Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering, page 2

reply to post by dplum517

---

You mentioned the methods of delivery they may use....even though this scheme will not work,
as even if they do go ahead and spray this garbage, whatever means of dispersion...its
the experts have already said it cant undo the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

So, what are they going on about then I wonder???

It’s important to stress that geoengineering options can never reverse all of the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions. For example, it doesn’t reverse ocean acidification. And it obviously has associated risk. So geoengineering is not an alternative to greenhouse gas emissions reductions.” said Ban-Weiss.

Carnegie Press Release

wattsupwiththat.com


However thats not going to stop them....

A look at the many ways they plan to do this:

Keith's own studies suggest that if we were ever forced to try to screen out some of the sun's rays globally, it would be more effective to spray sulphuric acid from aircraft (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2010GL043975).

It would also be cheaper, costing a few billion dollars a year according to a study by Aurora Flight Sciences

www.pnas.org...

Proposed self-aligning, levitating, sunlight-reflecting nano-disc (Keith, 2010)
In a nutshell, David’s idea is to engineer discs around 10 micrometers across and 50 nanometers thick, with a core of aluminum, a top layer of aluminum oxide, and a bottom layer of barium titanate. Injected high enough into the atmosphere

2020science.org...

"Dusting"

Here I examine the possibility that engineered nanoparticles could exploit photophoretic forces, enabling more control over particle distribution and lifetime than is possible with sulfates, perhaps allowing climate engineering to be accomplished with fewer side effects. The use of electrostatic or magnetic materials enables a class of photophoretic forces not found in nature. Photophoretic levitation could loft particles above the stratosphere, reducing their capacity to interfere with ozone chemistry; and, by increasing particle lifetimes, it would reduce the need for continual replenishment of the aerosol. Moreover, particles might be engineered to drift poleward enabling albedo modification to be tailored to counter polar warming while minimizing the impact on equatorial climates.

www.pnas.org...

I've got some charts too, Ill add them in a few.

reply to post by syrinx high priest

---

Yeah, sounds good me...too simple and no money to be made.

This actually may not all be about saving the planet...

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

www.investors.com...

Which leads back to that Club Of Rome stuff....

Originally posted by eXia7
Don't worry, they are just contrails,
nothing to see here.

Like these kind of contrails?

Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for climate engineering by emission
of condensible vapor from aircraft

Jeffrey R. Pierce
Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
www.agu.org...

Here is something I have just realized ....looking that this
direct relationship between David Keith and Bill Gates..

Much of Keiths ideas center around delivery my method of modified
aircraft.

Thats a very scary fact...and Keith is already Gates key to the scientific world.

Analysis of the eight major national and international inquiries into geoengineering over the past three years shows that Keith and Caldeira, Rasch and Prof Granger Morgan the head of department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University where Keith works, have sat on seven panels, including one set up by the UN.

Hello, conflict of interests? Yes!

"There are clear conflicts of interest between many of the people involved in the debate," said Diana Bronson, a researcher with Montreal-based geoengineering watchdog ETC.

"What is really worrying is that the same small group working on high-risk technologies that will geoengineer the planet is also trying to engineer the discussion around international rules and regulations. We cannot put the fox in charge of the chicken coop."

"The eco-clique are lobbying for a huge injection of public funds into geoengineering research. They dominate virtually every inquiry into geoengineering. They are present in almost all of the expert deliberations. They have been the leading advisers to parliamentary and congressional inquiries and their views will, in all likelihood, dominate the deliberations of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as it grapples for the first time with the scientific and ethical tangle that is climate engineering," said Clive Hamilton, professor of Public Ethics at the Australian National University, in a Guardian blog.
www.guardian.co.uk...

reply to post by pteridine

---

Looks like he has a head start at it too....

Here is a link to the company Gates owns:

Because major shifts in the global climate would pose a challenge like no other that humanity has faced, we at I.V. have devoted a substantial amount of effort and investment to develop ways to avoid the emissions that cause climate change. We have also begun inventing practical ways to reverse some of the possible effects of climate change

intellectualventureslab.com...

His proprietary methods described here :

intellectualventureslab.com...

Oh, found a video showing the StratoShield Blimps here:

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
I am sifting through looking for delivery system ideas, to see if there are any discussions of using planes bigger than a Cessna.

Here is a Canadian Study showing how this would be achived with larger jet aircraft like Boeing 747s.

The globalists like the CFR who want to push geoenginering want to make trillions with a carbon tax and have been trying to get it implemented in almost everything year after year after year.

Meanwhile there is still a lot of debate on weither or not we are warming or cooling. 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 scientests including 9,000 PHD's are saying global warming is a fraud:



Al Gores hockey stick has been proven to be a lie over and over:
LIE:


The truth is we are well within records of the several thousand years and volcanic activity can suddenly shift it to much colder, it is really iceages we should fear, not the NORAL WARMING trend we are in now:
TRUTH:

When solar radiation has decreased and volcanic activity has increased, global temperatures suddenly plummet, often within weeks or months.

link.

I agree that SRM is probably not a good idea but I think learning something about its pitfalls would be a good idea before it may become necessary to use it. I also think that the computer modelling which is being done should be continued before any real world testing is attempted.

First and foremost is a new way to establish a billions of dollar industry, using propietary methods, patented reaseach etc.

It seems that may be an exaggeration. Intellectual Ventures (your source for Gate's "proprietary method") says their blimp system would be much less than that.

The StratoShield is an example of a geoengineering system that draws on existing technology and has deployment and annual operation costs amounting to millions of dollars, rather than billions.

intellectualventureslab.com...

reply to post by pianopraze

---

The globalists like the CFR who want to push geoenginering want to make trillions with a carbon tax and have been trying to get it implemented in almost everything year after year after year.

Isn't this a contradiction? If the globalists want to make money off of carbon taxes, wouldn't geoengeering cut into their profits?

As far as I can tell, the CFR advises extreme caution in the application of SRM techniques. Speaking of it in terms of an emergency situation and then being carried out as a multilateral program.

Despite great uncertainty about geoengineering, and the likely negative environmental consequences that it could have, if we are surprised by unexpectedly rapid or largeclimate change, there might be situations in which the governments of the world would be justified in taking collectively action.

www.cfr.org...

Whether or not the warming trend we see now is caused by human activity, if it does reach the point of catastrophic damage to life and property it would be a good thing if we had some means of dealing with it.

reply to post by Phage

---

Thats just Gates company there, I was referring to the whole ball
of wax. You know...the entire "industry".

Originally posted by Phage
I agree that SRM is probably not a good idea but I think learning something about its pitfalls would be a good idea before it may become necessary to use it. I also think that the computer modelling which is being done should be continued before any real world testing is attempted.

Why is it a good thing to explore the pitfalls of SRM.... you dont think SRM is a good idea?

And where are all of these "computer modeling" studies your always talking about?

You have to wonder if they would not just add a little sulphur dioxide to the fuel of commercial passenger aircraft.

I do agree with the theory that global warming is caused by the lack of major volcanic eruptions.(or better said is the larger number of volcanic eruptions in the period (VEI 5+)that kept the earth cooler)

Pinatubo was the last major VEI6 or higher.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze

---

The globalists like the CFR who want to push geoenginering want to make trillions with a carbon tax and have been trying to get it implemented in almost everything year after year after year.

Isn't this a contradiction? If the globalists want to make money off of carbon taxes, wouldn't geoengeering cut into their profits?

As far as I can tell, the CFR advises extreme caution in the application of SRM techniques. Speaking of it in terms of an emergency situation and then being carried out as a multilateral program.

Despite great uncertainty about geoengineering, and the likely negative environmental consequences that it could have, if we are surprised by unexpectedly rapid or largeclimate change, there might be situations in which the governments of the world would be justified in taking collectively action.

www.cfr.org...

Whether or not the warming trend we see now is caused by human activity, if it does reach the point of catastrophic damage to life and property it would be a good thing if we had some means of dealing with it.

Absolutely not, you present an obvious logical phallicy. They implement carbon taxes to get geoengineering projects and make money two ways: 1. Tax income. 2. Farming out this money to THEIR companies.

The CFR have the "oh its horrible but we just HAVE to do it" psychological bull poop and you know this as we have discussed this several times. They start out saying how awful it is and then conclude it is an absolute necessary... which as I showed in my first post there is not consensus that it is necessary. So while seeming strait, your post is a disingenuous post.

I know all your underhanded techniques well phage; as you have used them in our past discussions on this very topics. Maybe we should avoid all these, ok???:
Bad arguement techniques.
page 2

reply to post by burntheships

---

It seems that they are talking about the total cost of an aerosol injection program.

The paper that pianopraze linked is a cost analysis of several different means of deploying an aerosol program. It's quite detailed and goes as far as to include devlopment, depreciation, and interest costs. Their least expensive method would be to use dirigibles at a cost of 1.37B so Gate's company is in the ballpark for a global effort at under a billion since the operating costs for tethered blimbs would presumably be less. Development costs would also be reduced since, as they point out, most of the technology already exists.

Remember also that they are talking about costs not profits. It doesn't really sound like there is a huge amount of money to be made in geoengineering.

Why is it a good thing to learn about potential problems with a program before implementing it? Um..that seems kind of obvious to me. It could very well turn out that some negative impacts not yet thought of could exist. Something that would tip the balance to say "Nope. Can't do it. Not worth it.".

Where is the modelling? All over. Here's a start:
scholar.google.com...

Iranian sailors chase off pirates attacking U.S. ship
  Posted 5 days ago with 95 member flags

Blatant Corruption Exposed as EU Blocks France\'s Ban on Monsanto\'s GMO Maize
  Posted 5 days ago with 84 member flags

Iraq and Afghanistan veterans to return their medals to protest war on terror at Chicago NATO summit
  Posted 13 days ago with 82 member flags

BBC Caught In Syria Massacre Propaganda Hoax
  Posted 1 days ago with 74 member flags

Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban
  Posted 9 days ago with 73 member flags

Electricity generated from water: BlackLight Power announces validation of its scientific breakthrou
  Posted 7 days ago with 65 member flags

Man Loses $22,000 In New \'Policing For Profit\' Case
  Posted 7 days ago with 63 member flags

Bin Laden died of natural causes: Former CIA agent
  Posted 9 days ago with 58 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: