The Evidence – preface
In most normal situations people tend to listen, weigh up the evidence, think a little and make their mind up based on what evidence they have been presented with, or what they have heard from assorted sources. The subject of Climate Engineering, however, seems to be a very different beast. We are certainly dealing very much with the extraordinary, both in terms of subject matter, but also in terms of the way people view the topic, react to it when first becoming aware of it, react to evidence presented to them, and how they deal with that information internally and externally.
We presented an article in the first section of this website titled Coping With The Knowledge which deals partly with this, but here we try to delve deeper into the arguments for and against, and ponder why some people have such difficulty dealing with this subject objectively, and why they seem unable to stop themselves reacting subjectively to it, and any evidence presented to them.
One would assume there would be a limit to the amount of times the average person, assuming a reasonable level of intelligence, and discounting people who are generally susceptible to alternative nonsense, could justifiably resort to statements such as “it’s probably just…”, or “oh, that just this or that”, or “don’t be silly, I’m sure they have always been there”, or “come on, they wouldn’t do that”. We will stop there but you get what we are saying. Certain types of people seem unable to address this issue at all, and totally incapable of dealing with anything pointed out to them sensibly or rationally. Many otherwise intelligent, rational, and even scientifically minded people fall victim to this phenomena, which we have named IDS. No, not Ian Duncan Smith, but Irrational Defense Syndrome. Despite being presented with very clear and incontrovertible evidence, they are incapable of accepting, or even considering, that anything such as this could be happening and so their brain automatically discounts or ignores clear information in favour of irrational denial. It is very similar to a normal person discussing the existence of God with a religious fanatic. The religious fanatic has either been conditioned by others to believe unconditionally in ‘The God’, or has conditioned themselves to the same effect. What we see in the general population is a mixture of both of these, leaning more toward the former, and with a large dose of visual and verbal conditioning from the media thrown in to cement it all.
So anyhow, enough psychological postulating, let’s get down to the nitty-gritty shall we. We figured the best way to present this was in individual sections or pages, each dealing with a particular aspect of the evidence available to us. For any discussion to be valid, it is generally accepted that both sides of the argument be presented equally, especially when dealing with scientific or technical information. Failure to adopt this approach could invite criticism and claims of propaganda, so to address this we will also make another page title antabuse with no prescription For And Against which will be published soon. IN general articles are presented in a format that represents our opinion based on the amount of evidence we have in that particular area. This is not a scientific site, it is an investigative site.
Hopefully when these pages are finally complete and you have considered all the evidence presented, and also read the http://charlessturge.com/gallery/kota-mama-expedition/ For And Against page, you will be able to break free from your uncontrollable urge to ignore the facts presented to you and make a rational and independent decision based on real-world evidence, rather than the myriad of subconscious nudging and conditioning that you have unwittingly been exposed to.
At risk of seeming flippant and patronising, we think this little clip, taken from a superb film from the 1970s, sums up rather beautifully our situation right now… oh, you are the boy and we are the dog, just in case you didn’t get it 😉 !
The Look Up Team