Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering

page: 3
44
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


They start out saying how awful it is and then conclude it is an absolute necessary

Please show where the CFR says that SRM is an absolute necessity.




posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships
 

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.


Here's the con phage, 2 scenarios:

1st scenario - There is no global warming (and we at historical peak of normal warming).

They make BILLIONS to trillions in taxes and pass those billions/trillions off to companies they own...

Then they claim success, but it is no success, the planet naturally cools.... which is not a good thing for us.

2nd scenario - There is current global warming.

They make Billions to Trillions in taxes and pass those billion/trillions to complaies they own...

They succeed in lowering the temperature a degree or so... and eventually the normal cooling will kick in.. which is not good for us and will happen soon or later anyways... they claim success.

It's a win/win for them, and a loose/loose/loose for us as: 1. the harmful side effects of geoengineering are awful!!!! Even the scientist researching this say we should NOT do it or only do it as last resort. 2. They strengthen global governance by these bankster "elite". 3. They hasten global cooling which is not good for us.

ETA a 4th loose: we our out our money and local control. 5th loose: the 1 percent get even more money and control
edit on 6-2-2012 by pianopraze because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

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


It is certainly a possiblity - a quick calculation and knowing that about 5.25 million barrels of jet fuel is used each day - I reckon 1 million tons of SO2 could be generated by increasing allowable sulfur in jet fuel to about 2000ppm - the current maximum allowed in jet fuel is 0.3% by mass, 0r 3000ppm, so it would probably not require any change in the actual engines - but it would probably require a change in refining since everyone has been trying to reduce sulfur for the last 20 years or so!

It would be detectable by simple chemical analysis of fuel - so it couldn't be secret.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
All I have to say is:

Some years back, Auburn University decided to respond to a problem with an increase in the aphid population in this area. Their idea was to use a natural solution: ladybugs. Ladybugs are harmless to humans, not a nuisance, and are voracious eaters of aphids. To help nature along, the good folks at Auburn decided to manipulate the ladybugs they were going to use by selective breeding to produce a more hardy ladybug.

They released several million of these super-ladybugs. The aphid problem was cured almost overnight.

But then the ladybugs started breeding... and making more ladybugs... and more ladybugs. As the natural food source was exhausted, the ladybugs started dying. Homes were condemned and torn down because of the stench of millions of rotting ladybug corpses inside the walls. I saw patios with two inches of dead ladybugs covering them. Cities hired special crews just to rid public buildings of these decaying insects.

Thank you Auburn.

I always remember this whenever I hear of someone wanting to try something new on a global scale. One of these days, if left to educated idiots like this, it will be all lifeforms cluttering up the planet with their decaying stench instead of just ladybugs.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


They succeed in lowering the temperature a degree or so... and eventually the normal cooling will kick in.. which is not good for us and will happen soon or later anyways... they claim success.


That is one of the major arguments against use of an aerosol program. Once the stuff is up there it's up there for a while and nothing can be done about it.

Yes, eventually a cooling cycle would occur. After 50 years? 100 years? 1,000? No way of knowing. But, as said, if warming does begin to cause catastrophic changes, extreme measures may be deemed worth the risks.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Thanks for that very vivid illustration!

My minds eye sees lttle red wings everywhere...what was a seemingly harmless
idea took a turn for the worse. Not to mention they are at least an organic item.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

That is one of the major arguments against use of an aerosol program. Once the stuff is up there it's up there for a while and nothing can be done about it.

"for a while" ?

I would think that once its up there period.


extreme measures may be deemed worth the risks.


Maybe they will be deemed worthwhile...however that does not make them worthy.



Its on record already that no amount of sulphate aerosols or any other particulate matter
can reverse green house gas emmissions.


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
edit on 6-2-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


The Auburn ladybug invasion was nothing to do with super-bugs - lots of places get an unwelcome annual ladybug invasion



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage

if warming does begin to cause catastrophic changes

That's a pretty big 'if' you've got going there Phage.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by Phage

That is one of the major arguments against use of an aerosol program. Once the stuff is up there it's up there for a while and nothing can be done about it.

"for a while" ?

I would think that once its up there period.


expected life is 1-2 years


Its on record already that no amount of su;phate aerosols or any other particulate matter
can reverse green house gas emmissions.


Where is that?



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Phage

That's a pretty big 'if' you've got going there Phage.


Yes. Yes it is.
But it isn't just my if.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Your article was from Eugene Oregon... I am talking about an event in Alabama.



TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Its on record already that no amount of su;phate aerosols or any other particulate matter
can reverse green house gas emmissions.

True. Another point against the case for using geoengineering (of the SRM sort) in lieu of CO2 reduction.
edit on 2/6/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Look up....Its in the same post.
The link to Ban-Weiss's quote is here:

wattsupwiththat.com...



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Yes, eventually a cooling cycle would occur. After 50 years? 100 years? 1,000? No way of knowing. But, as said, if warming does begin to cause catastrophic changes, extreme measures may be deemed worth the risks.


That is adding an unnacceptable risk....the "termination problem"


Because geoengineering acts to mask climate warming, there is a direct CO2-driven increase in carbon uptake without an offsetting temperature-driven suppression of carbon sinks. However, this strengthening of carbon sinks, combined with the potential for rapid climate adjustment to changes in solar forcing, leads to serious consequences should geoengineering fail or be stopped abruptly. Such a scenario could lead to very rapid climate change, with warming rates up to 20 times greater than present-day rates. This warming rebound would be larger and more sustained should climate sensitivity prove to be higher than expected. Thus, employing geoengineering schemes with continued carbon emissions could lead to severe risks for the global climate system.www.pnas.org...



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Look up....Its in the same post.
The link to Ban-Weiss's quote is here:

wattsupwiththat.com...


Hmm....nowhere in there does it say that "......no amount of sulphate aerosols or any other particulate matter can reverse green house gas emmissions." at all - are you sure??


What it does say is:


“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.


they say that there is definitely a cooling effect:


We know that sulfate can cool the Earth because we have observed global temperature decreases following volcanic eruptions,” explained lead author George Ban-Weiss. “Past computer model simulations have shown that injecting sulfate uniformly into the stratosphere could reduce the surface temperature of the Earth, but the equator would be over cooled and the poles under cooled. You would also make the Earth drier, and decrease surface water runoff.”


So I reckon you are badly mistaken (at best!) if that is your source



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


ATG,

That is the best twisting of words to fit into a hair splitter
I have ever seen.


Thats ridiculous. It says what it says.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Like I also pointed out, annual ladybug invasion happen all over the place, and it seems you are the only source for the Auburn Alabama one being a result of human interference........so how about some actual evidence to back up your claim?



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
All I have to say is:

Some years back, Auburn University decided to respond to a problem with an increase in the aphid population in this area. Their idea was to use a natural solution: ladybugs. Ladybugs are harmless to humans, not a nuisance, and are voracious eaters of aphids. To help nature along, the good folks at Auburn decided to manipulate the ladybugs they were going to use by selective breeding to produce a more hardy ladybug.

They released several million of these super-ladybugs. The aphid problem was cured almost overnight.

But then the ladybugs started breeding... and making more ladybugs... and more ladybugs. As the natural food source was exhausted, the ladybugs started dying. Homes were condemned and torn down because of the stench of millions of rotting ladybug corpses inside the walls. I saw patios with two inches of dead ladybugs covering them. Cities hired special crews just to rid public buildings of these decaying insects.

Thank you Auburn.

I always remember this whenever I hear of someone wanting to try something new on a global scale. One of these days, if left to educated idiots like this, it will be all lifeforms cluttering up the planet with their decaying stench instead of just ladybugs.

TheRedneck


Absolutely.... Every time we tinker we inevitably can not foresee all the problems.

Here in KY they introduced kudzu to stop rocks falling on hillsides from road construction.

While it helped that, kudzu is not indigenous and nothing eats it so it takes over huge area of land destroying indigenous plants and becoming a huge nuisance to locals. Worse it can't be contained with non invasive techniques like hand pulling and mowing very effectively and takes a huge cocktail of multiple chemicals (Monsanto's among this) which is doing untold amount of harm.

And geoengineers are already warning there could be a lot of devastating side effect they already know about!!!

To pursue this is insanity. Volcanos and other natural methods will naturally balance things. We need to enjoy this warm period while it lasts... it might have already ended.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
HAHA brilliant lets play with something we don't fully understand nor fully understand the potential consequences of such actions.. what is the worst that could possibly go wrong.

the introduction of cane toads to take care of pests in Australia naturally was a brilliant idea too.
edit on 6-2-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join