Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering

page: 5
44
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by Phage
 


and so spraying SO2 in the atmosphere will be all good?


Hell no!

But it is conceivable that it may be less bad than the alternative.




posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by Phage
 


and so spraying SO2 in the atmosphere will be all good?


Please tell me where I claimed that.
You pointed to cloud seeding for some reason.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:54 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


Ah the Asian ladybeetle, I've spent close to $1,000 keeping them out of my house over the last 10 years.

They weren't around this year since it was dry, but I know they'll be back, they love soybean aphids.


Australia has seen it's share of problems from tinkering with the ecosystem also. From plagues of rats and rabbits, to the cane toad that quickly taking over the continent.





Once again the question shouldn't be Can we? It needs to be should we?



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 




Ok, so where are the recent studys by Keith, you know the one whos is getting paid the big bucks! ?

You know that David Keith is getting "big bucks" from Gates? How much exactly. Is he a wealthy man?
keith.seas.harvard.edu...
keith.seas.harvard.edu...
keith.seas.harvard.edu...
keith.seas.harvard.edu...
keith.seas.harvard.edu...

edit on 2/6/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by Phage
 


and so spraying SO2 in the atmosphere will be all good?


Hell no!

But it is conceivable that it may be less bad than the alternative.


whats the alternative? global warming or global cooling?



Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by Phage
 


and so spraying SO2 in the atmosphere will be all good?


Please tell me where I claimed that.
You pointed to cloud seeding for some reason.


you didnt, but playing with geoengineering on a large scale did.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by choos
 




you didnt, but playing with geoengineering on a large scale did.

Please show an article saying that geoengineering would be "all good".
While you're at it, what makes you say that geoengineering is being "played with", other than conceptually?

edit on 2/6/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by Phage
 


and so spraying SO2 in the atmosphere will be all good?


Hell no!

But it is conceivable that it may be less bad than the alternative.


whats the alternative? global warming or global cooling?



If you don't know then are you really in a position to be debating the topic at all??



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


reply to post by Phage
 



Originally posted by burntheships

Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering


www.guardian.co.uk

A small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.

The scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a "plan B" for climate change.....
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
times247.com
coto2.wordpress. com
coto2.files.wordpress.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Geo-engineering Trial Follows In US Slipstream
The Powerful Coalition That Wants To Engineer The World's Climate
edit on 6-2-2012 by burntheships because: format


no one knows if its "all good" but they sure want to play with it.

im saying playing as there really is no way to test the long term effects in some lab environment, and when they say test on a large scale, than it definitely isnt in a lab. this isnt a test or experiment, they know adding this to that will do this so they are doing it, they just dont know what else might happen.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by choos
 

Please provide an original source advocating the testing of geoengineering "on a large scale".
edit on 2/6/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Nothing could be more dangerous than trying an unknown fix for a problem that might not be a problem and discovering that the cure was worse than the disease.


This is exactly what I fear.

All this for the sake of money and control...oh and for the good of humanity!
edit on 6-2-2012 by User8911 because: typo



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage


You know that David Keith is getting "big bucks" from Gates?


$4.6m from Gates for David Keith to run the Climate and Energy Research, and he is the president
and majority owner of the geoengineering company Carbon Engineering. (Ficer) also Gates
coffers.

And according to financial statements, additionally Keith gets an undisclosed sum from
Bill Gates each year.

Chump change.

Yep, any studies by him are surely to be pure science.

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



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
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.



"we know enough about it to realize we should be taking action"

"public reaction has a long way to go to support the fairly dramatic changes required"

"the people watching are seeing changes a lot more rapidly than they anticipated" [one of the key phrase they use all over their publications as a key criteria for when they must implement geoengineering according to them]

"while sure there is some uncertainty about of the details of the climate science - there isn't any uncertainty about wether we have a serious problem"


... I'm only in 3:25 and I already found that many quotes....I could go on but what is the point?

They are certain there is a problem and they are quoting the key phrases they set as prerequisites to starting geoengineering as ALREADY come to pass... so they are CERTAIN they need it. Simple logic.

Not only that, beyond saying it, and implying it, they are setting up the framework for doing it on all levels especially the political. So their actions speak louder than any words.

CFR policy today, is law tomorrow... a commonly know truism in Washington.


I won't have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think...



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Yes, its certainly fine to have a debate here,
its referred to as collaberation. You know....

You dont need to run folks off!



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

Yes, I saw that $4.6 billion in the article.
Did you see the link that was provided in the article? It doesn't seem that they got it exactly right. It didn't go to Keith. The $4.6 billion is what was distributed by FICER to various projects and meetings.

Development of technologies for removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; technology and policy analysis of solar radiation management and of the land-use footprint of energy technologies; and, development and modeling of methods for solar radiation management.
David Keith, University of Calgary ($1.1 M)

Analyses of carbon dioxide emissions associated with global patterns of energy use, and climate model investigations of environmental consequences of both inadvertent and proposed intentional interferences in the climate system (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions and solar radiation management).
Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution ($1.1 M)

Climate model investigations of environmental consequences of interference in the climate system.
Phil Rasch, National Center for Atmospheric Research and DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory ($0.6 M)

Task Force on Geoengineering
National Commission on Energy Policy ($0.1 M)

Laboratory experiments to evaluate whether it would be feasible to produce a sprayer that would make fine seawater droplets.
Armand Neukermans [no institutional association; formerly Hewlett-Packard] ($0.3 M)

Modeling studies applying control theory to the climate system.
Doug MacMynowski, California Institute of Technology ($0.3 M)

A community-based approach to evaluating options to diminish carbon dioxide emissions.
Steven Davis, Carnegie Institution ($0.25 M)

Studies on potential climate metastabilities associated with Arctic sea ice loss.
Cecilia Bitz, University of Washington; Shawn Marshall, University of Calgary ($0.2 M)

Study of environmental consequences of fish farming as an analog for effects of intentional ocean fertilization.
Jonathan Erez, Hebrew University ($0.15 M)

Analysis of VOCALS observations of clouds.
Alan Gadian, University of Leeds ($0.15 M)

Historical temperature estimates from statistical analysis of temperature data.
Michael Ditmore, Novim ($0.1 M)

Support for the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative.
A joint project of the Royal Society of London, the Environmental Defense Fund and TWAS, the Academy of Sciences for the
Developing World ($0.1 M)

Paper study evaluating cost of delivering aerosols to the stratosphere.
Jay Apt, Carnegie Mellon and Aurora Flight Sciences ($0.1 M)

In addition, approximately $0.24 M was used to support participation in meetings, workshops, and summer schools including those occurring at Harvard University, University of Edinburgh, and University of Heidelberg.

keith.seas.harvard.edu...

I see that Keith himself received a grant to study carbon dioxide removal. Yes, that's considered geoengineering but it certainly has nothing to do with stratospheric aerosols. At least one of those papers of his which I listed is about it.

Caldeira also received a grant to study climate models and the effects of SRM.

Oh...

Q. Does the fund support field testing of geoengineering?
A. 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.

edit on 2/6/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 




.. I'm only in 3:25 and I already found that many quotes....I could go on but what is the point?

Yes. What's the point? We don't have the full context.
It seems to me that they are talking about taking action on CO2 emissions, not SRM.
edit on 2/6/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
But "they" have to live here too.....so if it's f'd up why would they want to live in a bunker for the rest of their lives?



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Those figures you posted are just FICER.

The figures I posted are just from Gates...
And Keith is funded by other very weathly indivuals who are also Globalists.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

You didn't read the link, did you?

Grants for research are provided to the University of Calgary from gifts made by Mr. Bill Gates from his personal funds. The activities of the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research fall outside the scope of activities of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. FICER is not a Foundation project and has no relationship with it.



Q. What is the source and size of the fund? Who administers the fund?
A. Since its inception in 2007, FICER has given out grants to 13 research projects and various scientific meetings totaling $4.6 million. Internationally known climate scientists Dr. David Keith of University of Calgary and Dr. Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution select projects that receive support from the fund. While Mr. Gates provides input from time to time on the fund, Drs. Keith and Caldera make final decisions on projects.

keith.seas.harvard.edu...
See? There's where they got that $4.6 million in the article. They screwed it up.


Who else is Keith funded by?

edit on 2/6/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships
 

Yes, I saw that $4.6 billion in the article.
Did you see the link that was provided in the article? It doesn't seem that they got it exactly right. It didn't go to Keith. The $4.6 billion is what was distributed by FICAR to various projects and meetings.


A strange thing happens when you pay scientists millions/billions of dollars... they come back with the results saying what you want them to say.

We see the headlines all across ATS weekly if not daily on this.

Besides, we are BROKE. We don't have money to fund all this, however well meaning. Maybe if we stopped all our wars of empire and stopped throwing away billions on bribes... er, i mean foreign aid... we could provide money for scientists to research what they want without a political agenda like global warming/geoengineering.

These are the same globalist banksters who are purposefully bankrupting nations for profit!



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 

Who's going to work for free? What about the computers?
Ok. So no research at all then.
Fine. Great. Let's just do what we're doing. Come what may.

BTW, did you read Keith's work? That globalist funded nonsense?
edit on 2/6/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join