Phage, how many billions of dollars spent all to come to the same conclusions
I dont see honest scientists hard at work finding an ethical solution.
Originally posted by pianopraze
Look at the future they want us either in a mind controled city, or a freedom slum:
That's real, not a farce. It's by this organization...
Forum for the Future’s scenarios are not predictions or depictions of desirable futures which we wish to promote, and they do not represent our vision of a sustainable future. They are pictures of different possible futures, designed to help people understand the major trends that are shaping our world. They aim to challenge, inspire and excite, so that people feel motivated to plan for a better, more sustainable future.
Originally posted by pianopraze
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
You are the one who raised the "rules of disinformation" - I hardly see how you can complain about me commenting on them!
And.... he still posts off topic....
Look ATG, I am posting hard hitting evidence backing up my conspiracy theory... what exactly are you doing?
I have shown there is a lot of smoke... I can't prove theirs fire yet... but you know how that saying goes.
Teller was an interesting guy. He thought thermonuclear weapons would be good for dredging harbors.
Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
Originally posted by Phage
But I'm pretty sure not many (or even one) billions have been spent at this point.
The Government Accountability Office found in its report more than 50 current studies,
totaling slightly more than $100 million, focusing on piecemeal strategies to reverse climate change,
but none directly addresses what would happen if adventurous programs on carbon dioxide
reduction and solar radiation management were put in place.
"Without a coordinated federal strategy for geoengineering, it is difficult for agencies to determine
the extent of relevant research, and policymakers may lack key information to inform subsequent
decisions on engineering and existing climate science efforts,"
the report said, adding that most of the $2 billion spent each year on federal climate science
research could also help geoengineering with better coordination.
“Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under another name than eugenics.” - Frederick Osborn
“Eugenics views itself as the fourth leg of the chair of civilization, the other three being a) a thrifty expenditure of natural resources, b) mitigation of environmental pollution, and c) maintenance of a human population not exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity. Eugenics, which can be thought of as human ecology, is thus part and parcel of the environmental movement.”
- John Glad “Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century.”
"The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background...its education program it can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization...Political unification in some sort of world government will be required...Tasks for the media division of UNESCO (will be) to promote the growth of a common outlook shared by all nations and cultures...to help the emergence of a single world culture....Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable."
- The first director -general of UNESCO Sir Julian Huxley, 1948, "UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy."
So quite obviously it IS a farce - an unpleasant parody of what the future might be like if we don't plan in advance. There were three other similar parody videos of extreme possible scenarios.
Originally posted by Iwinder
Another great thread here and I cannot thank you enough for posting honest information here.
"Sorry, dude...again, no "proof" as suggested (but, you did use a '?' in the title" This is a quote from Proud Whacker.....Now I ask you, does this sound like a statement from a Pilot with over 40 years flying time?
Maybe a Californian sufer Dude but certainly not a pilot from anywhere else....with an approximate age of at least 60 and probably closer to 70 years of age....
To the OP keep them coming and they can't stop the flow here they can only hope to delay the inevitable.
the report said, adding that most of the $2 billion spent each year on federal climate science research could also help geoengineering with better coordination.
Does it say "most"? No. Does it say it would be spent on geoengineering research? No.
In addition to these efforts, federal officials noted that a large fraction of the existing federal research and observations on basic climate change and earth science could be relevant to improving understanding about proposed geoengineering approaches and their potential impacts.
Staff from federal offices coordinating the U.S. response to climate change—CEQ, OSTP, and USGCRP—stated that they do not currently have a geoengineering strategy or position. Additionally, a USGCRP official stated that, while the USGCRP could establish an interagency working group to coordinate a federal effort in geoengineering research, such a group is not currently necessary because of the small amount of federal funding specifically directed toward these activities.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Replying to your posts to me of course.
BTW so far your "hard hitting evidence backing up my conspiracy theory" has been completely debunked by others.
the "fire" has been revealed by others - and it seems you are actually using a smoke generator to simulate one!!.
Your "hard hitting evidence backing up my conspiracy theory" is all smoke and mirrors!!
edit on 12-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships
My data is fine.
Never mind. I'll do it.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
NOAA’s total budget request is $5.6 billion, which would be an increase of 17.0 percent. Of this, $437 million would be for climate research funding, which is an increase of $77 million.
$437 million spent on climate change research in one year, in one agency. Here's another:
National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF would receive $7.4 billion in FY 2011, an increase of 8 percent relative to the FY 2010 appropriation. The request includes $370 million under the USGCRP framework, which is an increase of 16.0 percent. The Geosciences Directorate would receive $955 million (a 7.4 percent increase) in FY 2011 with $480 million going to Atmospheric and Earth Sciences. NSF’s Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) program would receive $765.5 million. This is intended to promote discoveries and capability needed to inform societal actions in ways that contribute to environmental and economic sustainability. NSF’s request also includes $19 million for RE-ENERGYSE, a joint program with the Department of Energy intended to promote education in clean energy research. An additional $10 million would fund Climate Change Education, which seeks to increase understanding of climate among the next generation of Americans.
$480 million here, $765.5 million there, throw in another $10 million for climate education and you've got $1.25 billion dollars spent on climate change research just at the NSF, just in ONE YEAR! Next is NASA:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA’s FY 2011 budget request is $19.0 billion. NASA Earth Science is a relatively small fraction of this total, $1.8 billion or 9.5 percent, but would increase substantially relative to the FY 2010 appropriation (up 26.8 percent). NASA Earth Science funds climate change R&D through several programs. Two of particular note are Earth Science Research, which would receive $438.1 million (an increase of 14 percent)...
It seems like the $450 million mark is a common budget for climate research among these agencies. NOAA's funding, the NSF's atmospheric science funding, and NASA's Earth Science research are all around $450 million. It may be an interesting coincidence. Next is the Department of Energy:
Department of Energy (DOE).
The President’s budget request for DOE in FY 2011 is $28.4 billion. This includes $4.6 billion for R&D in the Office of Science (an increase of 3.8 percent), and $2.4 billion for energy R&D (an increase of 6.8 percent). Within the Office of Science, the Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER), which supports basic research in atmospheric sciences, terrestrial ecosystems and climate modeling, would receive $627 million (an increase of 3.8 percent). BER’s request includes $28.6 million for the Terrestrial Ecosystem Science (TES) program, which examines the impact of climate change on biological systems and land-surface carbon cycle feedbacks to climate change.
$627 million taken from a taxpayer or borrowed from a future taxpayer, spent in one year. Next the Department of the Interior:
Department of the Interior (DOI).
DOI requests $171 million (an increase of 26.0 percent) for its Climate Change Adaptation initiative, which seeks to identify areas and species most vulnerable to climate change and implement coping strategies. Of this, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) would receive $77.9 million for climate science (an increase of 15.5 percent).
Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
Thanks for putting the thread together praze, and all this stuff tells me one of two things, either our planet is in danger of solar radiation or climate change so great that we must address it, or, there is a hell of a lot of money to be made by certain(chemical?) industries and govs. Can you imagine the monetary value of such endeavors?
What I don't get is in another thread they say just 10 balloons can lower the global temps 2dC over a couple of years, so if that is enough, why aren't there more plans, internationally, for that resolution?
Additionally, it seems that industrialization(China reference) does affect the climate, so now what? I thought humans do not contribute to climate change. Such a fuzzy subject with much to gain and/or lose. Only time and research will reveal what is going on I suppose. But the whole geo-engineering issue has become more evident over the years, on a global scale, which just a couple of years ago was considered far fetched and unlikely.
Keep up the good work man,
Most of the research focused on mitigation efforts, such as geological sequestration of CO2, which were identified as relevant to CDR approaches but not designed to address them directly. GAO found that nine activities, totaling about $1.9 million, directly investigated SRM or less conventional CDR approaches.
Originally posted by Goldcurrent
Until interanational accords are signed by all countries, public disclosure of SRM will not be forthcoming.