It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are geoengineering deniers acting immorally?

page: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


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

The best way to look at it is to know that geoengineering is a band aid for these problems, while free energy is closer to a viable cure.
For example, hydrogen can cleanly produce power and water. Even if there was a mishap at a hydrogen plant, it would be devastating, but wouldn't impact the environment beyond the general vicinity like nuclear power mishaps, fracking, and oil spills.




posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


That much water vapor released into the atmosphere would accelerate climate change far more than what's already in place.

Please try again.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Well, not to be argumentative, I thought we agreed


Power to engineer the atmosphere of the planet ....


Absolute power corrupts absolutely" arose as part of a quotation by the expansively named and impressively hirsute John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:


"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Great men are almost always bad men."

www.phrases.org.uk...

And we find the eugenicists at table with the funding for Geoengineering.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


These plants are more advanced than you think.
www.hydrogengasplants.com...

Even if these plants did release CO2 into the atmosphere, this is where I'd view the CO2 containment technologies acceptable for use.
www.spe.org...=/career/educ_training/tc/ICO.php

I'm not a scientist, but this is at least the best that I've been able to come up with. I may be wrong.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


You know I love to play devil's advocate


No hard feelings


These value judgements, "great" and "bad" require a subject, and are far from objective.

I would tend to think that great men have a qualitative difference in their neural wiring in relation to the common man. It would seem a given that the common man, tending to harshly judge what they fear, and fearing what they don't easily understand, would see this "great" man as a "bad" man.

*note* replace man with woman as you choose




Okay, we're far off topic...I think
blah, at least I'm done with this topic for the nite. Thanks for the discussion!



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


No, no...I'm talking about the water which is released from hydrogen, not CO2.

If you replaced the combustion engine with hydrogen fueled cars, we'd be toasty in no time!!



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Oh, I see. Even so, the water would be able to be contained. It wouldn't be difficult. Every drop could be bottled and shipped just as fast as it was produced. (Of course fluoride wouldn't be added to the water either.)

Powering cars with hydrogen would not be feasible of course. This is where solar power and batteries would have to be utilized. Maybe even magnets.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Great men should be good men, indeed.
Not always the case, however I am sure not all great men are "bad".

Perhaps we agree on that.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
No, no...I'm talking about the water which is released from hydrogen, not CO2.
If you replaced the combustion engine with hydrogen fueled cars, we'd be toasty in no time!!


You don't release water from hydrogen... you combine hydrogen with oxygen (burn).

Then instead of a catalytic converter, you simply place a condenser /collector on the exhaust and collect the water. Then either dump it in a drain to go back into the system or use that pure clean water for hydrolysis and split it back into hydrogen and oxygen to use again


No exhaust whatsoever... no water vapor released... no wet streets

Efficient system



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
Powering cars with hydrogen would not be feasible of course.


Why not? They already power buses with hydrogen around the world and the White House staff cars can fill up at a Shell Hydrogen station...

why is it not feasible?

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



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

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.



There is no shortage of water
Not counting the oceans that could be desalinated as the need arises like the Arab world does now, there are huge reservoirs below the ground. Just need to drill for water instead of oil


As to global warming if that Sun does throw some nasty flares our way in an attempt to fry us, you will all be singing a different tune about HAARP and its sister stations around the globe when they throw up the shield


Lets just hope they get it right the first time



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Thanks for correcting me on hydrogen powering vehicles. I'm still trying to learn about this technology. So much to learn!



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Just need to drill for water instead of oil


Would this cause earthquakes? What would we put in place of the removed water? Would we need to do this or would the water naturally replace what was removed?



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
You don't release water from hydrogen... you combine hydrogen with oxygen (burn).

Then instead of a catalytic converter, you simply place a condenser /collector on the exhaust and collect the water. Then either dump it in a drain to go back into the system or use that pure clean water for hydrolysis and split it back into hydrogen and oxygen to use again


No exhaust whatsoever... no water vapor released... no wet streets

Efficient system



Yeah, I'm in the wrong here. Thanks for the correction.




Originally posted by zorgon
Why not? They already power buses with hydrogen around the world and the White House staff cars can fill up at a Shell Hydrogen station...

why is it not feasible?


Okay, well it takes a lot of natural gas to make that hydrogen. Off the oil, and onto the gas, eh?!


Originally posted by zorgon

There is no shortage of water
Not counting the oceans that could be desalinated as the need arises like the Arab world does now, there are huge reservoirs below the ground. Just need to drill for water instead of oil




The plant, called H2ID, is jointly owned by IDE [Israel Desalination Enterprises] Technologies and Shikun & Binui, Israel's largest construction company, and financed largely by foreign investment. It is the third of five desalination plants that will be built over the next few years; together, these plants will supply the country with 750 million cubic meters of water per year, at a cost of $0.57 per cubic meter. Shmulik Shai, H2ID's CEO is quoted as saying that the five plants will require 450 gigawatts of electricity annually.
Linky

Yea, so now we're tettering between extrating this or that source of energy, for this or that source of energy...in more than one way....

I think you get the point.

Finite planet can't handle exponential growth of crazy, crazy humans....

The only way through this, is: up, out, and beyond


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



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
Would this cause earthquakes? What would we put in place of the removed water? Would we need to do this or would the water naturally replace what was removed?


A water well tends to refill
they have been drilling those for hundreds of years. Besides there is so much water down deep... a literal OCEAN as vast as the Artic Ocean at the 800 mile level
National Geo covered that one.

I have maps of aquifers at various depths. There are several places in Las Vegas where the water is literally bubbling out of the ground due to valley hydrolics. The Belagio is one that lake they use for the fountains is a natural aquifer below the property

I also know an old gold mine that is at 4000 feet above sea level that filled with water because of the hydrolics of Lake Meade several thousand feet below

Sure you can get subsidance if you pump out all the water in the surface aquifers, but not a problem with the deep ones. San Joaquim Valley is a good example That whole valley sunk over 30 feet since 1920 and the City of Long Beach sank 26 feet because they pumped out the oil (now being replaced with sea water)

Point is it is there... you just need SMART engineers who know what they are doing... not greedy corporate PIGS raping our environment for GREED



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
Okay, well it takes a lot of natural gas to make that hydrogen. Off the oil, and onto the gas, eh?!


Why not just use solar power to make a hydrolysis plant and extract the hydrogen from sea water? And think of all that oxygen you get to release?
If you collect that water from the exhaust you get an almost closed system... minus the solar energy you need to split that water

They do it on spaceships and drink the exhaust



Yea, so now we're tettering between extrating this or that source of energy, for this or that source of energy...in more than one way....


Well Israel has a lot of empty desert to make solar power stations
Like we are doing here in Nevada. Nellis AFB has the biggest array around but they keep all that power for themselves



Finite planet can't handle exponential growth of crazy, crazy humans....


True but we are far from the saturation point yet. But yeah get the colony ships started
Would be nice to have options in case the sun tosses a kill shot at us



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Interesting and I appreciate the clarifications.
One thing I'd like to add is that even if well's don't cause earthquakes, earthquakes affect water wells. When Virginia had their large quake, the water in my sister's well had all this sediment mixed in. I guess it settled after a while, but she still had to call someone to check it. I guess it was alright since i never heard more about it.
Edit to Add: Correction- There is now radioactive isotopes in the ground water here because of the nuclear power plant nearby. Hail Hydrogen!

We really are being lied to and misled about the state of our natural resources. As you can see, I'm trying to understand more aspects of what we're dealing with since I believe we need to work on improving and strengthening our infrastructure instead of spending money on geoengineering the climate and other such undertakings.
edit on 14-4-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Yea, why not?!

Oh yea because it's not economically feasible...and that the salt would corrode the metal plates used for hydrolysis...or any other number of things you're not considering because you really have no clue what you're talking about.

yea, those little tidbits come to mind



An AFB that has exotic tech...you don't say?! Yea, we all know that the military budgets really well with their projects....so of course it's ready for mass civilian implementation!!
edit on 14-4-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
This thread has exposed some of the many reasons why these programs are, for the most part, done in secrecy and kept out of the MSM spotlight. The huge difference in opinion of it's necessity and the intent. Whether the solution is worse than the problem or if the problem even exists. Even religious beliefs are involved.

First you have the question of whether it's necessary or not. Which stems from the idea of Man made global warming. Which is a highly debated topic in itself. I think that Man does and have a large influence on climate change. But I also think that nature has a much greater influence. Clearly, there are valid points on both sides of that debate.

The majority of the public generally has accepted the idea of AGW being real. But are mostly unaware of the concepts of Geoengineering. When introduced to these ideas you get a large range of reactions. Most of them seem to be negative reactions. The religious and scientific communities both supposedly have strong objections and a highly cautious approach to Geoengineering on the surface. But looking deeper we know this is just a facade and that Man has been trying to control and manipulate the weather as well as society for a very long time.

The argument can be made that this is both an environmental effort as well as a monetary Globalization effort. I don't think we should overlook either of those issues. They are in fact connected. Environmentalism is thought to be one of the easiest and most preferred topics to advanced the Globalist agenda under the guise of positive actions.But it also can not be denied that societies that depend so highly on fossil fuels are creating more than just environmental problems.

Should Governments take actions to combat Global warming without informing the public? How should they inform the public? Does informing the public run the risk of halting the perceived necessary actions? Is it necessary or not? I think these questions reveal some insight as to why not informing the public is generally the route taken. These studies are all classified and kept as a matter of National Security.

To deny the truth is immoral. However the truth lies through perception.


BTW, hydrogen fueled vehicle technology is advancing.


www.hydrogencarsnow.com...

Hydrogen cars are not only the future, they are here, now. When hydrogen cars become the status quo, the U. S. can lessen its dependence upon foreign oil, achieve lower prices at the fuel pumps and cut down on the greenhouse gases that produce global warming. The future of hydrogen cars is not a pipe dream, as there are already many hydrogen fuel cell cars and H2ICE vehicles on the roads. California, Japan and the European Union (especially Germany) have many hydrogen fuel cars being used as fleet vehicles now.



en.wikipedia.org...

Many companies are working to develop technologies that might efficiently exploit the potential of hydrogen energy for mobile uses. The attraction of using hydrogen as an energy currency is that, if hydrogen is prepared without using fossil fuel inputs, vehicle propulsion would not contribute to carbon dioxide emissions. The drawbacks of hydrogen use are low energy content per unit volume, high tankage weights, very high storage vessel pressures, the storage, transportation and filling of gaseous or liquid hydrogen in vehicles, the large investment in infrastructure that would be required to fuel vehicles, and the inefficiency of production processes.





posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 





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?


Wildfires are nothing new to Fla, and being someone that was born and raised there I have seen them happen every year. Also the fact that Fla. is considered the lightning capital of the US it should be no surprise that wildfires would happen. You do know that lightning can happen without rain being present,right?


Dry lightning is lightning that occurs without rain nearby. The NOAA Storm Prediction Center routinely forecasts dry lightning because this kind is more likely to cause forest fires


www.nssl.noaa.gov...

And as far as rain this time of year you may want to read this...


The climate of North and Central Florida is humid subtropical. South Florida has a tropical climate.

[1] There is a defined rainy season from June through September, which are the months most at risk of landfalling tropical cyclones. Thunderstorms, through lightning, lead to several deaths per year statewide. Florida is one of the most tornado-prone states in the United States. During mid summer, dust emanating from Africa affects the state, turning skies white and decreasing air quality.

[2] Between October and May, fronts regularly sweep through the state which keeps conditions dry, particularly over the peninsula. Towards the end of the dry season in the spring, brush fires become common statewide. In winters where an El Niño climate cycle exists, rainfall increases while temperatures are cooler statewide. In North Florida, snow and sleet have been witnessed as early as November and as late as April, though most areas do not experience any frozen precipitation during a typical year. Easterly winds off the warm waters of the Gulf Stream running through the Florida Straits keep temperatures moderate across the southern peninsula year round.


en.wikipedia.org...

Again a little research goes a long way.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join