Thread: What are chemtrails for?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Sorry pseudopuss, some of us actually sleep at night rather than worrying about all your little whackjob conspiracy theories.

You're an idiot.

he's not an idiot... he thinks hes got an IQ of 156 no less

unfortunately a high IQ does not protect you from being a fool and ignorant which I believe were the words you were looking for.

Originally Posted by hazz

fortunately a high IQ does protect you from being a fool and ignorant which I believe were the words you were looking for.
[at] [at]

"Fool" and "ignorant" are antonyms for intelligence. Therefore, I corrected your post.

An intelligence quotient or IQ is a score derived from a set of standardised tests developed to measure a person's cognitive abilities or 'intelligence' in relation to their age group. IQ tests do not measure intelligence the way a ruler measures height , but rather the way a race measures speed.

People with high IQs really DO see the world differently: Researchers find they process sensory information differently | Daily Mail Online

a high IQ does not stop you from being uninformed
a high IQ does not stop you from demonstrating a lack of judgment, sense, or understanding.

Mr Baimbridge of mensa being such an example, as is the reverend psudo whatever his IQ might be

Greenpeace?s view on ?Chemtrails? | Greenpeace UK

Geoengineering – Geoengineering is the science of deliberately altering the global climate and is currently almost entirely theoretical. All geoengineering techniques are regarded as potentially hazardous, as they can only work by having very large impacts on how our atmosphere functions, with the possible risks being equally large. There are many different techniques proposed, some of which could include aircraft emitting substances to block sunlight from reaching the earth. The very few techniques which have had some limited, localised testing do not utilise aircraft. If the chemtrail conspiracy is real, then it is not a geoengineering project, as it has had no discernible impact on the climate.

Here is the 6 o'clock News.

dong

Greenpeace confirm that geoengineering, also known as chemtrails by fools trying to ridicule others warning about this exceedingly dangerous activity, is actually happening when they do not say "completely theoretical" and instead say "almost entirely theoretical".

dong

almost entirely theoretical.

dong

almost entirely theoretical.

dong

almost entirely theoretical.

dong

almost entirely theoretical.

dong

Originally Posted by Takeovers

They would oppose any solution

geoengineering is not a solution though. No matter what they chuck up there in their belief that they are god and can do what they like, it all comes down again either as acid rain (yeah nice) or metal. Also, it is false science (fraud) because it would block heat in rather than reflect it. Funny that - spraying all this shit in the air is increasing the global temperature a little, which in turn, gives them the "evidence" to push for chucking this stuff in the air.

Oh, and there are no laws banning private firms or individuals from spraying what ever the hell they like in the air.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Oh, and there are no laws banning private firms or individuals from spraying what ever the hell they like in the air.

I very much doubt that is true.

Nope, never heard of the bloke.

And I still very much doubt it's true. In fact I'm convinced it's not.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Nope, never heard of the bloke.

And I still very much doubt it's true. In fact I'm convinced it's not.

Well a legal genius would only take a second to find a law that would indeed make geoengineering (dumping tonnes of metals into the atmosphere) illegal.

Here's the thing - to make it illegal is tactic acknowledgement that someone is doing it. After all, why make it illegal if no one is doing it. Same as the international convention about weather modification as a weapon... the fact that there was a convention shows that countries were indeed using weather modification as a weapon, and likely still are because lets face it, countries do not give a fook about things like this.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Well a legal genius would only take a second to find a law that would indeed make geoengineering (dumping tonnes of metals into the aatmosphere) illegal.

Actually the genius is in how you perform the stunning leap of logic gymnastics from stating that it's not illegal to spray 'whatever the hell you like' in the air to this being specifically related to proof that geoengineering metals are being sprayed in the air by concluding that an absence of the negative does indeed prove the positive.

It's like saying that there are no laws against keeping dragons in your bedroom because making the keeping of dragons in your bedroom illegal is acknowledgment that dragons exist and are being kept secretly in bedrooms.

Fascinating. Maybe I can't understand the thought process because I don't have a genius-level IQ.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Actually the genius is in how you perform the stunning leap of logic gymnastics from stating that it's not illegal to spray 'whatever the hell you like' in the air to this being specifically related to proof that geoengineering metals are being sprayed in the air by concluding that an absence of the negative does indeed prove the positive.

Greenpeace say that this is indeed happening.... did you miss the above?

Anyway, how can I possibly prove that there are no laws preventing it? Do you want me to go through and post up every law in the world and then after you have read it, you can say "well, you just didn't post up the one that prevents it".

You're better than this - if there is a law then present it. There isn't, so save yourself the time (although i dare say you have NEVER investigated anything yourself so you wouldn't start now) and trust me as I am always right - There are no laws saying that private companies and people can not dump metals into the atmosphere, which is exactly what they are doing. None. If you think I am wrong, show us them, and I will apologize for this single out of character aberration from me in putting something up that isn't true.

Ah, so it's beyond you to do the actual work to prove what you said is correct but you expect me to and in either case you'll use the absence of the negative to prove the positive.

According to you all else being equal (access to a plane, license etc.) I could spray arsenic mixed with poo and wee all over London just because and that wouldn't be illegal.

Incidentally, is it illegal to have sex with yetis?

Err I'm asking for a friend.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Incidentally, is it illegal to have sex with yetis?

With your consent, why not?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Incidentally, is it illegal to have sex with yetis?

Well it is interesting you point this out, because as far as I can tell, not specifically, but it would be covered under laws against molesting animals (FLAKE, put your cock away). However, not specifically because, well, there is no proof Yetis exist. Now, if there was a specific law saying "Don't fook Yetis" you can be damn sure that nbot only do yeti's exist, but also that people have been caught fucking them.

Now, weather warfare, the US has been caught doing this, so they made a law against it which they ignore. The powers that shouldn't be though learnt a lesson from this, so no law against geoengineering and spraying metal into the air. To have a law admits it's being done, but to not have one allows fools to believe it is not being done, despite the fact that Greenpeace says it is.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

although i dare say you have NEVER investigated anything yourself

I just investigated a post of yours in another thread and found this:

PLay the ball, not the player.

I then investigated the meaning of the word "hypocrite".

For a self-declared genius who claims he is never wrong you're actually wrong a lot of the time.

You've never shown me to be wrong yet, sunshine. Just because you chuck a load of abuse at me does not me you have shown me to be wrong. I posted a thread recently to teach you trendy wendy's how to debunk properly something, but alas none of you are paying attention to it except for your best friend harrythetwat who as usual didn't read the whole OP and posted his typical "blahhhh blahh twat tin foil twat blahhhh" bullshit (I assume - that fool is blooked again).

So come on - try and refute something I have written. I yearn to be shown I am wrong. I truly hope I am. But alas, being called a tin foil loon does not mean I am wrong. Proof. Evidence. Give it a try.

Maybe you need to investigate the meaning of the word "hypocrite".

And I've already proven you wrong: you said that I've never investigated anything, that's simply not correct.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

And I've already proven you wrong: you said that I've never investigated anything, that's simply not correct.

Ahh yes. Well I apologise and I take it all back,. You have thoroughly investigated the word hypocrite, and no doubt found that for you ever to say that something is an "ad hominem", straw man or logical fallacy again is a supreme act of hypocrisy from you because this is all you ever do.

Anyway, you go and play these games with SMEG - or discuss the topic in hand. I'll just wait for Snubb to arrive and call me a tin foil nut case, which he does when he is, like you, unable to actually refute anything I write.

Goodo. So when you said that you are never wrong you were in fact wrong in saying that also. You're also wrong about what I found during my investigation of the word "hypocrite" and in stating and assuming that's the only thing that I have ever investigated.

See, wrong a lot.

You were wrong again though. You did not investigate it, you based your judgement based upon an assumed understanding of the word hypocrite and applied it erroneously.

Anyway, as I said in another thread, go and play with Smeg or get on topic with the thread. Fairly simple enough - you are no in jail limited to the dog house threads now, and there is an emphasis that your comments should at least address a topic rather than floating around building straw men. Toodle pip, squeaky.

Whiny hypocrite.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Whiny hypocrite.

Yeah, but he's still an idiot.

He's definitely not as smart as he keeps saying he is.

Perhaps he made a mistake with his IQ and neglected a decimal point: 15.6