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: 17
44
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

Oh, ok. Yeah, when you mentioned "Real World - Not Computer Modeling" I thought you meant the "in situ" part.

Yes, he wrote a paper on it. Is that what you mean? He's written quite a few papers about SRM and they all urge caution and restraint, including that one.

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




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

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.


Your comparison doesn't really make sense with your logic.

That's right.... they are deployed and are 100% operational.....(being ready to launch in a submarine somewhere in the ocean = deployed)

How did they get that way? By exploding 100's of REAL bombs over land and water.

They didn't ask permission to detonate those bombs ....they just did it.

They didn't ask permission to build HAARP and point it in the atmosphere...they just did it

They didn't ask permission to build stealth drones/bombers/fighters.......... ^

Hell .....they haven't even asked permission to engage in the past numerous "wars"

They have talked about Geo-Engineering in the 50's! You guys are being a little naive to think that all this research just can't get past the "computer model" stage.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


They didn't ask permission to detonate those bombs ....they just did it.
Sort of but they did tell people about it. In fact they evacuated entire populations so they could do some of the tests.


They didn't ask permission to build HAARP and point it in the atmosphere...they just did it
Nope.
www.haarp.alaska.edu...


They didn't ask permission to build stealth drones/bombers/fighters..........
Huh? Did Boeing ask permission to build DC-10s?


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



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
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...


If you bother to follow up and find out what the work is at the link you kindly provided it is "Photophoretic levitation of engineered aerosols for geoengineering" - in which he examines the possibilities of particles staying in the atmosphere due to light.

so it is yet another research paper covering concepts, ideas and the maths involved - research - exactly as the piece you originally quoted was titled.


edit on 8-2-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


What a wonderful attitude you have. No I didn't read all your posts as you were arguing with others for several pages. It was just a simple question I had.

No reason for the attitude.

Oh well last time I bother to engage you in conversation ...
edit on 8-2-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


"sort of" lol .....evacuate or die more like


"nope" ...am I supposed to see a grant of permission on the haarp site?

HAARP is controlled and operated by the USAF ......under the guise of "education" ....if you're going to warp that into sounding legit .....then go ahead and live in your land of naivety.

Boeing being the maker of some of the classified planes doesn't have anything to do with the government getting permission from it's people in the context I was talking....boeing is simply fulfilling a contract.

...and no.... saying our government can do that because they are allowed to for national security in some Bill isn't really "permission"



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 

Yes, but they were told of the tests, as was the rest of the country.

You see part of an EIS which was required to be presented to the public and approved before construction could begin.

HAARP is operated by the University of Alaska. It is not for "education" it is for research.

I still don't understand your point about building aircraft.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
"nope" ...am I supposed to see a grant of permission on the haarp site?

HAARP is controlled and operated by the USAF ......under the guise of "education" ....if you're going to warp that into sounding legit .....then go ahead and live in your land of naivety.


HAARP operates under the oversight of several federal, state, community, and private organizations, including:



National Telecommunications & Information Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
Air Force
Navy
Army Corps of Engineers
National Park Service
Fish & Wildlife Service
US Coast Guard
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Alaska Deptartment of Environmental Conservation
Historic Preservation Office
Alaska Fish & Game
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Alaska Dept of Community and Regional Affairs
American Radio Relay League
Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association
Alyeska
ALASCOM

www.haarp.alaska.edu...

Essentially they have to get all of those organizations to sign off on whatever it is they are doing.

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



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage & Unicus
 

Forget about my point on the stealth planes...

Out of many examples of government projects since when do they stick with computer models and wait for public permission to proceed with something that is clearly of great interest to them?..... never

True public permission would include a vote.....that's never gonna happen. Getting a committee of scientists and public servants to grant permission is like me asking my 5 year old if I can play my computer game.


...in relation to HAARP

and dear God..... I don't even wanna know where else that email gets re-directed to once I email and ask a "technical question"



Ohh.... and I was hoping I could just go ask the professor at the U in Alaska to see if I could go have looksy and take it for a test run .....but unfortunately the only contact is:



....the Air Force




edit on 8-2-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 

I haven't seen much evidence that the government has a lot interest in geoengineering at this point.

In the case of geoengineering a public vote would be pretty difficult to do since the effects would be global. That's why the UN and others are trying to figure out just exactly how it could be managed.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage


In the case of geoengineering a public vote


Never going to happen, they dont need it.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


You cited those amusing crap videos, as "evidence"?

The first one uses the well-known HOAXED photo of a Boeing 777 undergoing flight testing.

The so-called "whistle-blower" is a shill for the"chemtrail" hoax and myth pushers.

I am at a loss to understand how intelligent ATS members can be taken in so readily by these con-artists.... :shk:



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


You cite "Matthew Andersson"?

Sorry, but you have been taken in by a con-job, from the get-go. This man has NO credibility....if such activities as he has claimed (since sometime in 1997, for Pete's sake!!) were on-going, there would be SOME sort of photographic visual proof and evidence.

There is nothing....at all.....nothing as "proof". Since 1997.

Con-artists promoting a myth and hoax, and all too many ill- and under-informed people are being suckered by it....



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

Right. The idea of a public vote is ludicrous. That was my point, as my full statement makes clear.

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



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird

I am at a loss to understand how intelligent ATS members can be taken in so readily by these con-artists.... :shk:


I can see you in that category, yes.

Speaking of con artists...are you the one is always running around saying that there are no
aircraft that can deliver SRM to the stratoshpere?




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. ......


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, .......

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. ...

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...



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


At this point, you are the one who has zero credibility.
As someone said in the beginning of this thread, the end is near.


You brought it up.
If this is the same Matt Andersson,

Matt Andersson is the President of Aviation Development Holdings and the Founder of Indigo Airlines, backed by American Express and McKinsey & Company. He has been featured in the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Fortune, Time Magazine and BBC Radio. A jet-rated pilot and


Google Amazon Book Results

He signed his name to it.

He is also a jet-rated pilot.
It states right there he has been featured in The Financial Times.



Amazon Books




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



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



No they don't want to "dick with" anything.


Really? So is that why the 2010 UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on geo-engineering "experiments" in the sea and space, except for small-scale scientific studies? ...Because nobody is dicking with anything and a moratorium is actually NOT required, and there's nothing to see here so everyone should move along now?




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


As far as delivery system ideas this Post here on ats might be of help:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Ah... at least appeal to authority is a slightly different logical fallacy to the usual argument from ignorance.

Of course Matt Anderson is well known - and despite his qualification he is still a huckster - not because of anything personal to him - but because his claims are unsubstantiated.

As was pointed out to you already in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...

That is twice now I have noted that you continue to post information you know is false - care to make it a hat trick?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by Phage
 



No they don't want to "dick with" anything.


Really? So is that why the 2010 UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on geo-engineering "experiments" in the sea and space, except for small-scale scientific studies? ...Because nobody is dicking with anything and a moratorium is actually NOT required, and there's nothing to see here so everyone should move along now?


how about to make sure no-one STARTS dicking with it?


Actually it only prevents such geo-engineering as may impact on biodiversity - if you can geo-engineer without impacting on biodiversity then it is not an obstacle at all.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join