Are geoengineering deniers acting immorally?, page 3

reply to post by tsurfer2000h

---

Forget about it. It's over your head.
I stated earlier that there were two different types of disbelievers on here. The ones who choose to stay in the dark (non-paid disbelievers) and those who are part of the darkness (paid).
I'm just guessing you aren't the paid type -- or at least not yet. I'm sure you could find a job if you looked hard enough. If you are offended because I assumed you to be a legitimate disbeliever, then fine.
Like I said, I really honestly don't care if you are or aren't. Relax.
If this thead was about the dangers of starting a camp fire in the woods, would you jump on here and start saying that you think we're crazy because there are no camp fires going on right at this moment?
I don't know how to explain it any other way.
A lot of very rich people talk about the consequences of geoengineering all the time, so why can't we?

Actually, Florida is having a lot of wild fires lately. Who should I call to see if they can start cloud seeding over Florida to counter the trails that are busting the regularly scheduled showers that should be happening this time of year?

reply to post by Afterthought

---

If this thead was about the dangers of starting a camp fire in the woods, would you jump on here and start saying that you think we're crazy because there are no camp fires going on right at this moment?

A more apt simile would be: If this thread was about the dangers of starting a campfire in the woods, why are people positing videos of Bigfoot?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Afterthought

---

If this thead was about the dangers of starting a camp fire in the woods, would you jump on here and start saying that you think we're crazy because there are no camp fires going on right at this moment?

A more apt simile would be: If this thread was about the dangers of starting a campfire in the woods, why are people positing videos of Bigfoot?

Bigfoot, seriously? Nice straw man. I posted that one video because it has real geoengineers in it at a conference who say geoengineering is dangerous and list several dangers.

I try to post primary sources, and that video has some very primary sources in it - geoengineers, weathermen etc.

I notice you focus right in on that and ignore the multiple nature, scientific american, royal society, cfr, congressional and more sources...

That is a common tactic... ignore the MOUNTAINS of primary sources.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Afterthought

---

Do you think climate engineering is a positive activity? If so, what specific types of geoengineering do you think would help humanity and the Earth equally?

Are you willing to do what is necessary to preserve the Earth's climate as it is? Can you suggest a more eco-system friendly alternative to stop global warming? I think geoengineering is an extremely bad idea, but I recognize that global warming can potentially disrupt human civilization. Is there any way to avoid choosing between the lesser of two evils?

I'm happy to hear that geoengineering doesn't make you feel warm and snuggly.

My suggestion would be to allow more people to work at home. This would cause our need for fossil fuels to drastically decrease until they could get Tesla's technologies and other free energy devices into the public sector. We've had the technology to work at home and teleconference for a long time now. A good portion of society could benefit from working at home. Of course this wouldn't be a good choice for everyone. Not all people are suited to work at home because it takes lots of discipline. Even if 1/3 of today's commuters decided to work from home, traffic and accidents alone would decrease across the board. I realize not everyone has a job they can do at home, but you asked for one idea and this is just one thing that's been on my mind a while.

I do realize that this idea would also have its issues and problems, but that's for a whole 'nother thread.

reply to post by Afterthought

---

What do you mean, "allow".

Who would do the allowing?

There is already a large trend in work from home jobs that came along with the rise of the internet. I know people that convinced their boss they could do their jobs not only as good, but better if they were in the comfort of their homes, so were funded the equipment needed to set them up properly.

I'd also like to suggest some things that would definitely help:

Increased efficiency in energy consumption for transportation needs.

Just look at the highways...there could be traffic in a local 10 lane highway in my city, but the HOV lane is still flowing quite well. That's how few people are on a motorcycle or driving more than one per 3-6000lb clunker.

Lets get maglev, and evacuated tubes going, PRONTO!!

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Afterthought

---

What do you mean, "allow".

Who would do the allowing?

There is already a large trend in work from home jobs that came along with the rise of the internet. I know people that convinced their boss they could do their jobs not only as good, but better if they were in the comfort of their homes, so were funded the equipment needed to set them up properly.

I'd also like to suggest some things that would definitely help:

Increased efficiency in energy consumption for transportation needs.

Just look at the highways...there could be traffic in a local 10 lane highway in my city, but the HOV lane is still flowing quite well. That's how few people are on a motorcycle or driving more than one per 3-6000lb clunker.

Lets get maglev, and evacuated tubes going, PRONTO!!

edit on 14-4-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

True, except maybe the motorcycle.

I get 45-65+ miles per gallon on my motorcycle

I've not followed it closely, but I believe the oil companies has pretty regularly bought out or drove out anyone who invents ways to get us off oil or get really good mpg.

This shows that it's not really about CO2 emissions, its' about top down control.

Geoengineering is also about top down control. It is a way for them to try to drive things like carbon-credits for currency and other such ideas.

Geoengineering will make a lot of rich people richer, and it will come from your and my pocket.. the real tax payers.

This is another in a long line of bad ideas which negatively impact us, the little people.

For those who still disbelieve that geoengineering is not happening, your disbelief is not stopping the progression of this technology. It's starting to become mroe and more difficult to differentiate between what's natural and what's manmade.
www.publications.parliament.uk...

27. Since 1977, cloud seeding and environmental techniques have been subject to international regulation. In 1977 countries agreed to the "Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques" (ENMOD). The treaty, as well as forbidding the use of environmental modification techniques in hostile circumstances, supported the use of weather modification for peaceful purposes. A re-confirmation of the ENMOD principles occurred at the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.[59] Dr Lee pointed out that most techniques covered by the ENMOD treaty were "quite speculative"—for example, causing earthquakes or tsunamis which was far beyond the capacity of current technology—but that cloud seeding was a technology that was often used.[60]

Regarding manmade vs. natural, if the link I posted earlier is an actual threat (Earth's position in the galaxy and the Oort Cloud + Solar Cycle 24) or even Ed Dames' theory (disinfo agent or not), what if our "leaders" knew that the weather was going to be naturally increasing in intensity and thought that storm busting would decrease the impact of these storms?
The link I posted earlier: www.ih2000.net...

Anyways, my point is is that it's OK if people don't want to believe that geoengineering is currently being undertaken. We do need to know what is the real reason for undertaking and planning this technological meddling.

reply to post by unityemissions

---

I can assure you that the UN has invested millions of dollars on geoengineering in Africa. Whether or not you and I believe our wallets are helping pay for it is up for debate.
ipsnews.net...

"We are worried about the negative impacts of geoengineering and synthetic life forms on Africa," said a representative from Malawi at the final session of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA). This group is made up of scientific and technical experts from more than 100 countries that are signatories to the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

A SBSTTA delegate from the Philippines urged the 195 countries that are members of the CBD to develop an international agreement with a strong precautionary approach regarding "living organisms produced by synthetic biology" at their biannual negotiations this October in Nagoya, Japan.

The different things they're doing in Africa are not cheap undertakings.
They're even having to create referandums regarding synthetic organisms for 195 countries. Wow!
Things are getting complicated. I'm sure that carbon taxes are going towards these types of experiments and efforts. Then, we have to wonder what private organizations are conducting their own experiments and projects.
Could the next World War be over geoengineering or who violated some treaty?
Even if your tax dollars aren't paying for these endeavours, would that make you any more comfortable that they're designing and experimenting with geo- and bio-manipulations?

reply to post by Afterthought

---

I'm not comfortable with any of this, but the question still stands:

what's the intent??

Just saying it's about top-down control doesn't seem to fly. I think it's unfortunate that those in power think it's best to control the population, but honestly don't trust the average individual to govern their selves and stay out of my business without some of that governance (control) in place.

Buddy, I've been flipped out about what's going on for many years now. That hasn't changed one bit. I've simply broadened my perspective and somewhat resigned on some things. I think we're going to destroy this planet, to the extent that we won't be able to maintain civilization and a good chunk of the other species will die out as will most of us who don't get that ticket off this rock.

I think it sucks, but I don't think the people are in control of their selves enough to be conscientious enough to be aware enough to take action enough to make a bit of damned difference when it comes down to it.

All we have left are questions and complaints while "progress' continues to bash everyone and everything in it's way. This is humanity, welcome to the insanity...

reply to post by unityemissions

---

I'm not comfortable with any of this

but the question still stands:
what's the intent??

Indeed! What is it? Why don't they care if they create some massive chain reactin that nobody may be able to reverse?
Honestly, I believe that they are psychopaths/sociopaths that want to be gods. Some of these aspiring gods think they're doing good, while some don't care if they cause harm because the thirst for power knows no limits.

In my viewpoint, the greedy have been in control too long and have gotten us into this mess. Why do you think Tesla died penniless?

Here's my reasoning:
1. We could stop emissions, but the greedy would lose money once free energy was released. If free energy was released, we wouldn't need geo-engineering. Geoengineering is a band aid. To solve the problem, we have to get to its root, which is fossil fuels, which brings us back to fossil fuel addiction. We're kept on an evil merry-go-round.
2. The Earth is experiencing increasingly stronger storms because of its procession through the galaxy. People who have good intentions are trying to help by utilizing technology that will decrease the intensity of these storms in order to save lives.

Now, what happens when both of these groups' technological efforts clash? Who decided what storms are busted and which are allowed to remain? Is it ethical if you bust a storm, but pollute the oceans?

3. The truly evil ones who want to use this technology for weather warfare.

I'm glad to hear you aren't comfortable with weather and Earthly manipulations. Neither am I.
If we are going to be experiencing stronger than normal weather, I think it's best just to hang on and try to handle the ride. Tinkering even to lessen the impact could cause disasterous side effects.

reply to post by Afterthought

---

Yea, I've thought along those same lines.

There's a line of thought my friend and I like to bring up to each other from time to time:

what's the difference between between a genius and a psychopath

Our answer has usually nothing to do with them, but their surroundings. What they are labeled as depends on their culture, and ability or not to be successful.

Anyways, I think they are not true psycho in the way most people think of it. Most psychos are not future oriented. If you don't think the people in control have more knowledge of the future than most everyone else, I think you're sorely mistaken. Think of all the supercomputers, high intellects, think tanks, etc...they have at their fingertips. These guys aren't concerned with blowing up this world, because their aim is far, far beyond it...

reply to post by unityemissions

---

Hi Unity,

Its been a while since I linked to this thread, and I dont drag it out often as
most people dont find it to their tastes. Yet knowing your depth, I think you may
appreciate it, and the content as it directly relates to the "top down" theory and how
that is an integral part of the Geoengineering Scheme.

With that said, the rest is for everyone, and I think its really fitting considering that
the title of the thread involves "morality".

In fact, when I saw Gauls thread on the "immorality" of those
who expose the Geoengineering Schemes, I remembered this part
of the conspiracy, and just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

This is indeed a very deep rabbit hole. Very deep. In fact, this may
be one of the top ten all time conspriacies, the truth be told.

And considering all of the players, this may indeed be a
conspiracy of the highest order.

Let us backtrack for a moment and recall that the stated reason for exploring the
Geoengineering of the planet is the assertion of incontrovertible global warming.

Yet, its far from proven, and the fact that the Global Warming crowd is so desperate,
so very desperate to call upon religion, yes religion....well that speaks volumes
in my world. Let me share a little from my thread.

The Holy Land: The Ecological Turning Point Of The Three Religions
vaticaninsid er.lastampa.it

ROME

That the three great monotheistic religions in Jerusalem should agree on anything these days, is a miracle. But that they should choose to launch a joint appeal to world leaders on climate change – in other words, on one of the issues that have diplomats from all over the world struggling – is definitely incredible. Yet this is the aim of an initiative that will be presented.

www.lpj.org
www.investors.com

Vatican Emerges From WikiLeaks As A Key Player On Global Scene
The Climate Cash Cow

Here we have a council representing the "Highest Religious Authorities"
of The Holy Land in agreement.

We have the Chief Rabbinate of Isreal, The Palestine Court of Sharia Law, The WAQF,
and leaders of all Christian Churches in Jerusalem all united in agreeement,
however, its not concerning religion, it is to unite for the cause of Climate Change.

This council represents the highest religious authorities of the Holy Land: the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, the Palestinian Ministry of Religious Affairs (Waqf), the Palestinian Court of Sharia law and all leaders of Christian Churches in Jerusalem. The Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land in Jerusalem brings together the leaders of the three religions to jointly promote coexistence, to deal with extremism and find solutions to social problems.Holy Land Declaration On Climate Change

Since the failure at Copenhagen, the IPCC Scandals, the leaders of the
religion of Climate Change have fought hard to keep the "threat of climate change" as the New Terror.

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

The First Global Revolution which is
" A Report by The Club Of Rome" in which the quote is found...

On page 75 you can find the quote:
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by unityemissions

---

The difference between geniuses and psychopaths?
Good question!

Remember earlier when you asked what I meant by who would be "allowed" to work at home?
The psychopaths wouldn't allow their employees to work at home because they need to see what they're doing all the time.
The geniuses would trust who works for them (until they had evidence otherwise) and allow them to work at home.
The psychopath would allow you to work at home as long as you agreed to have a camera in your home.

I don't believe all control freaks are bad. Like I said earlier, some really do have good intentions. The fact of the matter here is that weather manipulation is so temperamental that nobody, good intentions or not, should have access. Just like nuclear technology, it has good uses and bad. The only way it should be utilized is with proper oversight, but this is not flawless either. I think we can all agree at this point that even nuclear energy is too dangerous for life and the environment. This is the same way I view geoengineering.

Continued:

In that thread, Stormdancer pointed out a very pertinent piece of the puzzle
related to The Club Of Rome.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Malthusianism
en.wikipedia.org...

how unchecked population growth is exponential (1→2→4→8) while the growth of the food supply was expected to be arithmetical (1→2→3→4). Malthus believed that there were two types of "checks" that could then reduce the population, returning it to a more sustainable level. He believed there were "preventive" checks such as birth control, abstinence, etc., and "positive checks", which lead to premature death, such as disease, war etc., leading to a Malthusian catastrophe, which would return population to a lower, more "sustainable", level en.wikipedia.org...

The Vatican is also behind the GMO push, albeit with a fierce amount of secrecy.

Me thinks that this fits in to the postive check category, along with the geoengineering that may
become part of the Climate Change religion.

Also, in that thread, Crimevelvet had some very interesting points.

It is a favorite of the Elite. It justifies Eugenics which is part of their idea of "Socialism"

You need to look closely at the Fabian Socialists who started the London School of Economics (George Soros and many top bankers, politicians & CEOs) and the Rhodes Scholars, (Pres. Clinton)

Start here with a quote from Obama's "Science Czar" John P. Holdren, (Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy)

grendelreport.posterous.com...

'Holdren has co-authored works in the past that called for a campaign to “de-develop the United States” and said people need to eventually face up to a “world of zero net physical growth.” He also co-authored a passage that said: “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect.” '

.... In their 1973 book “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” Holdren and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich wrote:

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-devolopment means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries."

“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

Now go back to around WWII and a founding member of the Fabian Society George Bernard Shaw. Here are a few quotes from the "Real George Bernard Shaw": www.sovereignindependent.com...

George Bernard Shaw was a founding member of the Fabian Society:

“Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470)

EXTERMINATION OF THE “SOCIALLY INCOMPATIBLE”

“The notion that persons should be safe from extermination as long as they do not commit willful murder, or levy war against the Crown, or kidnap, or throw vitriol, is not only to limit social responsibility unnecessarily, and to privilege the large range of intolerable misconduct that lies outside them, but to divert attention from the essential justification for extermination, which is always incorrigible social incompatibility and nothing else.”

Source: George Bernard Shaw, “On the Rocks” (1933), Preface

“We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …

edit on 14-4-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

reply to post by burntheships

---

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

I think it's best to take this quote as is, and not impose anything on top of it.

There is a statement of things which are real: threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, etc..

There is a note that these are all caused by human actions, and can be handled through changing people.

It speaks of union by means of fighting a perceived enemy.

It in no way speaks of an evil intent.



Does any of the above quote seem to be showing a nefarious ploy to you

I don't see it.

reply to post by unityemissions

---

Yes, simply put if they need to call of the guise of "Religion" that is
is a ploy, and one of the highest order.

If its "science" it can be proven.

If its a 'belief" it needs "Religion"

reply to post by burntheships

---

Wonderful points!
I'd totally forgotten about the religious aspect.
You're right in saying that this topic has one of the deepest rabbit holes. No question about that!

reply to post by burntheships

---

Your scientific proof requires the death of civilization, it seems, as the calculations are too vast, and yet we can sum it up with a fairly high degree of probability by intuition and rough guestimations alone.

Call it what you will.

I see no evil intent.

NOAA Doc Strong Evidence They Are and Have Been Spraying Us
  Posted 15 days ago with 36 member flags

Chemtrail Programs Only Cost Us $5 Billion a Year
  Posted 5 days ago with 8 member flags

1980 NBC News Clip on "Contrails" That Can Change the Weather.global warming?
  Posted 5 days ago with 8 member flags

Cost analysis of aerosol solar radiation management published
  Posted 11 days ago with 6 member flags

Want to see how your food, air, and water is becoming contaminated? Dont get angry, be more aware an
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags

How do elites escape chemtrails?
  Posted 1 days ago with 5 member flags

ChemTrails over Michigan
  Posted 11 days ago with 3 member flags

Geo-engineering (Chemtrails) and Bible Prophecy
  Posted 15 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: