Lloyd wrote: * Dave, you may have missed it, but chemtrails was brought up only because a 1992 government report suggested that aerosol spraying [chemtrails] would supposedly be needed to mitigate global warming. And the rest was added only to show that governments do things in secret, possibly including aerosol spraying as the report recommended.
My italics and highlighting - DS
Lloyd I suggest you take a closer look at the government report you are referencing. Nowhere in the section on mitigation, specifically geoengineering, was it suggested that aerosol spraying would be NEEDED to mitigate global warming. Nor did it have anything about [chemtrails].
The report was commissioned (in part) to assess possible options for mitigation of "global warming" for their feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and possible adverse side-effects. Stern warnings were given that much more study would need to ensue to even consider any of the proposals, a good number of which were outright rejected on low feasibility/low cost-effectiveness/possible adverse effects grounds.
That governments do things in secret is no secret. But citing this government report (essentially a feasibility study) as evidence that the whole chemtrail issue has a sound scientific basis is drawing too long a bow. Furthermore, to state or even suggest that this report recommended aerosol spraying is quite simply wrong. As such, whilst the chemtrail issue may well be "interesting" it is not a suitable topic for discussion on the upper EU boards.
Dave Smith. Forum Administrator.
Lloyd
Re: Global Warming / Climategate
* Dave S. said:
whilst the chemtrail issue may well be "interesting" it is not a suitable topic for discussion on the upper EU boards.
* Does that mean this thread, Global Warming / Climategate, isn't suitable for the upper boards?
