Me:
Lee:
Where? I've read all you've written, and no, you didn't. At no point have you simply stated the core belief, which all of your suggestions are aimed at supporting. By belief we aren't trying to be religious or philosophical. We just mean what you think is true.
Maybe try a word limit to focus your logical argument. This would also help you avoid your vice of straying into distractions concerning other users, before first establishing your position.
Thanks for the advice on how to communicate. You have read all I've written? But still have no idea what I'm saying? Here's a memory jog then...
post 59: ...it seems odd, to say the least, that this wouldn't be of the greatest interest to met people - it's their job and the silence is deafening. If, on perhaps a third to a half of the days of the year, the sky over one of the world's biggest cities is covered with aircraft emissions either partially or often in totality, then surely it is a major factor in determining temperatures, hours of sunlight etc. That would make absolute sense to any scientist. One has to consider all the factors available, not ignore what is an increasingly huge factor. That silence makes a case for some questions to be asked and answered.
post 62: Why am I persisting on met office and contrails?
Let me spell it out again: the fact that a large contributing factor in the weather is ignored as a means of prediction by the people whose job it is to predict the weather. It's not a tricky equation. You make light of it, it's irrelevant - it doesn't count as evidence in your mind. There is a reason why it is not mentioned. You say it's because no-one is really bothered - and at the same time you argue they are bothered. Which is it? Bothered or not?
Met people spend their lives being bothered about what makes clouds and when - why ignore this version when it is so prevalent? And
it is very prevalent where I am.
post 64 from Mick on 'what I believe'):
But basically you are saying that you think the public should care more about contrails. In your mind the fact that they do not is because of some kind of Orwellian mind-control. Where did I say that? Did you learn something from reading 1984? I can't find where I said that - but here's a quote from the man himself: In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
post 66:
Originally Posted by
firepilot
Because contrails are not a large contributing factor to the weather. Could persistent contrails, which are in effect cirrus, have an effect on temperature. Possibly so. Are they a large contributing factor in weather? No, not at all.
Weather affects contrails, a lot more than contrails affect the weather.''
Where do you live? Because where I live the
effect of aircraft emissions is a regular and large contributor to cloud cover. Actually, what you say is completely wrong where I come from.
post 76: Those whose
job it is to understand and predict the weather should not ignore phenomena that are an increasingly big influence on exactly that. That would be unscientific. It is also true to say that the clouds made by aircraft are cirrus-like, but distinctions can be made and
these man-made clouds should have a new nomenclature - have you seen them? Don't you think that's right?
post 76: Oh yes, and there is a very long history of govt agencies being told what to and what no to do, by govt. It's one reason why they're called
govt agencies. A good example of an unpleasant incident ? The EPA was instructed by the executive at the time of 9/11 to obfuscate the air quality readings - so, as Giuliani told New Yorkers to, people could carry on shopping without worrying themselves about the vast amounts of asbestos dust floating about -
a lot of dust, there was. So you see that it's not out of the realms of possibility - in fact
it's likely - that govt agencies don't tell you the truth about what's best for you, often it's about what's best for them - I know it's very hard to believe for you.
post 76:
Take away the aircraft and you take away the source of the clouds. This happens regularly and all methods of prediction, unreliable as they are, often do not support the reality of what is happening and
this is plain to see.
post 79 from Jay:
Originally Posted by
lee h oswald
In Russia, a sack of cement had gone through someone's roof. How? It was dropped from an aircraft accidentally when they were using cement dust to dry up too much moisture in the air, ie. to prevent precipitation.
Actually, I doubt that happened at all. Show us some evidence for that report, too. I refer you to post 80 by Mick, which verifies that it did. If only to show your judgement isn't quite there. And then this:
You have gone full circle now, lee. You have used up the last resort of the "conspiracy theorist" you said you were not, and demonstrated for all to see that despite everythig else, that's what you really are. And where exactly did I say I was not a conspiracy theorist?
The problem with using the laundry list is that it expands the conspiracy to levels which are unsustainable, irrational, and frankly ridiculous. Please show me what here is unsustainable, irrational and ridiculous.
... and some of them were EX-NAZI's, you say? In Nasa? Yes, I did say, it's the truth - you think it's ok?
Yes, you have taken the red pill and have seen into the Matrix, you are sure of what is happening... Think about what you are saying, how ridiculous you are looking. I see, but what is ridiculous? Which bit?
post 95 also Jay (I just had to include this one - a brilliant piece of paranoia!):
We've had a run of these undefinable wastrels lately. They seem interested in communication at first, but as interest grows they evaporate poof into vagueness. They are shadowy because they are hiding, they share too much in common for it all to be a coincidence, and I think they are not doing this for us, but for an audience. Whatever their game, they aren't playing it very well, and it is tiresome and basically worthless because they aren't interested in a real debate. They seem lonely in general, and if this is their normal behavior I can understand why. Maybe they need to get a life.....
Maybe
There's just a smidge of what I've said. So, with all the brains supposedly at work here, who wants to be the first? What's so hard to understand?