Dude, just look up. Seriously. It's not up for debate, it really isn't. Geoengineering is happening, the more You dispute its actual occurrence, the more You discredit Yourself. The question is WHAT are they spraying and what are the effects?
Yeah, I get that. What I'm saying is that it would be VERY costly. Find out how corporations work. They do NOT formulate patents for shit they can't sell and would not begin production on such a patent if they did not know there would be a market for it. The people in this debate understand that as a fact of business, not up for dispute. One company might take a chance. But several corporations would not invest as much as they have for patents they may never use. Just doesn't make any logical business sense. Think about it.
LOL.. sorry, I mean LMAO
They take a patent out as soon as they come up with the idea and are able to formulate it into an acceptable patent application. They are not going to develop something to only find out someone beat them to the patent. What might not have a market today may have one 5 years from now. Better to spend a little up front on a patent than waste money in development, to later pay someone else a license fee cause they beat you to the patent.
to be up for dispute
I wouldn't say 'Look Up' if You would seriously consider any of the evidence that is in front of You. You tell Me to go to a library. What difference would it make? At this point it seems that I could present You with all kinds of data on increased air toxins, particulates, PATENTS that already exist for things We are NOT doing?.. Not logical, Brother. You have well documented scientists that are providing physical evidence of their findings and it's like You are looking with Your eyes closed. Not logical, Brother. Really, just not logical. But I get it, Your site is founded on this and 'losing' one of these debates would be like losing Your identity. I appreciate Your integrity but You're just not thinking about this with an open mind. Cognitive dissent. Truth is, the patents are probably the best real evidence to support geoengineering. Really, tell Me when a company has designed a product when there is no potential to sell it? NOT LOGICAL. Please, use constructive arguments. No point asking for data if You refuse to accept it. Also, library books will never teach You anything except what You are permitted to know. I don't know why it is so hard for You to accept that this is happening or why they would want to keep it secret. Plenty of reasons for it like countering global warming, subversive warfare, manipulating weather for better crops. But it would make sense to keep this technology under wraps as long as possible. Do You really think You know about the US top weapons? No, You don't. They have shit the American people would never approve of, far worse than nuclear weapons. Denying that this is happening entirely discredits You. Maybe You're young. Maybe You don't remember what real clouds look like. Or maybe You believe they've changed as a result of global warming or something. I've got no idea. But I know what I see in the sky is not contrails because they NEVER lasted that long, never spread out and never shut out the sun the way they do now on a heavy spray day. Cloud seeding IS geoengineering by the way, which further discredits You. You admit to one but not the other. Totally illogical when they are the same thing. You need to add chemicals to the stream to seed clouds - that is geoengineering. Goodnight.
OMG You are impossible to reason with! You don't have the cognitive ability to process what I'm actually saying. Yes, I'm sure Apple and many other software firms have a ton of patents. Recipe's might have that too (Coke, Pepsi) but there is a MARKET for the patents they are creating, someone to sell them to. If geoengineering isn't happening, companies won't invest unless they know it will.So, for this theory to fly, we only have to pretend that we don't know that
companies constantly take out patents on things they'll probably never produce
(Apple had 15,500 patents two years ago…so, conservatively, maybe 18,500 - 20,000 patents currently?)
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1261292
We know Monsanto, for instance, had a net income of ~$2,470,000,000 (2.47 billion)
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/mon/financials in 2013...
and patents can range from as little as a couple hundred bucks to 10,000+
depending on how you choose to calculate them…
the math is not hard, you just have to get past the "obvious" claims,
said not
*know it will have a market to sell to. But this ridiculous, I'm done, enjoy Your darkness.
Oh the irony!
And most likely the reason You can't think. Everything You know is somebody else's idea, You can't leave that realm. If it didn't come from a book, it isn't fact. And so many of Your library books are bullshit. You learn a world of bullshit, then turn back to the bullshit to defend the bullshit. Almost as bad as someone quoting the bible to defend their faith without having any intuitive knowledge or understanding of their own. That's why You are sheeple and I am not.
More irony.enjoy Your darkness.
There we go:
http://www.google.com/patents/US20060014125
of your choice, I don't really care.External Quote:
The fact is that the vast majority of patents are never put to use. The existence of a patent doesn't mean that something is being used, or even necessarily that it would work.
As others have said, this is the main claim behind the whole chemtrails idea, and it's provably false. There is ample documentation of contrails persisting for hours and spreading as cirrus clouds (in the right atmospheric conditios), for as long as there's been high-altitude air travel. I suggest that you spend a little time looking here to get started: http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/RealTruth said:
How would you define geoengineering? The commonly accepted definition is that it's the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system with the aim of reducing the effects of global warming. Cloud seeding to induce or enhance precipitation does not meet these criteria. It involves local, small scale attempts to affect weather (not climate). It also does not cause those persistent contrails you're seeing.RealTruth said:
I'll give You credit for relentlessness. But You don't understand the basic argument. I did not say that people were or were not walking through walls. I said I'm not. Didn't think anyone was bold enough yet to believe they can, but good for them. Now, is there a market for that technique - sure. I'm sure I could find plenty of people that would love to have that ability if it works. Difference between Your point and mine is the MARKET. THERE IS NOTHING SAYING WALKING THROUGH WALLS WOULD NOT BE PROFITABLE AND THAT IS THE POINT YOU MISS IN THREE ARGUMENTS NOW. Different between Your lame concept and what I'm presenting You, is that it doesn't make sense to market something You can't sell. If You could walk through walls, You could sell that shit! At least grasp the content of the argument, if only for Your own self respect. What market is there for geoengineering patents if geoengineering is not happening?
External Quote:
Geoengineering is something that is being proposed for the future. If it is utilized, and a patented technology is found useful for it, then there's the market. As has been repeatedly explained to you, patents are often put in place in anticipation of a future market.
Again, lame double-talk. I don't care what You call it. Putting shit in engine exhaust of planes is what We are talking about. That is happening, We know it. Mick said in the interview they are additives, like in Your car. What You just quoted "fail to differential between cloud seeding and OTHER methods of weather modification."
Again MARKETABLE ideas!!! Ugh. People would want those things. Who wants to develop chemicals for the air if We don't use them and would never be able to?
Once again, You miss the point. Not just a little, You entirely misunderstand arguments.
Let's be honest: many people, myself included, are simply not very good at accepting obvious truths until some evidence is shown.
You do it again, you assume geoengineering is happening because there are patents describing it, which is a false argument. If geoengineering is going to happen in a future there might be people making money of it indeed, but as for now nobody seems to be doing that.
Sigh.
The statement that 2 + 2 = 4 is actually fairly deep. The proof is easy, but it involves the associative property of addition. so explaining it teaches the kid a lot about numbers and mathematics. If you understand the concept, you can explain it.
I won't. I will close with this, well thought out argument to see if I can clarify My frustration. I do not want to say it is or isn't happening. I don't frankly know. What I do know is that there is aluminum and barium of varying concentrations in the atmosphere. What I do know is that trees all over My own town are suffering from excessive UVA and UVB rays, I can send pictures in the spring if You want to see the diseased trees. I am listening to the data, which shows increased PH levels of soil and unusual amounts of aluminum. This is the data which I won't provide or get into again as there is plenty on Dane's site and plenty was offered to You in Your debate. My position is that this data points to and strongly suggests geoengineering based on logic from data I have seen. Negating DATA because it may have been windy or because You don't trust the instruments the scientist is using - that sounds like denial. And I am not convinced that any data, regardless how valid would be accepted by You. That's all. Thank You.
