https://climatecrocks.com/2017/12/06/no-chemtrails-are-not-a-thing-dr-katharine-hayhoe/
IS it just my imagination or does Katherine Hayhoe resemble Flo the spokeswoman for Progressive Insurance? See: https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2014/11/10/watch-progressives-100th-ad-with-flo
A little critical thinking may be needed to interpret this cozy, happy benign video presentation. Though it sounds more like kindergarten than science, nonetheless Ms. Katherine is a sweet person I am sure, however naive in her view of climate management. Moreover there are several giveaways which underline the masterfully sophistic rhetorical tricks and flourishes which shield the lie.
In fact these climate scientists such as David Keith all present their case in the same manner---I attended a climate science event at Penn State's State Theatre---it was highly choreographed---an example of rigorously multi-tiered propaganda seen in the former Soviet Union and in the Vatican. AT any rate, each of these chemtrail debunking videos begins with an outright denial of a government program to harm US citizenry with this secret chemtrail program. Indeed, I can agree with this assertion, but it is a forked conclusion---Katherine Hayhoe has not denied that there is and will be a global spraying program, using 'contrails'. Now think! The chemtrails that she denies are presented as a future good idea---risky but prudently necessary. This is David Keith's presentation style to the tee.
A contrail that sprays chemicals is a form of SRM (solar radiation management)---this she admits and indeed it is, she also admits that it is a specific addition of varying chemical dusts (to mimic the atmosphere of a volcano (Sulfuric Acid) to airplane contrails---and this is a prudent form of geoengineering. She fails to mention that these are indeed by definition identical to the program of chemtrails which she denies saying that it is not a thing.
So, here you have two trivial 'truths': a) chemtrails is not a thing-which is granted easily---no, it is a program that manages the solar radiation through strategic aerosol spraying in ordinary jet contrails. and b)there is no grand spraying project to harm human life. Both of these statements are trivially true. The second moreover would require that a full-scale study were executed to test the safeness or validity of this said approach to managing the climate via spraying. In other words in Ms. Hathoe's view or in Professor Keith's view their intention is good. They have already accepted the unwarranted conclusion that global warming imposes an unprecedented threat to all life systems on earth and that therefore a Mephistophelean compromise may be necessary in the form of spraying engineering (chemtrails- though they refuse the word 'chemtrail'---I might remind them that a rose by any other name is still a rose. OK don't call it chemtrails---call it a type of SRM, call it Strategic Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SSAI) call is SNAFU for all I care.
Katherine Hayhoe's naivete is that she makes the same presentation I have analyzed and interpreted here, and yet she fails to see that my critical thinking blows her presentation out of the water. How does a nice, intelligent, woman who purports to be a christian, come to present such sophistic rhetoric in defense of what she admits is coming? Does her view of being a follower of Christ entail the serious interpretation of end times signs?
There is another interpretation: the diabolic works in precisely this manner---there is one charismatic presenter (such as D. Keith) who may be under his own, or under someone yet more dominant spiritually. It is as if he is hypnotized, just as Katherine here.
IS it just my imagination or does Katherine Hayhoe resemble Flo the spokeswoman for Progressive Insurance? See: https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2014/11/10/watch-progressives-100th-ad-with-flo
A little critical thinking may be needed to interpret this cozy, happy benign video presentation. Though it sounds more like kindergarten than science, nonetheless Ms. Katherine is a sweet person I am sure, however naive in her view of climate management. Moreover there are several giveaways which underline the masterfully sophistic rhetorical tricks and flourishes which shield the lie.
In fact these climate scientists such as David Keith all present their case in the same manner---I attended a climate science event at Penn State's State Theatre---it was highly choreographed---an example of rigorously multi-tiered propaganda seen in the former Soviet Union and in the Vatican. AT any rate, each of these chemtrail debunking videos begins with an outright denial of a government program to harm US citizenry with this secret chemtrail program. Indeed, I can agree with this assertion, but it is a forked conclusion---Katherine Hayhoe has not denied that there is and will be a global spraying program, using 'contrails'. Now think! The chemtrails that she denies are presented as a future good idea---risky but prudently necessary. This is David Keith's presentation style to the tee.
A contrail that sprays chemicals is a form of SRM (solar radiation management)---this she admits and indeed it is, she also admits that it is a specific addition of varying chemical dusts (to mimic the atmosphere of a volcano (Sulfuric Acid) to airplane contrails---and this is a prudent form of geoengineering. She fails to mention that these are indeed by definition identical to the program of chemtrails which she denies saying that it is not a thing.
So, here you have two trivial 'truths': a) chemtrails is not a thing-which is granted easily---no, it is a program that manages the solar radiation through strategic aerosol spraying in ordinary jet contrails. and b)there is no grand spraying project to harm human life. Both of these statements are trivially true. The second moreover would require that a full-scale study were executed to test the safeness or validity of this said approach to managing the climate via spraying. In other words in Ms. Hathoe's view or in Professor Keith's view their intention is good. They have already accepted the unwarranted conclusion that global warming imposes an unprecedented threat to all life systems on earth and that therefore a Mephistophelean compromise may be necessary in the form of spraying engineering (chemtrails- though they refuse the word 'chemtrail'---I might remind them that a rose by any other name is still a rose. OK don't call it chemtrails---call it a type of SRM, call it Strategic Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SSAI) call is SNAFU for all I care.
Katherine Hayhoe's naivete is that she makes the same presentation I have analyzed and interpreted here, and yet she fails to see that my critical thinking blows her presentation out of the water. How does a nice, intelligent, woman who purports to be a christian, come to present such sophistic rhetoric in defense of what she admits is coming? Does her view of being a follower of Christ entail the serious interpretation of end times signs?
There is another interpretation: the diabolic works in precisely this manner---there is one charismatic presenter (such as D. Keith) who may be under his own, or under someone yet more dominant spiritually. It is as if he is hypnotized, just as Katherine here.
No comments:
Post a Comment