Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Feel free to explain exactly how climate works, and to provide references and links to your sources. I know a number of climatologists who would be MOST interested and quite grateful for access to such scientific documentation.

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
So how about you say something about the actual information it contains?

He says that the operations are carried out using the methods outlined in
Edward Tellers paper: Prospects For Physics-based Modulation Of Global Change
Here:

Osti.Gov Bridge

Osti.Gov Bridge

Yes..."prospect's" - how things might happen at some time in the future

Nope, not prospects ATG...what you are looking at is propeitary information,

The 2 are not actually exclusive of each otehr!!

and will be used as such to obtain patents, and develop methods of delivery,

Very possibly - and, as you say - future tense - glad you've finally realised it. Research is often used to secure patents and means of delivery for all sorts of things.

SRM delivery is going to become a huge business. Billions of dollars a year business.

You see Bill Gates knows this, and he is alreaady funding his bets.

Again very possibly - and future tense - well done!

reply to post by burntheships


Seems there's no doubt the climate is changing - you can tell by all the economic activity around the issue. My position is that the very idea of geo-engineering is fundamentally flawed. imho, it makes more sense to plan and position to survive climate change - not fight against it. Granted, such a course implies some very hard decisions. Like, where do we put all the people who are losing their homes?

In another world, the focus would be on saving humanity and it's cultural and genetic diversity. In this world, the goal is to preserve global free trade and the corporate system.

...You know what I think about that.

reply to post by soficrow


Adaption to climate change rather than trying to "fix it" is also a much discussed strategy - although not quite as high in public perceptions.

It has also been lambasted on here as if it was an attempt to hide something - see www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by soficrow
Seems there's no doubt the climate is changing - you can tell by all the economic activity around the issue. My position is that the very idea of geo-engineering is fundamentally flawed. imho, it makes more sense to plan and position to survive climate change - not fight against it. Granted, such a course implies some very hard decisions. Like, where do we put all the people who are losing their homes?

That sounds like you are saying you don't need brakes on your car, because you'd rather spend the money on seat belts.

reply to post by soficrow


Yes, when saving the world becomes a propiertary challenge, the first one
who gets the patents usually wins. In this case, it wont be for the betterment of
man kind.

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...

Not unlike GMO foods. Which are an epic fail, and I think this will turn out the same way.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by soficrow

 

Yes, when saving the world becomes a propiertary challenge, the first one
who gets the patents usually wins. In this case, it wont be for the betterment of
man kind.

Perhaps you would like to explain how saving the world would not be for the betterment of mankind?

Is there something intrinsic to patents or making profits that you think is evil? do you make a profit from your own work for example - are you earning money for your efforts? Is that evil too? Or is it only evil if someone else makes a profit?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


ATG,

Please understand the difference between when I am talking to Soficrow and you.


Your the one who brought Mr.Andersson into this and claimed he worked
for Booz Allen Hamilton....aka The Pentagon. Not me.....

projects.washingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

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?

Nope. They would have used a different word.

moratorium:

an official agreement to stop an activity temporarily

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You said in your linked post,

Why wouldn't you plan for changes you think are going to happen?? It seems the height of stupidity to me to know that the climate is changing....and then refuse to take any account of it.

I agree. ...Adaptation would need to be economic as well as cultural - MUCH resistance there. Maybe the definitive sort.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by soficrow
Seems there's no doubt the climate is changing - you can tell by all the economic activity around the issue. My position is that the very idea of geo-engineering is fundamentally flawed. imho, it makes more sense to plan and position to survive climate change - not fight against it. Granted, such a course implies some very hard decisions. Like, where do we put all the people who are losing their homes?

That sounds like you are saying you don't need brakes on your car, because you'd rather spend the money on seat belts.

Not at all. More like saying the seawalls won't stop the tsunami - better to have an early warning, and a bug out plan to higher ground. ...But even that isn't a good analogy because seawalls do not have the potential to bugger an entire planetary system.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by soficrow

 

Yes, when saving the world becomes a propiertary challenge, the first one
who gets the patents usually wins. In this case, it wont be for the betterment of
man kind.

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...

Not unlike GMO foods. Which are an epic fail, and I think this will turn out the same way.

An epic, monumental, world-destroying fail. These guys expect their spaceship getaways to save them - seems geo-engineering is the welfare plan for common man, a way to simultaneously milk the last drop and feel good doing it.

reply to post by soficrow


Nope - the actual paper does not use the word moratorium at all - that is just convenient shorthand for everyone else:

(w) Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering activities** that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment;

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

ATG,

Please understand the difference between when I am talking to Soficrow and you.

Please understand that this is a public forum and I will comment or answer whatever I like, your fascist attempts to censor me notwithstanding

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Okay - you may be right. But I think the key words and phrase here are, "Ensure, ..., in the absence of... global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering." The phrasing acknowledges the situation without pointing fingers or making outright accusations - it's legal-speak.

Originally posted by soficrow

An epic, monumental, world-destroying fail.

At best, they will have a fail, at worst, they could disrupt the entire planets
atmospheric system, sending the earth and everyone in it to a catastrophic end.

I would categorize thier plans as nefarious.

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by soficrow
Seems there's no doubt the climate is changing - you can tell by all the economic activity around the issue. My position is that the very idea of geo-engineering is fundamentally flawed. imho, it makes more sense to plan and position to survive climate change - not fight against it. Granted, such a course implies some very hard decisions. Like, where do we put all the people who are losing their homes?

That sounds like you are saying you don't need brakes on your car, because you'd rather spend the money on seat belts.

Not at all. More like saying the seawalls won't stop the tsunami - better to have an early warning, and a bug out plan to higher ground. ...But even that isn't a good analogy because seawalls do not have the potential to bugger an entire planetary system.

But you are taking about relocating 7 billion people, and arranging for new food supplies, possibly over a few decades. Don't you think it's at least somewhat reasonably to look into contingency plans that don't involve inevitable gigadeath?

Originally posted by burntheships

At best, they will have a fail, at worst, they could disrupt the entire planets
atmospheric system, sending the earth and everyone in it to a catastrophic end.

I would categorize thier plans as nefarious.

At best they would prevent a global catastrophe like the runaway release of arctic methane, and stabilize the planet's climate for centuries to come.

At worst, it is as you say. Which is why we better research it incredibly carefully before someone tries something.

Originally posted by Uncinus
Which is why we better research it incredibly carefully

Which is preposterous. No computer model, or for that matter clandestine
testing or small SMR test runs, even a decade over say one NATO country
could ever be equal to loosing this toxic crap on a large scale.

Preposterous.