Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

No, I don't think they've made any of the advanced particulates. And I don't think anyone expects a "sudden catastrophe".

I am really curious to know then, why do you think they are making the delivery systems,
but not the delivery.

Really?

From Gates own site, his whitepaper :

[HIGH-FLYING BLIMPS, based on existing protoypes, could support a
hose no thicker than a fire hose (above) to carry sulfur dioxide as a clear liquid
up to the stratosphere, In the calculations we performed to validate this approach
(described below), we focused on an installation capable of HIGH-FLYING BLIMPS,
based on existing protoypes, could support a hose no thicker than a fire
hose (above) to carry sulfur dioxide as a clear liquid up to the stratosphere, where
one or more nozzles (below) would atomize it into a fine mist of nanometer-scale aerosol particles.
CREDIT: David Fierstein

intellectualventureslab.com...

That is complete with pictures of the blimps - not drawings but actual photos on page 9.

reply to post by pianopraze

Well, you can see what the USGRP does here:
downloads.globalchange.gov...
You can decide whether you think it's worthwhile or not but I can't see how you can call it "geoengineering type issues." In the entire 100 page document I find the terms geoengineering and solar radiation managment used exactly once. In the same sentence:

Improved understanding in these areas will also be crucial for informing research into assessing the feasibility, effectiveness, and unintended consequences of strategies for deliberate, large-scale manipulations of Earth’s environment, including solar radiation management and post-emission carbon management, to offset the harmful consequences of greenhouse gas-induced climate change (often referred to as geoengineering).

I see no advocacy of geoengineering.

The BPC says about SRM in their final recommendations:

Research in the physical sciences is needed to address three fundamental questions about SRM:
1. Could SRM methods effectively mitigate specific consequences of climate change and reduce climate risks? A world cooled by managing sunlight will not be the same as a world cooled by lowering emissions. How would the effects of specific SRM techniques be distributed geographically? How well could those effects be predicted or controlled? For example, how might the injection of sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere reduce global temperatures, and would this method reduce the harmful effects of climate change on tropical crop productivity or biodiversity?
2. What are the risks and side effects of various SRM techniques? For example, would stratospheric aerosols accelerate the catalytic destruction of ozone? How would ecosystems be affected by the rain-out of injected substances? Aerosol injection will diffuse the light reaching the Earth and alter the visible appearance of the sky. How will this affect plant growth and ecosystem health as well as humans?
3. Is it possible to accurately detect and monitor the implementation of SRM techniques and can we have confidence that it will be possible to distinguish resulting effects on the global climate from natural variability? This evaluation will determine whether the effects of SRM could be measured well enough to successfully manage an intervention in the global climate.

www.bipartisanpolicy.org...
I see no advocacy of geoengineering. I see a stress on the need for research.


You have a problem with research?
Like I said; You want to ignore the existence, possible causes, and effects of climate change? Am I missing your point?

reply to post by burntheships

He is even going on about particles engineered to drift over the pole!

trying to stay out of this because I know too little but I have an obvious question at this point

Are they trying to save the ice caps to prevent another Ice Age?

now I will let brighter minds go at it and pay attention.. Thanks

reply to post by burntheships

I thought you were asking about the advanced particulates which Keith proposes.Yes, blimps exist. Big surprise huh? Those particular prototype blimps are built by JP Aerospace for a project called Airship to Orbit.
www.jpaerospace.com...

Why are you building this now?
We are not building or even planning to build the StratoShield. Intellectual Ventures is simply urging that research on geoengineering options, including stratospheric aerosol enhancement, begin in earnest now.

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. Although we have explored the general principles of how a system like this would operate, many technical details would have to be worked out. The detailed R&D is not something that IV currently contemplates doing, although if a responsible research program on geoengineering is launched, we may participate and collaborate with

intellectualventureslab.com...

reply to post by Phage


I have a problem with your twists of logic.

You just proved they are covering geoengineering.

reply to post by pianopraze

What twist of logic?

I see that the possible impacts of geoengineering (positive and negative) are being studied along with other aspects of climate change. I see nothing indicating that the USGRP or the BPC is doing or funding any original research into geoengineering. Can you find anything thing like that?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze

 

What twist of logic?

I see that the possible impacts of geoengineering (positive and negative) are being studied along with other aspects of climate change. I see nothing indicating that the USGRP or the BPC is doing or funding any original research into geoengineering. Can you find anything thing like that?

If you can't see how admitting they are covering geoengineering, and denying it in the next breath are illogical...

... not much I can do to help.

Here's some more sources to help your logic it out:

Geoengineering is a broad term which generally refers to at least two major families of technologies:

solar radiation management (SRM) techniques, which reduce the Earth’s absorption of solar radiation by blocking or reflecting a small fraction of sunlight; and
carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques, which reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations by using chemical or biological processes to capture and sequester carbon dioxide (and potentially other greenhouse gases).

link

cliMaTe reMediaTion research proGraM
OSTP and OMB should begin working immediately to put together a coordinated program for SRM and CDR research that should be proposed as part of the president’s fiscal year 2013 budget.
As mentioned previously, some federally funded research into CDR and, to a lesser extent, SRM is already occurring on an ad hoc basis. 20 The task force emphasizes the urgent need for expanding and accelerating this research and for providing strategic coordination. We believe that ongoing but disparate climate remediation research will be improved only by establishing a coordinated and strategic approach to federal funding.

link

reply to post by rebellender


Please, dont stay out.
Collaberation is what this is all about!

reply to post by pianopraze

I was talking about original research rather than studies of outside research but great! A source showing government funding of SRM research, that's what I was asking for. But first:

ad hoc
adv ˈad-ˈhäk, -ˈhōk; ˈäd-ˈhōk
Definition of AD HOC
: for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application

www.merriam-webster.com...

Now to the referenced source: www.gao.gov...

Federal Agencies Have Sponsored Some Research Activities, but These Activities Are Not Part of a Coordinated Federal Geoengineering Research Strategy

For SRM approaches, DOE, through its Sandia National Laboratories, has sponsored a study investigating the potential unintended consequences and economic impacts of sulfur aerosol injection. Additionally, DOE has contributed a small amount of funding for modeling studies related to cloud-brightening and stratospheric aerosol SRM approaches at its Pacific Northwest National Laboratory—an effort that is primarily funded by the University of Calgary.

A study of impacts, and a bit of modelling so yes, I would say that qualifies as some original research.

NSF has funded projects relevant to both SRM and CDR approaches. For SRM approaches, NSF has sponsored some modeling studies for stratospheric aerosol injection and for a space-based SRM approach. NSF has also funded research investigating the ethical issues related to SRM approaches.

Ok. Some modelling studies. That would be original research.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) funded a research study investigating the practicality of using a solar shield in space to deflect sunlight and reduce global temperatures as part of its former independent Institute for Advanced Concepts program.14 Additionally, scientists at NASA’s Ames Research Center, independent of headquarters, held a conference on SRM approaches in 2006, in conjunction with the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

A bit here but it doesn't seem to have much to do with aerosols.

EPA has also sponsored research related to the economic implications of SRM geoengineering approaches through its National Center for Environmental Economics.

Nope.

Ok a bit of original research into geoengineering. Doesn't sound like billions. The report goes on:

Due to the limited amount of geoengineering research conducted to date, the experts we interviewed stated that a sustained program of additional research would be needed to address the significant uncertainties regarding the effectiveness and potential impacts of geoengineering approaches. Additionally, these experts noted that for certain approaches where transboundary impacts would be likely during field experiments, international cooperation for research would be necessary. Specifically, recent studies highlight the limitations of current models to accurately predict the environmental impact of SRM technologies at a regional scale—which would be necessary to accurately gauge potential impacts that might interfere with agricultural production for certain regions.

Multilateral research into potential impacts recommended. Sounds familiar.

reply to post by Phage


So we are in agreement then, they are spending money on geoengineering

Glad we can finally agree

If you find out how much, let me know. I really would like to know too.

reply to post by pianopraze

Geoengineering research. Modelling.
And as I said, I think it's a good idea to do that research.

reply to post by Phage


All modeling is based on real World data. They use a small scale real World sample to create a larger scale computer model.

You can not accurately model something if you don't know how it behaves in the real World. The more real World data that is input into the model. The more accurate that model becomes.

If there is no real World data that is input into a model. Then the accuracy of that model is highly speculative and not a reliable model to use.

OK, so after the countless billions upon billions that our tax dollars have pumped into geo-engineering research, Mr. Gates decides to "invest" (and I do mean invest) into ventures that may not have returns until who knows when??

Is Mr. Gates investing in this research for philothrantropic reasons?

Or does he have an inside scoop on a possible return on investment in the near future?

I highly doubt widespread *PUBLIC* implementation isn't in our near future and there is some returns for those backing it.

Of course I have no solid evidence but it wouldn't be heresy to state that I believe SRM research has gone far beyond the computer module stage into practical testing for quite some time.

After the initial CFR cronies get dibs, they move on to investors such as Gates and Buffet, to move into the public stage.

I recall not too long ago, Buffet and Gates touring for investment purposes by helicopter in our parts, but passing on the oilsands for environmental reasons. Needless to say the Keystone pipeline was denied and they found 'greener' pastures (in both sense of the words) elsewhere.

Gates must be some kind of gentleman giving such amounts of money towards this research without any short term practical returns. He must be a genuine humanitarian.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Phage

 

All modeling is based on real World data. They use a small scale real World sample to create a larger scale computer model.

Except in this cas they use massive real world events as the basis for the model for geo-engineering - volcanic erruptions - and not any known small scale sample at all.

Hmmm... This all sounds like the prologue to a disaster movie....

Check out the first 4 minutes of this film - as poor a sequel as this was to a great movie it could end up being quite prophetic:

www.youtube.com...

BTW, don't hold this sequel against the director (who can be seen in close up during the countdown). The dollar tanked while shooting it in Argentina and the suits took over and screwed it completely.

Bill Gates is a eugenicist who has publicly suggested geoengineering to "save the world" numerous times, but this instance is quite blatant and is an "in your face" statement saying "we've been doing it, and now we're admitting it".
I was cursing at the chemtrails they were spraying yesterday since it was the first clear day in a week.

They have done many "tests" on the Western world for decades now:

Millions were in germ war tests

The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.

A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.

Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.

MoD test of aerial spraying over Norwich

The Penetration of built-up areas by Aerosols at night - Porton Down Public Area Biological Warfare Experiments on Norwich

During May 1963, the War Office Chief Scientist sent a memo to the Secretary of State explaining the type of public area experiments that were being conducted in the UK by Porton Down. As can be seen in the covering letter, the experiments were conducted in a high level of secrecy because "knowledge of them by unauthorised persons could be politically embarrassing."

This declassified Porton Down film, which is Crown Copyright, shows a Valetta aircraft making a number of passes in front of the camera - all the time spraying the Biological Warfare simulant - Zinc Cadmium sulphide. These experiments shown in this film were conducted during March 1958, and were conducted to determine the characteristics of an aircraft mounted Zinc Cadmium sulphide dispenser. The resulting information was then used in Porton Down's later public area BW experiments, some of which (the Large Area Coverage or LAC) contaminated vast swathes of the UK. A BW simulant is a supposedly harmless substance which mimics the physical properties of a real BW agent, in this case, size (between 1-5 microns). BW simulants are used in BW experiments in which, for safety reasons, a real BW agent could not be used.

The BW 'Attacks' on the City of Salisbury - During 1960, an aircraft, flying an arc 40 miles upwind of Porton's nearby city of Salisbury, sprayed large quantities of a cadmium compound - Zinc Cadmium sulphide (ZnCds). This compound was carried by the wind into the city where, because of its small particle size, it was inhaled and digested by the unwitting population. Documents obtained by myself in 2001 revealed that although Porton were aware of the hazardous nature of ZnCds they never subjected it to toxicity tests prior to its release in populated areas. The population were never informed of these experiments - even the MOD commissioned Independent Review of 2000 didn't include the Salisbury experiments in any detail!

Sick Bastards!

This has been going on for a long time, now they are just testing different variations.

reply to post by pianopraze


"Logical phallicy"

You don't know how many Saturday mornings I woke up, hung over, and wished that I had a more logical phallus.

My new favority typo, thank you.

reply to post by Phage


Aside from whether Bill Gates is advocating real geo-engineering or whether geo-engineerring is already being done deliberately or whether geo-engineering is just being studied as something that may be done deliberately, do you think that humans, apart from whatever impact we are currently having on the planet, should work with the deliberate goal to alter the planets atmosphere as part of an environmental improvement?

I surely do not think that humans have had no impact on the environment, our very existence, no matter how hard we plan, would impact the environment. I also think that our impact on the environment could certainly be detrimental. So in a sense we have to choose what our impact will be to the best of our ability to understand and predict our effects on the environment.

I know we are already screwing with the atmosphere by our normal activities and having unintended consequences and I think that we should work to reduce our impact as much as practical. With this in mind though something troubles me about the argument that climate change is bad.

Surely the climate would change naturally even without us. There have been ice ages, warm periods, volcanic eruptions, etc. So we can't possibly be trying to prevent the climate from changing, can we? How are we to know what change is acceptable? Should we allow a warming period? Assuming of course we could change that. What about another ice age, should we prevent that?

What disturbs me the most with the concept of geo-engineering is that surely the decisions that will be made will be motivated and influenced by politics and profits and probably less by science and real research. The current climate change debate illustrates my point.

Another concern I have is with big headed scientist (they are human after all) thinking they truly know everything about what they intend to do. The Earth is a complex system. Chaos theory comes to mind. Can scientists really foresee all the consequences of their actions in a geo-engineering scheme?

A complex issue to be sure, but what is your take on deliberate geo-engineering? Should we try that?

My take is no, that we should try to limit our impact but not deliberately add things to the environment to change it. Also that we should not try to prevent "natural" change in it (if we can ever come to an agreement on what that is). In other words - as little impact as we can. Geo-engineering is the opposite of little impact - at least as I understand the concept - we would be trying to directly effect the environment.

Look forward to hearing your views

Mega

reply to post by burntheships


Gates is a major player in all this NWO stuff. I'm sure they recruited him early when he started to get wealthy and powerful with MS. Clinton admin brought suit against him and he married Melinda and he's in the CoR, which is involved with UN Agenda 21. Gates said at a TED conference that he likes vaccines for population control so I bet this clmate geoengineering has depopulation as part of it's agenda.

reply to post by Phage


Sulphur? Maybe they are worried about the impact of a giant caldera, say in Yellowstone?