Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering

reply to post by Phage


Phage,

That was a direct quote from The London Times...those are not my words!

Gates and his cronie scientists are on record plenty, I have only posted a frosting of
what he has said, and the statements Keith has said. But now that you mention it,
I think I should post much of what has been said, so that if is undeniable.

Bill Freese, a science policy analyst for the Washington-based Center for Food Safety,
said everyone wants to see things get better for hungry people, but ....

genetically modified plants are more likely to make their developers rich than feed
the poor. The seed is too expensive and has a high failure rate, he said.
Better ways to increase yields would be increasing the fertility of soil by adding organic
matter or combining plants growing in the same field to combat pests, he said.

www.google.com...

But what is Gates advocating? More funding for GMO crops, and more funding for Geoengineering.

"We used to have to use the card catalogue and browse through the books to find the
information we needed," he wrote in his letter. "Now, in the same way we know ... the precise
page that contains the piece of information we need, we can find out precisely which
plant contains what gene conferring a specific characteristic. This will make plant breeding
happen at a much faster clip."

So, there he is in his own words, and what is he advocating???
His research so he can make more money, just like Freese said!

Gates has launched an amazing series of myth-filled missives and misfires this month,
many of which channel Bjorn Lomborg (aka the Danish delayer) in their disdain of
near-term climate action and embrace of, yes, geo-engineering. thinkprogress.org...

Gates Notes

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze

 

That "whistleblowers" video features a hoaxed image from the "chemtrail" crowd. Hoaxing is not a good thing for credibility. Why do they have to resort to that kind of thing?

Yes, research is being funded. Why do you compare small scale CDR tests with SRM? That's nonsensical. Do you think that CDR carries the same level of risk that SRM does?

Who cares what image they post, listen to the broadcast with a NSA agent whistleblowing!!!

There are several types of geoengineering being tested, and the point is that if they have the hubris to do one, they will do the other, thats how science works unfortunately. They thought an atomic bomb might either not stop once it began or destroy the atmosphere but they did the tests anyway so they don't give a damn about the risks.

What is nonsensical given historical precedent is to assume they won't do it after they toss billions at them.

And as been pointed out, it only takes millions to low billions to carry out SRM and Bill Gates could do it with his own money... this is one thing the CFR admits, all it would take is a rogue country or billionaire. Gates doesn't even care about the lethal side effects as he has shown a pattern of eugenic beliefs.

So we need to stop development of this technology and put a moratorium on implementation!

reply to post by Phage


On page 12 of this thread, I already discussed this, but here it is again since you missed it.

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.

reply to post by pianopraze


So you agree that a nuclear war is in progress and we all live under the sea or on the Moon

Think about it.

The daft thing is, I think we're all opposed to deliberate geoengineering. Maybe the old adage of divide and conquer hold true ...... Thankfully, science is still predominantly opposed. And I can't see anything going ahead just yet. But if we can't unite in opposition, who knows what the future holds?

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Phage

 

Phage,

That was a direct quote from The London Times...those are not my words!

Yes, I know. So what? Ben Webster is an opinion writer. It's an op ed piece. Sensationalized. And it's wrong, or a best a distortion.

Bill Gates, the Microsoft billionaire, is funding research into machines to suck up ten tonnes of seawater every second and spray it upwards. This would seed vast banks of white clouds to reflect the Sun’s rays away from Earth.

Silver Lining, a research body in San Francisco, has received $300,000 (£204,000) from Mr Gates. It will develop machines to convert seawater into microscopic particles capable of being blown up to the cloud level of 1,000 metres. This would whiten clouds by increasing the number of nuclei.

The trial would involve ten ships and 10,000sq km (3,800sq miles) of ocean. Armand Neukermanns, who is leading the research, said that whitening clouds was “the most benign form of engineering” because, while it might alter rainfall, the effects would cease soon after the machines were switched off.

I showed you what that $300k was for, laboratory work. Not real world work.

reply to post by Afterthought

This is what you said:

They're already spending millions in underdeveloped countries with the geo-engineering ideas, wait until they get rolling, it will be in the trillions of dollars.

Now explain how anything in what you posted has anything to do with geoengineering.

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by pianopraze

 

So you agree that a nuclear war is in progress and we all live under the sea or on the Moon

Think about it.

The daft thing is, I think we're all opposed to deliberate geoengineering. Maybe the old adage of divide and conquer hold true ...... Thankfully, science is still predominantly opposed. And I can't see anything going ahead just yet. But if we can't unite in opposition, who knows what the future holds?

Don't assume what I think, or twist my words.

I do NOT think nuclear war is progress. Maybe some nuclear medicines, but definitely not nuclear power plants or war which needs to be abolished. And I think that our Rockefeller controlled "modern" medicine does more harm than good often, and that they are doing everything they can to steer medicine for profit and control rather than health or healing.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Afterthought

 

This is what you said:

They're already spending millions in underdeveloped countries with the geo-engineering ideas, wait until they get rolling, it will be in the trillions of dollars.

Now explain how anything in what you posted has anything to do with geoengineering.

edit on 2/8/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

'Geo' means Earth.
'Geo-engineering' has to do with anything that is related to the Earth.
Now go back and read the passage I posted. They are spending money on island scaping, resilience to climate change, and flood projects.
Geo-engineering has to do with more than just the Earth's climate.

reply to post by pianopraze

They thought an atomic bomb might either not stop once it began or destroy the atmosphere but they did the tests anyway so they don't give a damn about the risks.

No. "They" did not think that.
www.fas.org...

reply to post by Afterthought

Nice try. You don't get to define things the way you want to and what you posted has nothing to do with this discussion.

the deliberate large-scale manipulation of an environmental process that affects the earth’s climate, in an attempt to counteract the effects of global warming.

oxforddictionaries.com...

reply to post by Phage


I dont think you will admit it till the particulate matter actually falls down on you.

From David Keiths own Website:

He is actually working on engineering aerosols!

Real World - Not Computer Modeling

•Research. I am working on the economics of decisions about geoengineering and abatement under uncertainty (#117), on public perception (#150), on engineered aerosols (#96), and on methods of delivering materials to the stratosphere (R1). In collaboration with Jim Anderson I have started a Harvard based project to develop in situ experiments to test the risk and efficacy of aerosols in the stratosphere. I also work on direct capture of CO2 from air (see Air Capture).

•Research Funding. My work has been funded by the US NSF and Canada’s NSERC as well as by a grant from Bill Gates managed as FICER. keith.seas.harvard.edu...

edit on 8-2-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Phage


I didn't define it.
If you'd actually visited the link, you would see that the projects are being discussed by the Climate Change Policy & Practice folks, which includes the UN and intergovernmental activities.
climate-l.iisd.org...

How I've defined geo-engineering is the same way they do.
As we discussed earlier, they are going to include whatever THEY choose to include under the geo-engineering umbrella. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, they are soon going to decide if cloud seeding is going to be considered geo-engineering. The Earth is composed of many systems and I don't need the government telling me what is and isn't in the category of engineering the Earth for how they want it to behave. It's the same thing as calling Karl Rove an architect when he doesn't build physical structures.

Originally posted by Afterthought

'Geo' means Earth.
'Geo-engineering' has to do with anything that is related to the Earth.
Now go back and read the passage I posted. They are spending money on island scaping, resilience to climate change, and flood projects.
Geo-engineering has to do with more than just the Earth's climate.

So kids making sandcastles on the beach = geo-engineering. OK - got that.

But how about sticking to the actual geo-engineering that the OP is talking about - which IS about climate change - and not derailing the thread with sophisms??

Geoengineering is a word that means many different things to many different people. Typically what people call geoengineering is divided into two major classes. There are approaches which attempt to reduce the amount of climate change produced by an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and there are approaches that try to remove greenhouse gases that have already been released to the atmosphere.

- from Scientific American

reply to post by pianopraze

Meanwhile there is still a lot of debate on weither or not we are warming or cooling

.


No there isn't. That is propaganda for you. There are perhaps 5-6 qualified climate scientists worldwide who are against the theory & of those 5-6, nearly all either work for or get funding from the mining or fossil fuel industry.

There is NO CONSENSUS as global warming propagandists often claim on this matter. Even the founder of the weather channel, a 55 year weather expert along with over 30,000 other scientists including 9,000 PHD's are saying global warming is a fraud:

The Oregon petition was 4 years ago, since then, not much opposition. Also, the Oregon petition was proven a fraud, where not only was there no verification process of the signatories, but virtually none of the signatories were qualified in the field.

www.skepticalscience.com...

This is a POLITICAL agenda, not a scientific one.

Then why are Conservative governments of Germany, U.K, France & N.Z involved? Have they become lefties?

Opposition to AGW science is in direct proportion to how much fossil fuels a country has & how much funding particular parties attract for support of that industry.

Originally posted by Essan

Oh, and this study is simply about the most cost effective means of carrying out such an operation - it doesn't address the issues of whether it would actually work

Well that study may not have, but this study did.

4.1. Airplanes


Existing small jet fighter planes, like the F-15C Eagle (Figure 2a), are capable of flying into the lower stratosphere in the tropics, while in the Arctic, larger planes, such as the KC-135 Stratotanker or KC-10 Extender (Figure 2b), are capable of reaching the required altitude. Specialized research aircraft such as the American Lockheed ER-2 and the Russian M55 Geophysica, both based on Cold War spy planes, can also reach 20 km, but neither has a very large payload or could be operated continuously to deliver gases to the stratosphere.


The Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk can reach 20 km without a pilot but costs twice as much as an F-15C. Current designs have a payload of 1-1.5 tons. Clearly it is possible to design an autonomous specialized aircraft to loft sulfuric acid precursors into the lower stratosphere, but the current analysis focuses on existing aircraft.

Options for dispersing gases from planes include the addition of sulfur to the fuel, which would release the aerosol through the exhaust system of the plane, or the attachment of a nozzle to release the sulfur from its own tank within the plane, which would be the better option. Putting sulfur in the fuel would have the problem that if the sulfur concentration is too high in the fuel, it would be corrosive and affect combustion. Also, it would be necessary to have separate fuel tanks for use in the stratosphere and in the troposphere to avoid sulfate aerosol pollution in the troposphere.

The military has already manufactured more planes than would be required for this geoengineering scenario, potentially reducing the costs of this method. Since climate change is an important national security issue [Schwartz and Randall, 2003], the military could be directed to carry out this mission with existing aircraft at minimal additional cost. Furthermore, the KC-135 fleet will be retired in the next few decades as a new generation of aerial tankers replaces it, even if the military continues to need the in-flight refueling capability for other missions.

Unlike the small jet fighter planes, the KC-135 and KC-10 are used to refuel planes mid-flight and already have a nozzle installed. In the tropics, one option might be for the tanker to fly to the upper troposphere, and then fighter planes would ferry the sulfur gas up into the stratosphere (Figure 2b). It may also be possible to have a tanker tow a glider with a hose to loft the exit nozzle into the stratosphere.

climate.envsci.rutgers.edu...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I am sticking to the topic of climate change. I took text from the Climate Change Policy & Practice website, which involves the UN and intergovernmental activities. If we are going to talk about climate change and weather modification, we cannot exclude floods, erosion, droughts, and other things associated with the Earth's fragile ecosystems, right? That would be very narrow-minded, don't you think?

Now, run along and go annoy someone else.

reply to post by Hannagan


Hi.
Welcome to ATS.

Originally posted by pianopraze

I do NOT think nuclear war is progress.

But there has been plenty of research into, and even testing of, nuclear weapons. By your rationale these must be in deploy today

Think about it.

reply to post by burntheships

He is actually working on engineering aerosols!

No.

I have started a Harvard based project to develop in situ experiments to test the risk and efficacy of aerosols in the stratosphere.

He is working on developing experiments. He is not doing experiments and there is no indication in that statement that he is "engineering aerosols."

Here is Keith's statement once again:

FICER has not supported and will not support any field tests of methods that introduce new kinds of interference into the climate system (e.g., solar radiation management, ocean fertilization). We are in favor of field testing industrial processes that can remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

reply to post by Phage


Look again. Your ignoring it I presume, or you missed it.

I am working..... on engineered aerosols (#96), www.pnas.org...