In Other News May 7, 2018

 

We hear the second hour of the April 26, 2018 geoengineering debate with Dane Wigington and Professor Paul Beckwith. This is also the second debate with Professor Beckwith. As you will hear in this one hour, the discussion breaks down as Professor Beckwith refuses to directly respond to specific inquiry.

Here are the youtube versions on Dane Wigington’s channel if you want to check out comments, such as the one posted below.

Dane-ProfPaulBeckwith
Dane-ProfDougMacMartin
Dane-Patrick Wood
Dane-ProfPaulBeckwith 2

In the second hour, Professor Paul Beckwith returns for round two. Professor Paul Beckwith explores the data showing rapidly changing weather patterns. Beckwith said he would look in to Dane’s research on real time climate engineering indicating that ongoing geoengineering programs are a major causal factor related to the accelerating climate disasters and disruptions.

Professor Beckwith is a physicist and engineer. He’s a part-time professor at the University of Ottawa, laboratory of paleoclimatology and is in a Ph.D. program, with a focus on Abrupt Climate System Change and is also at Carlton University, department of Geography and Environmental studies.

Dane Wigington has a background in solar energy and forestry, he’s a former employee of Bechtel Power Corp and is the lead researcher for Geoengineerwatch.org. Dane focuses on the climate engineering issue and claims available evidence indicates geoengineering has been fully deployed for decades with catastrophic effects. Dane welcome back to the second live geoengineering discussion.

What is climate engineering or geoengineering, some define it as the deliberate modification of a planet’s environment by the addition or subtraction of a resource or energy input on a massive scale. Proposed geoengineering projects on Earth, often introduced as a means of combating climate change , have included space mirrors, aluminum or sulfur-spraying in the stratosphere, and oceanic carbon sequestration.

 

From youtube video of second debate with Paul Beckwith:

———

I will not unsubscribe to Paul’s channel, but I no longer donate. (Of course I donate to geoengineeringwatch.org) Paul’s time and effort that he has put into his tutorial videos are still VERY valuable. Yes, it’s unfortunate, he practically refuses to take into consideration the climate engineering realities, specifically solar radiation management (SRM) and its “proposed” practices. But, cmon, his videos are not full of lies. There’s a lot of validity to them. His scientific observations and researching efforts are genuine. He cares about peoples understanding of the natural world, and in essence for life on planet earth. He speaks passionately about an ice free Arctic within 2 years, if not sooner. So, I will not discredit his videos. For instance, the feedback loops in the Arctic videos are still worthy of sharing for anyone who wants to learn (more) about the processes behind them. Anyone Ive shared those videos with are grateful for the share… So, I now ask you all, more so, I ask Mr. Beckwith, if you refuse to read or view what you disagree with how can you gain deeper insights into your own convictions? What we (all need) want is to show Paul the light. And allow him to come to conclusions on his own. That won’t happen if we shun him for not seeing it yet… Key word, YET. I BELIEVE he will come around. I believe everyone will. Fingers crossed. Toes too! But, positivity is the way to lead. Bullying someone into believing your (our) ways is not conducive in changing someone’s mind. It makes them more prone to denying the facts, thus getting further away from seeing the light. Anyway, either way, we shouldn’t be insulting him for his efforts in an attempt at a SECOND debate with Dane. Yes, indeed Paul failed again at disproving Danes theoretical research. Dane makes him look a fool. And that probably makes him angry. But, that’s human nature. Dane aggravates, in my opinion, EVERYONE he debates. Not because he wants to though. Dane is just amazing that way because he is so diligent in his efforts in finding the truth and then by the sharing of it. So, let’s give credit where credit is due, and say it is definitely ballsy of PAUL to willingly engage in another debate. That’s not necessarily a compliment, but it’s not an insult either. So, for the love of all things good, could you, Paul, at least look at some of the RESEARCH and information provided on Geoengineeringwatch.org? Pleaseeeee, Paul….that’s all I and really anyone, can ask of you. Dane provides that information and research so individuals don’t have to spend the years of time, mental energy, or physical effort he has in order to find the information themselves. And I thank him from the bottom of my heart for doing so. Since this information is being strategically hidden from us through distraction and gag orders. Dane asks/tells, everyone not to believe him, and to do their own research, but he helpfully provides what he has found already to anyone who wants to view it. This is not a malicious attempt to misguide people, but a sincere way of letting any and everyone see what he’s already found and seen for himself. So, again, I beg you, Paul, at least challenge your own convictions. If you insist on having biased opinions towards one thing, versus another, well for crying out loud, don’t let yourself become ignorant because of your bias. Naivety is one thing, ignorance is another. Since, neither are traits one wants to be characterized by, lets agree that ignorance is far worse. Ignorance is bliss.. Why? Because ignorance is due to an observation(s) being denied, consciously, of critical/logical thought processes. Naivety is an unconscious DELAY in critical/logical thought process because of a LACK in understanding of the observation(s).
By |2018-05-12T17:12:01+00:00May 7th, 2018|Comments Off on In Other News May 7, 2018