Jeff writes. He starts off politely, if not intelligently.
I respond with all the respect I can muster. It’s painful. It’s a waste of my valuable time. Jeff demonstrates neither appreciation nor respect. His approach is so common, I’m beginning to suspect I’m the crazy one.
I provide commentary for the readers. The information in bold font was not delivered to Jeff. It’s just for you. Lucky you.
I host a one hour radio show on XXXX in XXXX called XXXX. Its the only show on the XXXX network that discusses geoengineering. I’ve generally had on anti-geoengineering viewpoints, however the program director has green lighted a 2 hour discussion on the topic. This would be scheduled for drive time.
This topic of climate change and climate engineering has confused many listeners especially in the progressive environmentally conscious community.
It was suggested to have you bring your perspective on climate change to the table and discuss-debate with Dane Wigington of Geoengineeringwatch.org.
Please let me know if you’re interested because it would have a very large audience from the station’s terrestrial signal is broadcast from a 50 thousand watt transmitter … and streaming live on the web.
Thanks very much, and please let us know if you can do it.
Not only am I reluctant to lend credibility to Dane’s evidence-free ideas, I’m also unable at that time and date. I’ll be getting interviewed that day and I will be delivering a presentation that evening. I’ll have a tight schedule.
I understand your reluctance, however I think there is a meeting point within the various perspectives. There are hundreds of thousands of people and I think millions who are witnessing some operation in the Troposphere that looks like SRM or some type of geoengineering. Among the data, Dane is using scientific reports, video and photographic evidence and satellite imagery to convey this information. I think its important to hear both sides to bridge some of the viewpoints.
We may have a few more live discussions this year, please consider being on for one hour in the future. I will be moderating and make sure there are no interruptions or interference, allowing for full expression of ideas.
thanks again and best of luck with the presentation tonight.
Thank you for your response. I don’t debate flat-Earthers. I don’t debate those who deny natural selection. Dane is in the same category.
I think its important to keep an open perspective on some of these topics … The Flat-Earthers comparison is also what XXXX said to attempt to discredit Dane by association. I think saying things like this are divisive. There’s an arrogance within certain groups of scientists who don’t take the time to distinguish between those who are honestly wanting to know more information about the subject Dane is talking about and those who are vile and want to cause trouble.
I approach every topic with an open mind. But I don’t keep an open mind long in the absence of evidence. And my mind isn’t so open my brains fall out.
As with the flat-Earth crowd and those who deny natural selection, Dane uses no evidence. None. He convinces a dumbed-down, willfully ignorant populace that he uses evidence. He doesn’t. There is no evidence to support his chemtrail nonsense.
I know my remaining time is limited. Inspired by Camus, I see it all through the lens of absurdity. Life is hilarious. See your preceding paragraph as one minor example.
Guy, Dane does use evidence. Video and photographic evidence of the aerosol operations are voluminous beyond what’s needed to reveal something similar to SRM is in full operation. XXXX wrote to me stating that its possible these operations are going on at 30-40K feet but he is not an expert in the field and doesn’t call it geoengineering. He calls it weather control. That’s an important acknowledgement to help dispel the hate that’s causing divisive issues among the encampments. Calling people who see a massive aerosol program being conducted in the skys above (other than normal jet contrails) and want to know more about what they’re seeing, dumbed-down and willfully ignorant is whats known as “earning the hate.”
Dane didn’t make this up. The public’s research on these programs started in the mid 90s. Anyway, you can see that this would make for an important discussion on air, when moderated properly and that when you say Dane has no evidence you would need to back it up with scientific data. Same with Dane.
This is what listeners want to hear. They don’t want to hear scientists insult them or bickering back and forth with activists.
Pandering to “what listeners want to hear” is the job of a corporation, not honest media. Sadly, there are few honest sources in the media. Rather, most media are now corporate entities.
Contrails are not chemtrails. Did you read the essay I sent? Did you follow the links?
I’m not interested in debating a non-scientific topic with somebody who slanders me. I’m a scientist. I will not stoop to discussing made-up fantasies with Dane or anybody else.
Yes I saw the article, no I didn’t look at all the links. I saw that you have a large group of people in the comment section who generally agree with your essay’s point. Its easy to criticize the fringe of the anti-geoengineering group. You don’t have any video evidence showing what people think are aircraft releasing aerosol (deliberately) are regular jet traffic releasing persistent jet trails because the atmosphere happens to be producing that effect. Instead there’s a mountain of video and photographic evidence showing layered (non-passenger) jet trails lasting in the skies for 6-9 hours, spreading out into a haze. This is fact intensive analysis that you all ignore and then call names or say its made up? What is going on?
I’m done here. You don’t even pursue the evidence I send you!
Is this from regular commercial jet traffic leaving condensation trails? What are your thoughts about this type of artificial cloud cover effecting photosynthesis, forest and agriculture health? You’re researching effected flora and fauna but choose to ignore this? You must see the disconnects here.
I removed the original link from Jeff’s message. It’s more nonsense from Wigington’s YouTube channel.
Please watch the ending of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Tell me the evil forces were spraying the skies in the 1950s.
I actually saw that recently and noticed the one line in the sky, which is understandable as an anomaly. What’s in that video I sent you ain’t no anomaly and by dismissing it as you’re doing is wrong for any scientist.
One line in the sky? Apparently he can filter out anything he doesn’t want to see.
As a scientist, I follow evidence. You follow evidence-free nonsense promoted by a liar. And you fail to realize there’s a difference.
I’m talking about video evidence Guy. Video evidence of the trail after trail after trail, expanding and layered to occlude the Sun. People expect scientists to look at that type of video evidence and say either, this is not normal because . . (provide scientific facts) or this is normal because (scientific facts) They don’t want to hear name calling and distracting content. People want to directly know what you think that is in that video. Its not that complicated.
Now I owe you something? You’ve taken my time. I’ve put up with your nonsense long enough. No more.
Oddly, he didn’t respond. What a pleasant surprise! Usually these chemtrail people are as rabid as evangelical vegans. (By the way, I have no problems with what you eat. I have a problem when you tell me what to eat, or otherwise how to live. Trust me, you’ve not made significant sacrifices, compared to me, on behalf the living planet.)
I doubt Jeff abandoned the conversation because he was convinced by the evidence. Many readers likely fall into that category, too.