Let me gloss over the backhanded remarks.
Try and get this point:
There's a little boy who lives in a little house with a little porch porch area in a very cold country. The ice man comes to make the little boy a skate rink. In between layers of cold water, that freezes in about 20 minutes, he makes a layer of kitchen paper towel. Ok kids, try this one at home: wet a piece of kitchen paper towel. What happens? That's right, it goes damn near see through. Right? Ok. Same stuff here. But the ice man says it's important. He says it will make the ice rink last a LOT longer. He's talking about avoiding a loss of maybe up to 2 degrees and that is enough to keep the little boy going round in circles on his skates. (ok, it's minus15degC and this is a true story, if you wondered)
Ok, quick review: Sun spits out lots of heat (uv radiation amongst others). Fat lazy bastard sitting on beach applies sunscreen. Aforementioned F.L.B. after several hours is still Fat and Lazy but the Bastard ain't burnt! Why not?
Sunscreen. (just like) 2 degrees.. get it?
How about a fluffy white, man-made induced, opaque layer of something that floats in the sky long enough to act like sunscreen? Would that be of benefit? Could that be of benefit? I'm convinced though that some pricks that oughta have been burnt have missed the point.
Let's spin it around the other way. What if we looked at this from another viewpoint.
What if the American people (those most affected by delusional paranoid affective disorders, disproportionally so in comparison to the rest of the world Ref: my unmitigated attempt to throw distracting arguments around a sensible point some may consider worthy of mention) actually realised they'd come up with a unique, cost effective method for spraying chemicals in the air that are highly effective at reflecting up to 20% (actual figure quoted for some researched compositions) of the sunlight for a period of 4 hours with a half hour lead time to get them in place.
Hmm.... just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not watching you.
So, while you might argue that messing with the weather is not recommended - er, this has been going on quite a while now - we've had a hundred years or so to ramp up the CO2 levels, not to mention anything more technical like methane, for example.
And we know how much sense it makes to treat a 'mental patient' with a causative - no wait that's the effective - chemical imbalance, with more chemicals to even things out - it makes perfect illogical sense to treat the sky for one chemical imbalance problem with another chemical. Right?
The American Goverment recommends this type of treatment for it's citizens - r.e. the PMA. It stands to reason that those same people authorising these types of treatments would also seek to modify the air in the sky. Does it not?
Note: if you have to mention the C word in your reply go right ahead, just don't call me a conspira..... thingo.
So, when you watched the weather engineering symposium, what conclusions did you draw personally on your feelings towards the potential for using what some people are afraid are already being used - re chemtrails saga - and how do you feel about the fact that in a short space of time it appears apparent that an American government agency is the one responsible for spraying Aluminium something or other into the sky for the specific purpose of reflecting sunlight to vary local surface temperatures?
Or is that just bunk?
