It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK govt Minister '' Danger researching Plan B'' Geo-engineering (chemtrails?)

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
March 18th 2010 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
The Regulation of Geoengineering

Former UK climate and energy minister Joan Ruddock states in this UK govt PDF File

'there is a danger in adopting Plan B - that is research into geo-engineering

This is a lengthy PDF file, yet it will no doubt be highly informative to some experts at ATS

www.publications.parliament.uk...




posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by deprogrammer
 


last link failed... try this new link and on page 21 of the PDF is the Labour ministers quote:

www.publications.parliament.uk...



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by deprogrammer
 


Link doesn't work

.....



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
First, here's the link I used:
Source
NOTE: The page number references to the page of the .pdf, not the actual document.
The quote the OP is referring to is found on page 23. It is part of this statement:



Indeed, she saw a danger in adopting Plan B (that is, research into geoengineering), if that were even feasible, which I would question, but the danger in adopting a Plan B is that you do not apply yourself to Plan A, and the point of Plan A is it is all entirely do-able.


She is talking about research, not implementation. She even questions any "Plan B" actually working. The report mentions many different types of geo-engineering, of which anything atmospheric is a part. Read the entire document to understand the differences.

In other words, the Plan A, which is working to reduce emissions and is ongoing now, will work, and we should be promoting those activities. Any Plan B should be researched, but not implemented without some form of global regulation, but she doubts any of the plans discussed would work.
Not an admission of "chemtrails", or even anything like "chemtrails". It's a call for the world to work on the problems together, from the first research and discovery through planning and implementation.
It's the correct, conservative thing to do about a global phenomenon.

And for the red herring "chemtrailers" who think that "chemtrails" agenda is geoengineering and who keep bringing the act of cloud seeding into the discussion, cloud seeding is acknowledged but is not considered geoengineering. Behold, the experts conclusion:



We conclude that weather techniques such as cloud seeding should not be included within the definition of geoengineering used for the purposes of activities designed to effect a change in the global climate with the aim
of minimising or reversing anthropogenic climate change.


This is found on page 18.

Interesting note on this thread: I am the fourth poster. The OP's links do not work, so no one can actually look at what he is referring to. This thread already has three stars. Why?
edit on 23-1-2011 by stars15k because: question needed asked.

edit on 23-1-2011 by stars15k because: typo



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 

Very good find,..it's clearly shows that chemtrails are not fantasy.I can't wait to show this to my friend who arguing with me about this last 6 years.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint
 


Actually, the opposite! It shows that there is not geoengineering by "chemtrails", doesn't mention "chemtrails" or contrails at all.
Please read the entire document and reconsider.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
and this is in the Secret Societies why?

perhaps because chemtrails secretly don't exist?



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join