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.

 

OK, start worrying: IPCC asks scientists to assess geo-engineering climate solutions (without rules

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by afw2121
reply to post by Phage
 
Do not take this thread off topic. Geo-engineering uses methods such as chemtrails to modify the weather.


There is absolutely nothing in the OP that even comes close to touching on or describing "chemtrails."

You have absolutely no support for your propostion that "geo-engineering uses ...chemtrails ... ." If you did, you would've provided it.
You are off-topic if you can't link the two outside of your own fears and imagination.

Deny ignorance.

jw




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Trueman
 


removed
edit on 20-6-2011 by afw2121 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
In my mind there is only two real safe contenders in the geoengineering field and should be implemented as soon as possible.
Reforestation plant more tree reduce CO2 perhaps look at quick growing plants that are more efficient at photosyntheses and therefore decrease the co2 at a faster rate.
Giant floating CO2 scrubbers that trap the co2 produced by the sea after all we provide 3 % of all the co2 released into the atmosphere and nature provides the other 97% maybe we should look at ways of reducing that which nature produces i have to say the research being done with algae is very promising and may well provide a better solution in the long run.
The spraying option [ie aluminium/barium or any other pollutant they think maybe a good idea] will be a great mistake and it will be our children who will pay the price.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 


The one report that seriouly considers that implications and requirements of stratospheric spraying also points out the risks and drawbacks as well. Reading the entire report, isntead of cherry-picking bits and pieces, reveals that this option is not even remotely feasible at this time.

As for "scrubbing," the only tests I'm aware of were complete failures.

None of the alternatives justifies the "de-industrialization" supported by members of the Obama admnistration or the redistribution of 100s of billions of dollars to "developing" countries.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


take a look at page 5 of this report bottom paragraph i think that not only is this a great cheap option but its side effects would be alot better than any of the others that have been debated.
link:www.cfr.org...
edit on 25-6-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I love it when people try and debunk chemtrails, your eyes do not lie..well usually not but
the sky is full of them since 1999 and only zombies deny it.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatiDpress
I love it when people try and debunk chemtrails, your eyes do not lie..well usually not but
the sky is full of them since 1999 and only zombies deny it.


How does your advocacy for "chemtrails" fit the topic of this thread?

Sadly, your off-topic opinions only add to the suspicion that people are joining ATS for no reason other than to foster or support ill-conceived premises and to denigrate those who retain the ability to think and reason despite the onslaught of ignorance that passes for "common knowledge."

Why call people who deny the existence of post-1999 "chemtrails," "zombies?" Does this make you feel better or add to the science?

Truth be known, it is the zombie-like follow-the-leader mentality of "chemtrail" advocates that leads so many newcomers down the paths of obfuscation and confusion rather than legitimate debate and research. The anti-science and anti-logic approach of many "chemtrail" faithful is more zombie-like than any approach that begins with analysis and research.

State your hypothesis, unless you are a zombie!

'Trusting your eyes' and unsupported contentions that "the sky is full of them" are probably the weakest arguments ever offered as proof of the myth.

deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
In regard to our pathetic attempts to understand and control nature, we, as a race, are just egotistical half-wits. The basic problem with "modern" man, is his belief that we are smarter than Mother Nature. It's hard to determine at what point the human race began to think we know it all, or at least know enough, to bend nature to our will, but at some point this attitude has become common place.

Rather than adapt to the forces of nature, we seem to believe we can adapt nature to us. We try to create conditions, by changing our environment, that we think are beneficial to our existence, but we are too short-sighted to foresee the ultimate consequences of our selfish actions.

Nature is unlimited in scope and we are very limited in our capacity to understand it. Nature was, is, and will always be in control. If we believe any differently it will be a deadly mistake on our part. Extinction is the rule. We are just a nano-particle that exists for a nanosecond in the large picture of the entire universe. We have little control over ourselves, much less the planet or any other aspect of our lives. We should be adapting to the change, not trying to create change. If we don't adapt, we die. That is something the human race can't seem to get a grip on. We think we know better, when we know next to nothing at all.

Scientists are basically near sighted ego maniacs and we are complete idiots for believing that they can actually do anything but make matters worse in the end. For every supposedly beneficial scientific discovery there are a thousand malevolent applications without regard for the consequences.
edit on 25-6-2011 by MichiganSwampBuck because: typos

edit on 25-6-2011 by MichiganSwampBuck because: another typo



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatiDpress
I love it when people try and debunk chemtrails, your eyes do not lie..well usually not but
the sky is full of them since 1999 and only zombies deny it.


Actually your eyes cannot be trusted.
Otfen they recoerd the wornog inftmoratiion. Somemitmes the brian helps the pesron see what is not theire.
edit on 25-6-2011 by EyeDontKnow because: gobbledeegook



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by EyeDontKnow
 


I don't doubt that people are seeing more white lines across the sky - their eyes are not lying to them about that.

It's their brains that put 2 and 2 together and come up with a fibionacci sequence of chemtrails based upon hearsay and rumour







 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join