View Single Post
Old 24-01-2018, 10:05 PM   #8
phigment
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 436
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea View Post
i see two problems with your stance...

one is that how can you know how much man is affecting climate through things like CO2 production when there are such widescale weather modification programmes going on? How do you know that covert geoengineering isn't responsible for many of the changes that we see?

The second problem i see is that the globalist elite clearly ARE using the climate change agenda as a way to build more globalised infrastructure and legal framework to pave the way towards a technocratic world government
Your second point first... I agree that they are, or some are, but it's ultimately a futile attempt at control. There is no system of control that doesn't fail at some point, in some way, because nothing ever lasts here. So what if they're using 'climate change' to bring in gains for them? The truth is that they're only gaining short term advantage. With sudden climate change, there are No winners. No time for adaptation. 6th mass extinction due to loss of habitat. If the top race wanted slaves (to dig gold and serve them), then they should create an environment where we can live? That is not what is happening!!

Your first point... As a human race, we've been incredibly busy for a long time subduing nature and abusing the world, and over the last hundred or so years burning vast quantities of fossil fuels (and I mean vast). There really is no need to add any other data to the set to explain the carbon dioxide emissions (that progress can be watched here pretty much live https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
as can be seen, it's not good).

I suppose what you're really asking, is how can I believe something completely unquantifiable (weather changing program), versus something quantifiable (ice cores through the centuries). Changing the weather to that level in a handful of years, would be - apart from being astronomically expensive - hard to do, and pointless. I know which I would go for. I do like some conspiracy ideas and some of Icke's research, but sorry he's off the mark with this one.

As an aside, I know someone who used to refuel planes at Heathrow, and have asked him a lot about the refuelling process etc. He was there in person, inspecting the fuel, talking directly to the people doing the refuelling. The level of security, from fuel grade, to transportation, to who and how it's being put into the plane, is massive. The idea that jets are making chemtrails and not con trails is ludicrous. Sure, there are chemtrails for small scale projects and tests, but nothing like what some individuals claim. This guy would Know For Sure if there was some kind of secondary tank for chemicals. So many videos show these contrails and go 'Jesus, look at those chemtrails dimming the sky' etc, not understanding the physics of why sometimes they show up and sometimes they don't. Sometimes the flights even dump the fuel if it burned too little (e.g. plane pushed by jet stream), to make landing safer. All that kerosene going into the sky... The chemtrail theory is not really necessary to explain what humans are doing. I think that was the original point of that link I shared... Humans go for the whacky and exciting explanations of things, rather than thinking carefully about the facts.
phigment is offline   Reply With Quote