Debunked: Geoengineering Terminated Worldwide at Worldwide Geoengineering Conference

[Mick West]

The following fake story claims that world governments have agreed to halt their ongoing geoengineering programs:

http://intellihub.com/2013/06/05/geoengineering-terminated-worldwide/

After having listened to the scientists and examined the research on the destruction that Weather Modification causes, governments are ready to follow the 2010 United Nations Ban on Geoengineering and have agreed to terminate Geoengineering Programs worldwide. The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology report: Engineering the Climate: Research Needs and Strategies for International Coordination, chaired by Bart Gordon in October 2010 was discussed in the globally broadcast premier of the Worldwide Geoengineering Conference.

Content from external source

It's a fake story, and they admit to this down the page:

The main point here is that the Worldwide Geoengineering Conference is fictional. As individuals inhabiting this Earth, we are in control of what we demand control of. Our food, weather, governments and politicians are not autonomous unless we neglect our responcibility to be part of what goes on in our world.

This article is employing a literary device to show that in order to realize what the title is claiming; namely, Geoengineering Terminated Worldwide, each one of us must become involved to make this a reality. It is important to realize that had the title been phrased in any other way, the attention of the reader would probably be lost.

Content from external source

The problem with fake stories, as seen by The Onion, is that people often think they are real. Many people don't read past the headline, or the first paragraph. The text is a little dense with lots of links and scientific words, so 90% of readers are not going to make it to the admission of fakery. Even if they get that far, they might still not even realize it's a fake, as it's phrased rather vaguely.



Even with the admissions of fakery, the article is still grossly inaccurate, confusing weather modification (normal cloud seeding) with geoengineering, and claiming geoengineering is ongoing. Cloud seeding is just spraying very small amounts of silver-iodide into clouds to make them rain a bit more. There's no evidence at all of any active geoengineering projects that involve spraying things out of planes.

 

[electrojet]

The intellihubs literary device is a lousy way of garnering attention. What sells? Fear ! How do we create traffic? Lie !
Where does there not exist an embracing of deception? Relative morality is a slipppery slope. The ends justify the means... except that the message that lodges is deceive. What is the message that is being taught by the deceit of institutions, leadership, banking ? Not good.


I'd like the intellihub piece to say 'we can't be honest about anything, because that's not how things get accomplished'


So much of what is bandied about on the www mimics political tactics in communication. Perception is massaged above reality. I don't think the intellihub author realizes how he is embracing destructive tactics.


Bryan

 

[Mick West]

Where does there not exist an embracing of deception?

Here.

 

[electrojet]

That is the intent of here. The evidence for contrails here is outstanding.

Some of the debunking tactics mimic unethical argumentation. It may be unintentional or not. Perception of reality is argued quite often here, with reality relegated to the back seat. The Eastlund debunked is an example. Some guy writes a sloppy non scientific piece on Eastlund, confuses the issue even more and that is embraced as a debunking because 'people make bunk statements and atribute them to Eastlund.' In this instance metabunk embraces deception or a type of relative morality. It may be just a rush or push, but it puts the actual physics and nuts and bolts behind the pursuit of winning.

Just can't leap-frog over the specific claims in order to divide and conquer.

It is difficult to not mimic how the World operates. Humans are exceptional at incorporating tactics that win.

Slippery slope.

Bryan

 

[Landru]

That is the intent of here. The evidence for contrails here is outstanding.

Some of the debunking tactics mimic unethical argumentation. It may be unintentional or not. Perception of reality is argued quite often here, with reality relegated to the back seat. The Eastlund debunked is an example. Some guy writes a sloppy non scientific piece on Eastlund, confuses the issue even more and that is embraced as a debunking because 'people make bunk statements and atribute them to Eastlund.' In this instance metabunk embraces deception or a type of relative morality. It may be just a rush or push, but it puts the actual physics and nuts and bolts behind the pursuit of winning.

It is difficult to not mimic how the World operates. Humans are exceptional at incorporating tactics that win.

Slippery slope.

Bryan

Could you provide some of evidence that metabunk embraces deception or a type of relative morality? Because I don't see it.

 

[Belfrey]

Some of the debunking tactics mimic unethical argumentation. It may be unintentional or not. Perception of reality is argued quite often here, with reality relegated to the back seat. The Eastlund debunked is an example. Some guy writes a sloppy non scientific piece on Eastlund, confuses the issue even more and that is embraced as a debunking because 'people make bunk statements and atribute them to Eastlund.''

The false statements attributed to Eastlund were, in your example, debunked. That's what that thread is debunking, the claims connecting Eastlund to HAARP. How is that in any way deceptive or unethical?

 

[Cairenn]

I see the debunkers here backing up their statements with lots of FACTS and understandable explanations.

 

[Joe]

Of course its Debunked they've never stopped .

 

[electrojet]

The false statements attributed to Eastlund were, in your example, debunked. That's what that thread is debunking, the claims connecting Eastlund to HAARP. How is that in any way deceptive or unethical?

Hi Belfrey,

The skeptoid piece is wrong in at least 3 ways off the top of my head. Nothing has been debunked there, because the foundation piece from the Skeptoid is not factual. Bernard was contracted with Arco to help design HAARP. The evidence for this is available from multiple sources. Designed capabilities and features Eastlund patented are seen in HAARP such as a phased array and ability to increase capability as Eastlund designed. It does many of the things that Eastlund said it would do in the way that he described. There exists more than one example of visible airglow contrary to the Skeptoid 'article'. It's rubbish, yet considered here as a debunking.

I may have to show those errors and document them all. Some here will deny strong evidence that the foundation for the debunking has been destroyed ... why is that? Human nature.... (truncated)

Bryan

Bryan

 

[Joe]

I see the debunkers here backing up their statements with lots of FACTS and understandable explanations.

yea Like Richard Reed being a American ? Facts LOL ! Guess thats what happens when you get your news from a comedian and a RINO Newt Gingrich said that Richard Reid was an American citizen. Reid is a British citizen.

 

[electrojet]

Could you provide some of evidence that metabunk embraces deception or a type of relative morality? Because I don't see it.

Hi Landru,

No I don't think that I actually can. If you haven't seen glimmers of it here and there already, I do not suspect that I can show anything that will convince you.

Bryan

 

[justanairlinepilot]

Hi Landru,

No I don't think that I actually can. If you haven't seen glimmers of it here and there already, I do not suspect that I can show anything that will convince you.

Bryan

Electrojet, it appears to me that you are trying to manipulate your intelligence or your point of interest by means of confabulation of grammar. You intermingle words to interject your point in hopes to confuse the general audience. Yet, you're leaving us all confused with your point and you're degrading your reputation in attempts to make yourself appear smarter than you really are. I call bullshit....I've seen you avoid legit questions to the point it causes distractions with your original claims. Get to the point dude!!!

 

[Cairenn]

So you accuse us and then don't offer why you are accusing us. There is problem with that.
To me that is ad Hominum attack on many of the posters.

Please either offer some support or retract your statement.

 

[Pete Tar]

...
I may have to show those errors and document them all....

Well that is the point of this website, so please do.

 

[solrey]

Considering that global brightening over the last 30 some odd years has been documented, how can a group of people terminate something that has not even been occurring?

There is a growing interest in the study of decadal variations in surface solar radiation during the last decades, although the analyses of long-term time series in some areas with major gaps in observations, such as in Spain, are still pending. This work describes for the first time the development of a new dataset of surface solar radiation in Spain based on the longest series with records of global solar radiation (G), most of them starting in the early 1980s. Additional records of diffuse solar radiation (D), which is a component of G much less studied due to the general scarcity of long-term series, are available for some of these series. Particular emphasis is placed upon the homogenization of this dataset in order to ensure the reliability of the trends, which can be affected by non-natural factors such as relocations or changes of instruments. The mean annual G series over Spain shows a tendency to increase during the 1985-2010 period, with a significant linear trend of + 3.9 W m- 2 per decade. Similar significant increases are observed in the mean seasonal series, with the highest rate of change during summer (+ 6.5 W m- 2 per decade) and secondly in autumn (+ 4.1 W m- 2 per decade) and spring (+ 3.2 W m- 2 per decade). These results are in line with the widespread increase of G, also known as brightening period, reported at many worldwide observation sites. Furthermore, the annual mean D series starts without relevant variations during the second half of the 1980s, but it is disturbed by a strong increase in 1991 and 1992, which might reflect the signal of the Pinatubo volcanic eruption. Afterwards, the mean series shows a tendency to decrease up to the mid-2000s, with a significant linear trend of - 2.1 W m- 2 per decade during the 1985-2010 period. All these results point towards a diminution of clouds and/or aerosols over the area.

Content from external source

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013GPC...100..343S

 

[HappyMonday]

Hi Belfrey,

The skeptoid piece is wrong in at least 3 ways off the top of my head. Nothing has been debunked there, because the foundation piece from the Skeptoid is not factual. Bernard was contracted with Arco to help design HAARP. The evidence for this is available from multiple sources. Designed capabilities and features Eastlund patented are seen in HAARP such as a phased array and ability to increase capability as Eastlund designed. It does many of the things that Eastlund said it would do in the way that he described. There exists more than one example of visible airglow contrary to the Skeptoid 'article'. It's rubbish, yet considered here as a debunking.

Bryan

Bryan

Cool, let's have a new thread where you submit this evidence from multiple sources and debunk the skeptoid and Metabunk debunks of Eastlund.

METADEBUNK!

 

[David Fraser]

Electrojet, it appears to me that you are trying to manipulate your intelligence or your point of interest by means of confabulation of grammar. You intermingle words to interject your point in hopes to confuse the general audience. Yet, you're leaving us all confused with your point and you're degrading your reputation in attempts to make yourself appear smarter than you really are. I call bullshit....I've seen you avoid legit questions to the point it causes distractions with your original claims. Get to the point dude!!!

There is a phrase in the British Army that sums your post up.

"Bullshit baffles brains"

 

[Joe]

So you accuse us and then don't offer why you are accusing us. There is problem with that.
To me that is ad Hominum attack on many of the posters.

Please either offer some support or retract your statement.

You really need to learn how to reply with quote so we can tell what statement you are referring to ?

 

[FuzzyUK]

Bernard was contracted with Arco to help design HAARP. The evidence for this is available from multiple sources. Designed capabilities and features Eastlund patented are seen in HAARP such as a phased array and ability to increase capability as Eastlund designed. It does many of the things that Eastlund said it would do in the way that he described.

Wrong. Mick has already dealt with the myth that Bertland designed HAARP in September 2011:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/248-Debunked-Bernard-Eastlund-and-HAARP

 

[cloudspotter]

I came across my first instance of someone sharing the intellihub article on Facebook this evening. I couldn't reply but the poster was hoping it was true.

 

[electrojet]

Electrojet, it appears to me that you are trying to manipulate your intelligence or your point of interest by means of confabulation of grammar. You intermingle words to interject your point in hopes to confuse the general audience. Yet, you're leaving us all confused with your point and you're degrading your reputation in attempts to make yourself appear smarter than you really are. I call bullshit....I've seen you avoid legit questions to the point it causes distractions with your original claims. Get to the point dude!!!

Hi justanairlinepilot,

You are right.

Here is the direct way. People utilize tactics that are dishonest. Why? Human nature. Pride.

The Eastlund debunked is an example of dishonest tactics. Patent claims match actual
real world previously demonstrated capabilities. The skeptoid is riddled with errors and is not a scientific based examination.

Maybe I will return there with documentation showing the fallacies of the debunking.

As to your questions over at the gravity wave forum. You are asking me questions and/or making statements about what I stated. I am working to let the research answer those questions. There is much stronger evidence yet to be posted.
because by your own admission 'You are not convinced' nor are the other skeptics. Dusty plasma physics is not a fast food topic.

Bryan

 

[electrojet]

Wrong. Mick has already dealt with the myth that Bertland designed HAARP in September 2011:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/248-Debunked-Bernard-Eastlund-and-HAARP

Hi Fuzzy,

Bernard Eastlund was contracted as a consultant with Arco. His work was towards the development of HAARP.

Many of the features and capabilities of HAARP are as a result of his
work for them.

The skeptoid article is rubbish. It makes numerous false claims and is not a scientific examination of the
rf transmitter in Gakona, Alaska known as HAARP.

Take Eastlund's patent claims and line them up next to Haarp demonstrated capabilities.
They pair up well. Eastlund was not a light weight. He knew the science involved.

Peace,

Bryan

 

[Jay Reynolds]

The skeptoid article is rubbish.

Bryan

No, it is not.

 

[JFDee]

People utilize tactics that are dishonest. Why? Human nature. Pride.

I won't claim that we debunkers around here are free of faults, particularly in discussions that are heating up.
And even if that claim of electrojet ("glimmers of it here and there") were entirely false - I think we have shaken off far worse accusations.

So - back to the issues:

The Eastlund debunked is an example of dishonest tactics. Patent claims match actual
real world previously demonstrated capabilities. The skeptoid is riddled with errors

You certainly know that you are required to point out these errors if you want your opinion to be considered.

Patent claims are hardly convincing evidence as has been shown in many discussions and articles around here.

 

[HappyMonday]

The skeptoid is riddled with errors and is not a scientific based examination.

Please debunk it then, as I suggested earlier. Here's a quote from you in the Eastlund thread referred to above -

The skeptoid is trash and not something to stand behind and proclaim as a debunking. Brian gets a lot wrong in a very short amount of writing. Standing in that wake and proclaiming that he has debunked something is not wise and it is not science. Dunning has no clue about vertical coupling processes and Eastlund is associated with HAARP. Dunning is alternately correct and then incorrect with regards to Eastlunds involvement. Dunning neglects to mention that many of Eastlund claims are already demonstrated as real in numerous scientific papers. In effect patent claims match actual modification. If Dunning misses this, then his skeptoid piece is complete junk. It is junk, standing on junk is a precarious place to perch.

You should show us where these claims are demonstrated as real, with specifics, and answer some of the many questions posed to you about this elsewhere.

For instance, you stated -

I will link 3 scientific examples of energy changes and modification that are all much more significant than Dunning or you seem to embrace. The net effects are very significant. This is not my claim, it is in the documented peer reviewed public documents.

You didn't appear to follow this up that thread, perhaps you could do so?

 

[FuzzyUK]

You read selectively, electrojet. The bottom line is this:

"The patent does not mention HAARP, and none of its drawings remotely resemble anything built at HAARP"
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4122