I listened to and watched some of the live video on youtube – Thoughts on the “Extinction Rebellion” and the Mainstream Media.
I think you and the panel covered a range of relevant topics that need to be widely heard and I was also interested in those in the comment section asking for the inclusion of geoengineering in the discussion. I thought your response to geoengineering was also very important. I’ve had on guests who ask to include the topic of geoengineering in context of climate change and expound in that direction.
Among the guests are Jerry Smith, Rosalind Peterson, Bridget Conroy, Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri (all who have passed away).
The listenership on __________ is knowledgeable on the topics of
climate change caused by man but also in how geoengineering and weather control technology have been effecting climate off the radar so to speak. ____________ reaches a decent sized audience now, and the show is also picked up 10 affiliate radio stations most of them are on the ____ coast. I think your viewpoints on geoengineering would make a very interesting live discussion with ____________.
I would moderate this discussion to guarantee there is no marginalizing of either voice. Each of you would be able to fully express your points of view in a civil, open and respectful environment on the airwaves in the ____________ radio market.
It can be scheduled live for ____________. Please let me
know if you’re ready to reach a progressive ____________ radio
listenership with your viewpoints.
Sorry, I won’t go on the air with ____________. Or flat-Earthers. Or people promoting aliens coming to save us. These phenomena are all in the same, evidence-free category.
There is no way I’ll tarnish my reputation with conversations about nonsense. I will chat with you about abrupt climate change and its actual causes.
That’s ok no need to apologize and I want to make sure you know what’s going because there will be no mention of flat Earth or aliens coming to save humans. Those topics will not be discussed. However, you’re conflating those topics with weather control and geoengineering in the sense that its a hoax? Its kind of funny but you know that in a professional environment you would need to provide facts to show this to be true.
This will be a conversation about your work and research on abrupt climate change and actual causes.
You will have the air time to extrapolate your position and so will ____________.
There will be no name calling, no profanity, no personal attacks, only a civil discourse and exchange of information.
You will not tarnish your reputation, in fact just the opposite.
Your listeners would be very interested in your participation and that you have the fortitude and conviction to discuss and defend your viewpoints in public.
In addition, you will have the opportunity to call ____________ out on the air. If you don’t like how the discussion-debate is going, you can hang up at any time.
Take some time today and consider what it would take for you to prepare for this (approx live 55 minute discussion) and we could schedule a date.
Not one refereed journal article discusses data underlying chemtrails/geoengineering. The burden is not on me to disprove nonsense for which no evidence exists.
No, thanks. I’m scheduled to not be sick that day.
Evidence does exist. In fact this what the discussion would be about. You say . . . show me the evidence. ____________ says here and here. You respond, that’s evidence etc, that’s not evidence etc.
Let the listeners decide. This would be a civil discussion but if you want to engage in name calling you can, but I assure you I don’t do that on the air and neither does ____________. If you’re going to be speaking about no evidence then the burden is on you for making a claim that evidence doesn’t exist.
Show me a published paper in the refereed journal literature with data. Everything else is arm-waving and imploring to look up in the sky. This is known as non-science, aka nonsense.
You and ____________ refuse to look at the published critiques of ____________’s “work.” I’ll not discuss snake oil on the air.
Again, there is no burden on me with respect to “chemtrails,” “weaponized weather,” flat Earth, or any other made-up crap. I don’t believe in Santa Claus, unicorns, or gods. I’m not interested in paranormal phenomena. As a result, I’ll not sacrifice my integrity by discussing these fairy tales.
I’ll provide to you what I conceive as evidence and understand that to disregard something as false because it hasn’t been published in a refereed journal doesn’t make it not true. You must know the limitations of this and the definition of scientism. Please send me some key critiques of ____________’s work so I can address the points made. I do agree if you’re in a public space claiming there’s no evidence then considering the gravity of the topic and claim, you must show how you are certain of that.
Please prove to me that gods do not exist
this isn’t an ontological discussion, and trying to draw parallels in logic isn’t productive, its a diversion. You like to say things such as Santa Claus, snake oil, ufos, aliens, chemtrails, flat Earth, crap, etc. So far you’re not able to simply address the topic of geoengineering in this email exchange without ridicule and distraction.
Would you include the below links in the “crap” category?
Both links address FUTURE geoengineering. You and ____________ believe, without evidence, there is ONGOING geoengineering. Perhaps you see the discrepancy. Maybe not.
this is the reason for the public discussion, to air out the discrepancy. In my opinion, the evidence exists, same with ____________. Listeners want to know why you think the way you do, and why ____________ thinks the way he does. This is what radio is supposed to be about.
Radio has become just another way to slander me. I’m really, really not interested in more of that. And given your willingness to accept ____________’s nonsense as evidence, I’m pretty sure that’s the direction this conversation would go.
No, thanks. Let me know when you’re interested in an evidence-based conversation.
here’s more evidence, from last month, why don’t you talk about this?
“We lay out a future solar geoengineering deployment scenario …”
“we conclude that no existing aircraft design—even with extensive modifications—can reasonably fulfill this mission”
Why don’t I talk about this? Because I can distinguish the proposed future from the actual past. Can you?
Now its ok to believe everything you read? Unless or until some controlled institution says it’s real, its filed in the category of ufos and flat Earth?
I’m sure you weren’t brought up in this world to be that naive.
That’s your conclusion? That all sources have identical integrity? That ____________’s opinions are equivalent to the refereed journal literature?
No, really: I’m done. Please do not contact me about evidence-free topics. I’ll be glad to speak with you, on the air, about topics for which evidence exists.