale

Some people blame the Polar Vortex over the USA for our unusual successive storms. But it can be traced back even further to excessive rains in the Philippines. It's effects drifted over the Pacific to the USA and then onto us.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/pictures/26193470

Somerset floods? More trees planted enable more effective drainage in between the roots. People need to adapt to this reality.
 

FuzzyUK

Active Member
He is apparently still doing the presentations.


I emailed David Lim in April 2013:

Hi Dr. Lim,

Have you published any academic papers relating to the talk you gave on
Geoengineering & Chemtrails in Dorset recently? ....


He replied:

Richard,

Thank you for your enquiry. I regret that I have not published work in this
area. It is not my immediate area of investigation, sadly. Environmental
manipulation (GE, weather modification and VTRPE modelling) is a huge topic
that one could spend a lifetime embroiled in, with so many avenues to
follow. ....
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I emailed David Lim in April 2013:

Hi Dr. Lim,

Have you published any academic papers relating to the talk you gave on
Geoengineering & Chemtrails in Dorset recently? ....


He replied:

Richard,

Thank you for your enquiry. I regret that I have not published work in this
area. It is not my immediate area of investigation, sadly. Environmental
manipulation (GE, weather modification and VTRPE modelling) is a huge topic
that one could spend a lifetime embroiled in, with so many avenues to
follow. ....

He did not even get around to publishing his own thesis either. What a waste of public funding.
 
Some people blame the Polar Vortex over the USA for our unusual successive storms. But it can be traced back even further to excessive rains in the Philippines. It's effects drifted over the Pacific to the USA and then onto us.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/pictures/26193470

Somerset floods? More trees planted enable more effective drainage in between the roots. People need to adapt to this reality.

Yes I saw that report and it also seemed to fit the pattern of the Pacific winds driving heat over to that side of the Pacific where it builds up... this would of course trigger regional extreme weather effects in the Philippines (as seen) and could possibly set up this jet stream meander.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Off topic but this event has worked out perfectly for the chemtrail agenda. While nearly all of them deny AGW many like Max Bliss go to lengths, quite rightly, to point out climate change is a natural cycle. This still means that contingency plans still have to be made, after all as an island we are susceptible to erosion and dynamic change to the coastline. So we have a case of make plans and it is Agenda 21 and depopulation or don't make plans and it is displacement and depopulation. It's a win win.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Here is a video of a talk Mr Lim did in October last year.


He has spread his repertoire and is now including transhumanism. There is a video of the Q&A in which Mr Lim mentions lack of privacy ironically while filming the audience.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
Oystein Debunked: "WTC7 Sound Evidence of Explosions" by Chandler/AE911T 9/11 31
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 8
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 75
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 8
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 4
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top