Bill Gates backing plan to stop climate change by blocking out the sun

a reply to: IrateCanadian

I agree that they're not tards, but I think part of their actions could be due to knowing about the GSM coming. They can claim it was all their doing in an attempt to give the left wing party some credibility again, and they'll continue paying government science billions to write "peer reviewed" papers explaining how the party of the left took the time to fix AGW.

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with the analogy. We've been wanting a wall for decades. Every American supported it until Trump vowed to build it.

a reply to: Serdgiam

It would be great if efforts went into cleaner, more efficient energy before there was any need for such a stopgap measure.

I don't see that happening though do you?

The adage of it ain't broke don't fix it is being observed and these stopgap measures would be employed at the point when collectively the world agrees that it's broke. Some others are probably confident that some new technology will be developed in time to avoid any disaster such as fusion. There is another guy named Kasper Moth-Poulsen that has developed chemical nanotechnology that can store solar energy that is also promising.

I am just a guy that tries to keep informed on the overall picture and understand what they are all trying to do or are preparing for.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Yep. We (NW Louisiana) average around 95° this time of year. Last week or the week before, we had highs in the low 80's, yesterday we had a high of 105°. This weather has been far wonkier than I've ever seen it.

After reviewing the "plan", I had to ask myself;
"Wouldn't it just be safer and cheaper to nuc a Volcano?"
The same effect would occur, a smaller amount of lives would be lost, and the event would be more natural that why (and we all know how these clowns love all natural stuff).

a reply to: Grimpachi

Well.. Cleaner, more efficient energy is definitely a work in progress. Even just removing the risks associated with nuclear meltdowns is a massive step. It seems like things like that are not really of interest though, at least not to the high profile people. Maybe there is a reason for that?

And, there is the very serious concern that if we develop anything truly novel, its efficacy in energy production is proportional to its efficacy as a weapon.

But, there are so many other things we can do to address environmental concerns..

The problem is that I feel I DO see "measures" happening. Except, the ones coming from the demographics that would push them are all focused on either insane legislation or extreme proposals like Gates here.

Im not convinced that we are currently capable of really understanding what we are doing, but there are many, many aspects where that isnt applicable. Plastics, decentralized manufacturing and food supply chain, supplemental solar and wind.. There is an absolutely massive discussion there.

However, the type of folks that would drive those things into reality seem more concerned with converting everyone to the exact same beliefs, legislating that thought policing into government, or jumping right to extreme options. To have a meaningful impact, mass adoption is a necessity (imo).

Makes someone like me suspect there are ulterior motives. When thats coupled with things like agenda 21/30.. My trust levels are exceedingly low to non-existent.

Then again, I dont think anything I have to say on it really matters. These folks will do what they are gonna do whether I, or we, like it or not and they may not have our best interests at heart..

a reply to: Serdgiam

There are all kinds of clean renewable energy alternatives. Personally, I think solar and wind is not the answer because of how sporadic they are.

Nuclear, geothermal, OTEC are all stable energy suppliers, but they require a large upfront investment to start generating electricity and coal is cheap. So until we are forced to make those investments they will not happen because of simple greed.

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

He has already shown an interest (Gates Foundation) in sterilizing the African population without there consent through poisoned Vaccines as in these news articles, not fake news but some may be heavily biased so reader beware.

These are also used as propaganda by Anti Vaccination believers, my personal take is that Vaccination is often necessary but it should NEVER be compulsory, at heart the science behind vaccination is proven but it is also a medium as in these story's that can be used to illicitly deliver other substances to the person's receiving those vaccines and there are extremists in the world that have abused this to do just that and whom should have been put on trial for crime's against humanity.

www.sfaw.org...
healthimpactnews.com...
naturalsociety.com...
www.dailymail.co.uk...

So it really should come as no surprise that the Likes of Gates are willing to run roughshod over our ecology using the current climate crisis to justify an action that would LIMIT food growth by reducing the light to food crop's and potentially causing famine as a result.

There are far superior method's of limiting solar radiation such as for example placing polarized transparent membranes in space, these satellites would use ultra thin and light transparent membranes like a parasol around them once in orbit, these could then be used to block harmful wavelength's while allowing enough of the full spectrum to still pass through them so as to minimize light reduction in the natural photosynthetic spectrum that is necessary for plant's and of course food crop's (Let me clarify, they do not need to fill the entire sky just enough of them to reduce the total amount of light and diffusion through the atmosphere should allow the remaining light to reach the ground in a more or less even amount so I am not talking about filling the sky just speckling it enough with these light filtration satellites).

They could also use other methods such as spraying the surface of Glaciers that are currently retreating with non toxic, non polluting compound's to reduce glacial retreat and to partially regulate it as well as IF he was serious about the climate and the people's well being rather than simply his own ridiculous view of an ideal future buying up vast tracts of the rain forest to preserve it from the likes of scum like Bolsenaro and co, by the way his buddies the Rothschild's already OWN all the right's to the mineral's there and they are not doing anything to stop that despicable man that gained power in Brazil by falsely accusing there former moderate socialist and environmentalist leader of crimes he did not commit with a cabal backed by other GLOBAL right wing villain's that would see our world burn for there own ideological money minded agenda.


Fact, there is enough arable land in the world to sustain a population perhaps at least 20 time's greater than the current global population - Siberia, Argentina and indeed the US itself as well as with some proper irrigation put in place using water pump's, desalination plant's and artesian well's the potential to turn many of the world's current dust bowl's AND DESERTS back into productive territory's but they would rather spend the money on darkening the sky's? - were is the logic in that.

Hydropower sound's like a great example but in places like Ethiopia runaway Chinese money is putting vast tracts of arable land at risk by blocking rivers end ending annual flood's that naturally irrigate and fertilize those regions leaving them to become new dust bowl's.


Also remember this fact, Climate Change does happen naturally, 50.000 years ago the blink of an eye in geological term's African animals roamed much of southern Europe and African plant's and Savannah like condition's and weather cycles were the norm with an average far higher temperature in the region compared to today, it is just a part of the global cycle and we are technically still in a global cycle of ice ages, it was actually warmer than today just before the start of the last ice age.

Gate's could if he was a HUMANITARIAN invest in school's, better education is a far superior method of limiting population as give people job's, careers and professions and they tend to leave off having kid's till later in life, teaches them the importance of there ecology and gives them new horizon's.
He could invest in hydroponics's research which has the potential to increase crop production per hector by hundreds or even thousands of fold.
I could go on and on and on.

Spraying the atmosphere with chemical's should only ever be a very last resort and there may come a time when it is the only solution as the greedy rich will have dragged there feet too long until the smell of there tree burning tell's them that they had better put the fire out of else there own tree house is going to fall.

But until then we will be pissing into the wind trying to tell them fact's they already know but don't care about.

You know some estimates say that before the Conquistadors took south America despite the far larger population today that those old cultures produced perhaps at least as sixty percent MORE food than today, maybe there population was far larger than we have been led to believe as in fact the Lidar discovery of the ancient Mayan megalopolis would suggest.

So even there with no modern technology, just using there own ingenuity the native people's produced enough food to feed two or three or even ten time's the current south american population and if we extend that over the world even without Bayers/Monsanto's poison and get some of those un-corrupted native crop's back into production not the GM # they are forcing on people that requires there poisonous chemical's to blossom then we can still grow the world's population and with proper education we can do it in harmony with nature and F the scum that are profiting from the scare mongering and hatred of humanity.

The problem we have today is Plastics and that is about consumer based society and culture as well as the profit driven reticence to use biodegradable alternatives which is harming our planet far more than even climate change.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I think wind and solar are absolutely fantastic supplemental technologies, but not really replacements. As I said, Im also probably not thinking of them in the same terms as most. I believe these things can be adopted in a totally decentralized manner, with the manufacturing taking place very "locally."

Hell, I dont even have an issue with coal or fossil fuels in general. Rather than seeing problems with using them at all, I think it comes down to how efficiently we utilize it at the "user level." Which, certainly, is an aspect driven by greed.

Actually, the way I see it, there doesn't need to be much in the way of massive infrastructure change. We can yield the same results by moving the cost of adoption to the consumer level, on the products that we would be buying anyway. Sure, we can look at those big, centralized changes at some point though.

I guess when it comes down to it, Im not a fan of how the narrative has shaped the discussion in very, very narrow channels. Talkin bout wind? Well, youre talkin bout windfarms. Talkin bout efficient energy? Well, youre talkin bout removing gas, oil, and coal. Not saying you specifically (I appreciate your posts), just a generality.

Really though, I think we are on a very specific path with all this and I dont believe its a "good" one. Nothing I say matters one whit, and I know that.. Im just bitter for personal reasons and occasionally go on rants with the topic

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Gothmog

I was looking for an article about the GSM. It's funny because all scientists admit the GSM is coming, but then try to shut it down by saying it won't make much of a difference because of AGW. There's a video by Valentina Zharkova and she goes back over 12,000 years and her charts make total sense.

Her team's calculations match up with the timelines of the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715), Wolf minimum (1300–1350), Oort minimum (1000–1050), Homer minimum (800–900 BC); also the Medieval Warm Period (900–1200), the Roman Warm Period (400–150 BC) and so on with great accuracy.

When you have an hour to kill, here's her video.

25000 years ago , the CO2 in the atmosphere began to increase . At a certain point , figuratively speaking , the temperature dropped basically "overnight" . Plunged the US into a mini Ice Age that covered North America in 2 ft of ice down to Houston , Tx.
Strange thing was , there were no automobiles , coal fired power plants , and I would think a very small population.

Does this remind anyone else of when some geniuses in California decided to put a bunch of black balls in a lake to stop it from evaporating as quickly and it just made it evaporate even faster?

Don't # with the planet.

a reply to: face23785


First, the shade balls are used to stop microbial growth and second it has reduced water loss by 15%.

link

a reply to: Grimpachi

Still non ecologically friendly plastic in the water when they could have used something natural or based on natural materials like an artificial pumice instead of plastic ball's (natural pumice could potentially contain toxic compound's that would have reduced the potability of the water since it is volcanic biproduct but artificial pumice type materials have no need to contain any toxic compound's at all and if made of the right material could equally retard such growth and reduce water loss, in there defence at the time of this operation plastic pollution and microplastics had not yet reached current epidemic proportions in the world's ocean's yet there were those that were saying that it was going that way, so in short the use of plastic ball's was a bit short sighted but the principle is sound and work's as you point out quite correctly.

we wouldn't even have to deal with this if environmentalist's back in the 50's and 60's didn't conspire against nuclear power technology and enable the oil industry to expand unopposed, if we kept development on pace we'd probably have reactors that can't meltdown, micro reactors and nuclear batteries that fit in a cell phone and a fuel rod recycling system and who knows how clean the environment would've become and how many recessions and conflicts brought on over oil we could have avoided.

hopefully when fusion finally becomes available environmentalists don't mess that up too...

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: face23785


First, the shade balls are used to stop microbial growth and second it has reduced water loss by 15%.

link

I stand corrected. I misremembered the story. It's not that they cause more evaporation. It's that it takes more water to manufacture them than they save.

Either way, I think it's very short-sighted to try to fix one atmospheric pollution problem by introducing another pollutant.

This nerd needs to be blue-screened.

originally posted by: ShadowLink
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

You know what? No!

Let's just work on making electric cars available to everyone,

Where do you think that electricity comes from?

a reply to: face23785

Like the article says they have a 10-year lifecycle and are recyclable. From what I remember about the original problem is the water was too carcinogens without them. They may have a better solution now or might come up with one in the future, but for now, it seems to be a success.

As for the OP and using sulfates that volcanos spew out during an eruption that causes cooling isn't a solution. It is a bandaid that will give us time to address the real problem. If there is a point where they implement that method it weans things are already screwed. I'm talking about the doomsday scenario that they have a warning about has already come to fruition. If it comes to that there will not be anyone being labeled as deniers because they will be living in it. Gate, myself and probably you probably won't live long enough to see the day something like this is put into action. We won't see it, but our kids will. The guy is just saying it is a viable option if things come to pass.

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Oh wonderful!!!!
Let's create a faux volcanic eruption, and start global dimming.

See if we can cause some crop failures!

And these are supposed to be intelligent people??????



SMH

Exactly... life cycles of all animals and nature would get funked up and seasons would change

originally posted by: Guyfriday
After reviewing the "plan", I had to ask myself;
"Wouldn't it just be safer and cheaper to nuc a Volcano?"
The same effect would occur, a smaller amount of lives would be lost, and the event would be more natural that why (and we all know how these clowns love all natural stuff).

while i have never heard about them trying to nuke a volcano, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if they did try. after all they did at least plan to try to set one off in ww2. and they apparently even tried to redirect lava flow in Hawaii by dropping bombs. and with all the nuclear testing they did in the Pacific islands, it is quite possible they tried.