//No longer read your posts.

Talk to your kindred spirits on this forum.

I'm no longer interested."

WHY did you ask the question to only come back with that childish response?//

Really? You think that's a childish response?

So what does that make your response to people whose opinions you find distasteful?

//Rather than wasting time replying to a troll I have just coded a Toni Lavis filter for firefox v63.0.3.//

Bloody hypocrite.

This also should make the calculations of climate scientist wrong.

China and Russia Have Modified the Atmosphere Above Europe to Test Possible Military Application, Scientists Say.

Moscow and Beijing have reportedly joined forces to carry out heating experiments above Europe and modify an important layer of the atmosphere for a possible military application, according to Chinese scientists.

Five experiments were conducted in June, and one of them created a physical disturbance over an area as large as 49,000 square miles, or roughly half the size of Britain, The South China Morning Post reported Monday. The heating experiment, which took place 310 miles over the small Russian town of Vasilsursk in Eastern Europe, generated an electric spike that contained 10 times “more negatively charged subatomic particles than surrounding regions,” the publication noted.

In a separate experiment at the time, the temperature of thin, ionized gas in high altitude rose up to 212 F due to a particle flow. The electrons were pushed into the sky by an atmospheric heating facility in the Eastern European town, which was created by the former Soviet Union during the Cold War years. After the facility ignited a host of high-power antennas to introduce a considerable amount of microwaves into the high atmosphere—which reached 260 megawatts, the necessary amount of power to light a small city—the Chinese electromagnetic surveillance satellite named Zhangheng-1 gathered data with state-of-the-art sensors, the Post added.

The results were published in the latest edition of China’s journal Earth and Planetary Physics, in which the scientists hailed the results as “satisfactory.” However, other experts believed that such cooperation is rather unusual because “the technology involved is too sensitive,”

While some people may worry about man-made disturbances over our heads, other scientists underscored that the energy released into the ionosphere is not meant to trigger a cataclysmic event across the globe. “ “Whatever they do, it must not cause harm to the people living on this planet.”

** Like the above paragraph since when would the military be concerned about consequences **

Whole article.
http://www.newsweek.com/china-russia-modified-atmosphere-europe-military-application-1262349

Foxy, this is how you project yourself as a mature informed person?
By dismissing something by simply saying you've read ALL the stuff about the Rothschilds and I'm supposed to take your word that you know that it has 'all been debunked'.
By taking this path, you have made a serious error of judgement.
You're 'forever' preaching to us and shoving links in our faces, the few times you are asked to do the same, you cut and run.
You are displaying true to form lefty behaviour, by your 'holier than thou' superiority attitude you have just lowered your standing to that of an extreme lefty.
Shame on you, you will not be taken seriously here-after.
The least you could do is have a look at the site.
BTW there is NO way in hell that you know of any such material debunking these claims, if only because you don't have a clue what the claims are because by your own admission you have not seen the site I mention.
Never mind, other posters will have a look and at least they will be completely informed as opposed to yourself, which now I am beginning to think you've been bluffing this whole time.
Now that explains a lot.

Hey ALTRAV,
These could be interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/user/prepare333/search?query=rothschild

AC, I get that there is always at least one other view about 'everything', but it is sad when someone believes their view is the only or right one.
No-one knows the truth about anything, other than the people involved first hand, and so it is we rely on the best hypothesis on any given topic.
WE research to achieve this, and most times we are faced with conflicting reports or stories about the same topic.
We must be open to ALL possibilities and information, whether it is what you wanted to hear or not.
Most of all you must be open to change or accept that your view or agenda was not the correct one or totally correct one, and be prepared to accept the fact that you were wrong, insert the new findings and modify your stance accordingly, then move on.
This is not some childish competition as it appears some believe it is.
It is a forum.

Foxy,

This is beyond bizarre. I offer up a paper that suggests that oil is not a fossil fuel but a result of ongoing chemical reactions deep underground. Now this isn't a crack-pot theory. It’s been around for decades, is accepted by a very large number of scientists and is, it seems, the accepted theory in the Russia oil industry (which is one of the top three in the world).

But without bothering to read the paper or consider the theory or its implications, you just reject it out-right and consider that I need to be appraised of the current theory than oil is made up of dead dinosaurs.

Now it’s all very well to reject this or that theory, but to do so because it says something you'd prefer wasn't true, is utterly anti-science.

Yet in the very next breathe you preen yourself on how you follow the science and denounce those who don't agree with you about the science as deniers of science. Would you consider yourself a fossil fuel denier? You talk of Galileo and, I'm sure, imagine you would have been on his side. But here you are treating a theory that challenges the accepted notions as though it’s beyond contemplation. Sorry but you're closer to the Vatican than to Galileo.

But we see this with so many of those people who think of themselves as following the science when what they are really doing is following the politics and pretending that they do so because of the science.

Yet when I offer up a few papers that completely reject the so-called consensus, they don't even bother to ponder those papers or in any way address that issue. They simply ignore that science. When I point out that there is good science that the earth's been warmer than now for 3000 of the past 12000 years, do they ponder that or attempt to see how that affects their beliefs. No they ignore the data and carry on as though it doesn't exist and then proclaim their virtue in following the science while doing the opposite.
/cont