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.

 

Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering

page: 12
44
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well I am sure that the Oil Industry will have a nice new home, I dont see the Gatekeepers
ready to end oil consumption.

I dont think the Carbon Market is "stupid"... its a key part of wealth re-distribution,
which is really what this Global Warming scam is all about!


A high-ranking member of the U.N.'s Panel on Climate Change admits the group's primary goal is the redistribution of wealth and not environmental protection or saving the Earth The Climate Cash Cow




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


we need to bring awareness and stop this!

Stop what? The research? Why? It's the research which shows the risks as well as the benefits.
Why are you so against research?


edit on 2/7/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze
 


we need to bring awareness and stop this!

Stop what? The research? Why? It's the research which shows the risks as well as the benefits.
Why are you so against research?


edit on 2/7/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


answered several times already:
post 1
post 2



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Like the Kyoto Protocol, we also need to keep an eye on the United States Global Change Research Program.

globalchange.gov...

FAA conducts research to support Goal 2, leveraging research with other U.S. Government agencies to reduce uncertainties surrounding aviation emissions and their effect on climate change. For example, FAA research through the Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) Center of Excellence addresses the impact of aircraft contrails on climate change.


The National Science Foundation is one of the financiers of global climate change research and technologies.
globalchange.gov...

The Department of State and their role:
globalchange.gov...

Through Department of State (DOS) annual funding, the United States is the world’s leading financial contributor to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the principal international organization for the assessment of scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information relevant to the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. Recent DOS contributions to these organizations provide substantial support for global climate observation and assessment activities in developing countries. DOS also works with other agencies in promoting international cooperation in a range of bilateral and multilateral climate change initiatives and partnerships.


The Center of Disease Control and Prevention:
globalchange.gov...

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is also engaged in a number of activities related to climate change, such as researching emerging and reemerging infectious diseases. For more information on climate change work at CDC, see their Climate Change and Public Health website.

Considering the above statement, one particular aspect of SRM they aren't sure of (stated within the paper on the previous page that I can't cite) is that they aren't sure how raising or lowering the temperature will affect certain creatures and diseases. For example, reptiles' and amphibeans' genders are determined by temperature and some diseases flourish when the temperatures rise. How can they possibly control all of this and know what will happen? I have a feeling that being able to control the climate is the closest man can get to becoming gods.

Here is NASA's website on Climate Change: climate.nasa.gov...



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


You know, its very telling Keith talks alot about using the Sulfate Aerosols
in conjuntion with C02 capture, he practcally says they must be used together!

He just skims over the fact that a country next to another, that has impemented
Geoengineering could be deprived of rain!

He also says that even a small amount of SRM the benefits outweigh the dangers,
and its very cost effective!

ETA: I also love the fact that Keith states empatically:
We dont have the problem that this is too expensive !!!




edit on 7-2-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
Like the Kyoto Protocol, we also need to keep an eye on the United States Global Change Research Program.

globalchange.gov...



Yes, especially on them, and all the participating agencies.
Seriously, every U.S. agency is on board!



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

That is a bit of a distortion of what Edenhoffer actually said. But it reiterates my point. The idea of trading carbon credits is stupid if the intent is to control carbon emissions.

He's talking about a policy (global trading) which does not exist. I'm confused though, he's talking about the wealth of huge corporations being "redistributed" to less developed nations. I'm a bit surprised you find that offensive.

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capital basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.



First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

real-agenda.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships
 

That is a bit of a distortion of what Edenhoffer actually said. But it reiterates my point. The idea of trading carbon credits is stupid if the intent is to control carbon emissions.


Wow we agree again


The point is NOT about controlling carbon emissions its about a pozi scheme to make trillions:



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
There is quite a bit of funding going on and monies changing hands.

Climate Lab
climatelab.org...

Stakeholders refers to people, groups, organizations, as well as governments and communities, that have a direct or indirect stake in climate change because they can affect or be affected by it. Broadly, we are all stakeholders. However, some key sectors of stakeholders in the climate negotiations process include the private sector, civil society organizations, governments, and academia.

The private sector can play a key role in solving the climate crisis. Companies can invest in a range of projects which mitigate climate impacts. These include solar, wind and biomass projects. The private sector can also employ innovative market mechanisms such as the carbon market. An expanded and improved carbon market would allow companies to trade emissions credits in order to ensure that mandated caps are met. And finally, the private sector can invest in research and development for new renewable energy technologies. Clean tech companies, venture capitalists, and solar/wind companies are examples of private stakeholders.


This went on today:
climate-l.iisd.org...

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) Evaluation Office will hold a Webinar on Adaptation in Practice to present findings from its most recent evaluation on the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and the challenges encountered through its evaluations on adaptation funding under the Strategic Priority for Adaptation (SPA) and the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF). Time: 8.30 - 9.30 in New York and Washington, DC; 14.30 - 15.30 in Bonn, Paris, Rome, and Luanda; 20.30 - 21.30 in Bangkok, Jakarta and Phnom Penh.

edit on 7-2-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
looking at my posts, and your posts, I do see one of us is posting hard scientific papers, the other is offering glib comments... which one is doing which?


Well if you look back over my posts in the past few years, as well as my news blog (linked below) I think it's pretty obvious.

I'm disappointed in you. But ignore science if you wish. Enjoy your fear and paranoia.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
I'm confused though, he's talking about the wealth of huge corporations being "redistributed" to less
developed nations. I'm a bit surprised you find that offensive.


No, he is talking about taking money and re-distrubuting it to the uber wealthy.

Which will require the cooperation of both of the major parties in The U.S.,
and The Federal Reserve, and the likes of Goldman Sachs, and company,


The only way for the United States to have an adequate,
comprehensive, systematic and open program of research on CDR
and SRM is for the federal government to initiate such efforts


www.bipartisanpolicy.org...



No existing federal agency has all the resources (technical or financial) or all the expertise
needed to address the diverse aspects of the many climate
remediation techniques.19 In light of this, the Task Force on Climate Remediation
Research focused on mechanisms for organizing a range of research activities
that use existing government structures, rather than contemplating ways to reorganize the
government that would be difficult and time consuming and that are unlikely to be implemented.

www.bipartisanpolicy.org...
www.bipartisanpolicy.org...
www.bipartisanpolicy.org...

In other words, its all compartmentalized, and lets keep it that way

That way, the whistleblowers will have a really hard time of it!
edit on 7-2-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


You know, its very telling Keith talks alot about using the Sulfate Aerosols in conjuntion with C02 capture, he practcally says they must be used together!
Since, as you have pointed out, SRM only would reduce temperatures and do nothing about the other problems presented by increased CO2 levels is that surprising?


He just skims over the fact that a country next to another, that has impemented Geoengineering could be deprived of rain!
Maybe that's because geoengineering has nothing to do with rain.


He also says that even a small amount of SRM the benefits outweigh the dangers, and its very cost effective!
Please point out where he says the benefits outweigh the dangers. Yes, it is known that the costs of aerosol SRM are quite low.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

How would they know that they know what they're doing? Maybe they're hurting not helping...

Why not instead, work to re-tool civilization for green energy?




edit on 7-2-2012 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


No, he is talking about taking money and re-distrubuting it to the uber wealthy.

You mean those uber-wealthy underdeveloped countries which, because they have a small carbon footprint, would be able to sell huge amounts of carbon credits to the developed countries which produce huge amounts of carbon?
Those uber-wealthy?

Read what he said.
edit on 2/7/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Maybe that's because geoengineering has nothing to do with rain.


You're jumping the gun with this statement. As per my previous post regarding the paper I cannot cite, they haven't decided whether or not cloud seeding should be considered geo-engineering.

Plus, causing it to rain in order to inhibit the travels of enemy combatants would be considered weather warfare.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by pianopraze
looking at my posts, and your posts, I do see one of us is posting hard scientific papers, the other is offering glib comments... which one is doing which?


Well if you look back over my posts in the past few years, as well as my news blog (linked below) I think it's pretty obvious.

I'm disappointed in you. But ignore science if you wish. Enjoy your fear and paranoia.


Still waiting for your replies here with ANY ontopic information


Nice slur though, feel free to keep those up, as they are so effective for staying on topic


Care to address ANY of the on-topic information I've given you as starting points?

Here's some whistleblower on the topic, you know... geoengineering?:




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 

Very well.
SRM has nothing to do with rain and Keith is talking about SRM.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


That is part of the way they keep one agency from knowing what the other agency
is doing, and that way they can collect tax dollars for a dozen agencies instead of just one.

Its a perfect racket!


It is a shame they dont invest in real green.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Millions of dollars are being spent on applying climate change initiatives in underdeveloped countries first.

climate-l.iisd.org...

On project and programme review, the AFB requested the consideration of developing of a more standardized template for project and programme concepts. The AFB decided to fund: a project in Uruguay on building resilience to climate change and variability in vulnerable smallholders for almost $10 million; a project in Cook Islands on strengthening the resilience of our islands and our communities to climate change for over $5 million; a project in Georgia on developing climate-resilient flood and flash flood management practices to protect vulnerable communities for over $5 million; a project in Madagascar for promoting climate resilience in the rice sector through pilot investments in the Alaotra-Mangoro region for over $5 million; a project in Samoa on enhancing resilience of coastal communities for almost $9 million; a project in Tanzania on implementation of concrete adaptation measures to reduce vulnerability of livelihoods and economy of coastal communities; and a project in Cambodia on enhancing climate resilience of rural communities living in protected areas. A project in Papua New Guinea on enhancing the adaptive capacity of communities to climate change-related floods was not endorsed. The AFB endorsed project concepts from Ethiopia, Mauritania and Myanmar.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


He says it all right here in the video.
www.youtube.com...


Its a little hard to watch, as he comes of like a real loon,

Absolute crazy bat sheet if you ask me!



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join