Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Colbert Exposes Climate Engineering Expert on Chemtrails

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Apparently the government can no longer contain this conspiracy so they are admitting that they are looking at it in the future. Controlling the debate to keep the crime hidden in plain sight.


Climate change scientist David Keith joined Comedy Central’s faux conservative jester Stephen Colbert Monday to plug his new book A Case for Climate Engineering. In his interview, he explained why we should all be grateful when the government begins lovingly injecting the stratosphere with sulfuric acid.


Colbert using the guest's own facts got him to inadvertently acknowledge that adding more sulfuric acid to the stratosphere will kill more people.


“So if it (sulfuric acid) kills a million people,” Colbert says, calculating in his head, “and we are only doing one percent more, we’re just killing 10,000 more people.” “You can do math,” Keith answers condescendingly, before realizing what he’s just admitted to. “But that’s.. so, so.. killing people is not the objective,” corrects Keith quickly.



The interview was a Fail for the guest and his propaganda. When Colbert suggests people already have the idea the crowd burst into applause.

videos at link.

Colbert Interview with Climate Engineering Expert







edit on 12/13/2013 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)
edit on 12/13/2013 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   

sad_eyed_lady
Apparently the government can no longer contain this conspiracy so they are admitting that they are looking at it in the future. Controlling the debate to keep the crime hidden in plain sight.


When have they denied that?



Climate change scientist David Keith joined Comedy Central’s faux conservative jester Stephen Colbert Monday to plug his new book A Case for Climate Engineering. In his interview, he explained why we should all be grateful when the government begins lovingly injecting the stratosphere with sulfuric acid.


Colbert using the guest's own facts got him to inadvertently acknowledge that adding more sulfuric acid to the stratosphere will kill more people.




“So if it (sulfuric acid) kills a million people,” Colbert says, calculating in his head, “and we are only doing one percent more, we’re just killing 10,000 more people.” “You can do math,” Keith answers condescendingly, before realizing what he’s just admitted to. “But that’s.. so, so.. killing people is not the objective,” corrects Keith quickly.


As opposed to exactly how many dead if nothing is done? He's very open about how bad an option this would be but it's still one that needs to be explored. I'm sure David would much rather use the technology developed by his own company instead of the sulphuric acid method.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Anyone who is selling a book while trying to convince me of something loses all credibility in my eyes. Just another person trying to push their personal agenda of making money.


+4 more 
posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Afternoon,

That's how the game is played.
First they tell you they're not doing it.
Then they ridicule you for saying it's real but once the truth comes out?
They switch gears and ridicule you for not liking it.

-Peace-



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


We have been debating the, openly published, proposals for future GE ideas on this forum for years, so what are you saying has changed?



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   

DeepVisions
Anyone who is selling a book while trying to convince me of something loses all credibility in my eyes. Just another person trying to push their personal agenda of making money.


you mean someone like ..oh...say...rush Limbaugh?

www.forbes.com...

or...say...glen beck?

www.forbes.com...
edit on 13-12-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
What is shockingly sad and scary is we are getting real reporting and REAL NEWS from what used to be a comedy show.


I realized there was more Truth in the Daily Show when I stopped laughing...



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


SO they jumped in and started a program of spraying (I don't believe it is only sulfuric acid in the high altitudes) so what if time tells them this was not correct and they are driving us into an ice age for decades.

The arrogance to make a decision for the whole planet.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


I'm not quite sure what you're referring to but i was saying this "climate change scientist" is not very credible in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

abeverage
What is shockingly sad and scary is we are getting real reporting and REAL NEWS from what used to be a comedy show.



That's just it, its not news. Keith has been doing this for years, and so have others. This was discussed even at the Kyoto conference, and there was a split camp...why? because the boffins are divided as to how to go about the sky dusting experiments, one camp is saying there must be trial experiments, and the other saying that the only way to experiment, is to perform practical trials. In other words, it can't be done on a workbench. That is only what they are saying, and God only knows who is already monkeying about.

Keith's part in all this, is to make money out of it, and not by selling books. He would have his company in charge of the strategics, that's what he is about. He has already been on BBC's 'Hard Talk' proramme talking about all this.



This is the untouched version, BTW the interviewer is not Stephen Sackur, I'll add the correct name later.

edit on 13-12-2013 by smurfy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by abeverage
 


I agree...

I get my news from Comedy Central and my comedy from 24-7 news stations.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


I have not followed this forum closely and this is my first post ever in it.

The government never admitted they were doing this, yet now scientists are debating its merits in aiding climate change efforts.

So to me it is an insight that perhaps climate change legislation is more than just a reason for more taxation. I see making this issue a priority affords the government with an opportunity to legitimise chem trails for benefiting the environment when it actuality it is really about population control.

Maybe I missed the boat you guys were already on, but I am happy someone in the media is seeing through the richness of debating doing something that is already going on and claiming the rational for doing so is to help save the planet when the reality is it's destroying the people.

Sorry, if this is beating a dead horse. That was not my intention. I hoped I had some good news to share for those who have worked hard to expose the truth..



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Char-Lee
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


SO they jumped in and started a program of spraying


No.


(I don't believe it is only sulfuric acid in the high altitudes) so what if time tells them this was not correct and they are driving us into an ice age for decades.

The arrogance to make a decision for the whole planet.


Or you could choose to believe facts and not baseless scaremongering.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   

sad_eyed_lady

Colbert using the guest's own facts got him to inadvertently acknowledge that adding more sulfuric acid to the stratosphere will kill more people.


“So if it (sulfuric acid) kills a million people,” Colbert says, calculating in his head, “and we are only doing one percent more, we’re just killing 10,000 more people.” “You can do math,” Keith answers condescendingly, before realizing what he’s just admitted to. “But that’s.. so, so.. killing people is not the objective,” corrects Keith quickly.


Exactly - and it is why sulfuric injection into that atmosphere is actually seen as a really bad choice - it is not "inadvertent" - it is a deliberate admission that it is a really bad choice - Keith has actually made the same point before:


Earlier this year, in an effort to allay such fears, Keith coauthored a piece in the journal Science proposing that any small-scale research efforts be accompanied by an international moratorium on large-scale implementation of stratospheric sulfur spraying. “Anybody who thinks geoengineering will work perfectly and have no risks is a nutjob,” says Keith. But, he believes, we need to begin the research now to determine when, if ever, we might consider it worth the risks.

-sou rce

And here's the actual transcript from the interview taken from the closed captions:


(Cheers and applause)
>> Stephen: welcome to the report, everybody.
My guest tonight is a Harvard Scientist with a new book called A Case For Climate Engineering. That is how you end up with a Sharknado. Please welcome David Keith.

Mr. Keith, Dr. Keith what you have got. What you calling yourself?

>> David Keith: I'm good with Mr.

>> Stephen: Mr. Keith, okay, all right. You've got a little book here called a Case for Climate Engineering. How will we save the planet. Because all the people, all the chicken littles out there are saying the planet is warming up. You don't believe that do you.

>> David Keith: I totally believe it. It is warming up and I have been thinking about, along with many other people, ways to stop it.

>> Stephen: okay, does it involve me using one of those little pig-tail light bulbs?

>> David Keith: That is a useful thing to do. And I have those in my house. But I'm thinking about something else.

>> Stephen: okay, good what is the other thing because I would like to do anything other than that.

>> David Keith: Exactly.

>> Stephen: so what do we do?

>> David Keith: The other thing is horrifying. It is that you could actually spray sulfuric acid in the stratosphere 20 kilometers over our head and use that to stop the planet warming up. And it's an ugly tech fix.

>> Stephen: you can spray something into the atmosphere to change-- okay.

>> David Keith: spray pollution into the atmosphere to stop it warming.

>> Stephen: so in the end pollution saves them all. We owe pollution, we owe acid rain an apology is what are you saying.

>> David Keith: It would be a totally imperfect technical fix, it would have risks, it wouldn't get us out of the long run need to stop polluting, but it might actually save people and be useful.

>> Stephen: okay, again, I interrupted you slightly there. How does it work, you how many planes are we talking about here, how do you do this.

>>David Keith: let's say you wanted to stop it warming in 2020. You start with a fleet of just 2 or 3 kind of modified business jets.

>> Stephen: like a G6.

>> David Keith: that's it.

>> Stephen: like a G6.

>> David Keith: and you put say 20,000 tons of sulfuric acid into the stratosphere every year and
each year you have to put a little more and this doesn't in the long run mean that you can forget about cutting emissions. We will need to reign it.

>> Stephen: no, we'll get to it eventually. In the meantime we're shrouding the earth in sulfuric acid.

>> David Keith: So people are terrified about talking about this because they're scared that it will prevent us cutting emissions.

>> Stephen: right, and also that it is sulfuric acid.

>> David Keith: It is.

>> Stephen: is there any possible way this could come back to bite us in the ass? Blanketing the earth in sulfuric acid because I'm all for it. This is the all chocolate dinner. I still get to have my CO2 and I just have to spray sulfuric acid, right. All over the earth.

>> David Keith: Right question but we put 50 million tons of sulfuric acid in the air now as pollution. It kills a million people a year worldwide.

>> Stephen: that's good or bad?

>> David Keith: It's terrible

>> Stephen: but it will be better if we put more in.

>> David Keith: we're talking about 1% of that. A tiny fraction of that. So we should reduce that sulphuric acid emission

>> Stephen: but if it kills a million people ..

>> David Keith: It's bad

>> Stephen: we only do 1% more we're just killing 10,000 more people.

>> David Keith: you can do math, okay. But that's-- so killing people is not the objective here.

>> Stephen: killing people is not the objective. I just wanted to be clear.

>> David Keith: actually, slowing climate change, actually stopping climate change in a way that could help people this generation, people living now, in a way there's no other easy alternative.

>> Stephen: can you just do it for part of the planet.

>> David Keith: pretty much the whole planet.

>> Stephen: could you, just say like make things better for the United States?

>> David Keith: Very hard to do. It seems that this is mostly global but the big fear is that one
country will want it one way and one the other, like two frat boys argue over the thermostat and in many ways the biggest fear here, we have no idea how to actually agree about how to control the planet's thermostat.

>> Stephen: let's say the United States and China say yeah, let's do it but Russia and India say yeah, not do it.

>> David Keith: this is the kind of stuff i wake up sweating about. exactly.

>> Stephen: Well it's your goddamn idea.

>> David Keith: No, it actually turns out to be an old idea. This is known since President Johnson. And a [science?] that the community mostly decided not to talk about it for fear people would then lose the threat of cutting emissions.

>> Stephen: What what happen to its sulfuric acid after it is sprayed. Does it just stay up there.

>> David Keith: no, it rains down but as I said, it rains down. It's a tiny edition of what we're already doing.

>> have you gotten some grief for suggesting this?

>> David Keith: sure this is like writing a book about the case for leprosy.

>> Stephen: do you have one. Yeah, it's a great weight loss plan.

>> David Keith: But also many people are happy that people are finally talking about this because while it is ugly but does appear that it really could do some good.

>> Stephen: could an individual start this?

>>David Keith: in practice only a country.

>> Stephen: what about a man in like a hollowed out volcano with henchmen who occasionally shakes his fist at the sky and says they said I was a fool at Harvard. Who's the fool now!

(cheers and applause)


Pt 2 to follow



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


And the rest:


>> David Keith: it's a natural worry but i think in the end, no. This would be done by major countries but the problem is how countries agree about where to set the thermostat. Who decides. And my biggest reason for writing the book and for talking about it is my view that we won't make good decisions in ignorance.

>> Stephen: we have to have the discussion now so when it becomes our last hope, people can say hey, we talked about this, remember. We said we get to do it.

>> David Keith: the worst way to make decisions about this would be if we all agree that we won't talk about it in polite society, we suppress it which is basically what had been happening. And then in 2030 suddenly the crisis we make fast decisions.

>> Stephen: maybe it's happening already. Do you ever look at those planes up there, they have contrails behind them? Maybe all those planes with the contrails are spraying chemicals into the atmosphere right now and Uncle Sam isn't telling us.

>> David Keith: seems extremely unlikely. The fact is the government...

>> Stephen: the fact that the United States isn't telling something to its citizens? That seems extremely likely to me. Read the newspaper. I think they might have your idea already.

Thank you so much. David Keith, A Case For Climate Engineering.

We'll be right back.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by waynos
 








Maybe I missed the boat you guys were already on, but I am happy someone in the media is seeing through the richness of debating doing something that is already going on and claiming the rational for doing so is to help save the planet when the reality is it's destroying the people.



The thing is, if Colbert is only doing it now, he is also late to the show, very late in fact. His rhetoric or truthisms are exactly the same as the guy that edited the first version of the video in my last post.
This [climate change] thing is not going to be put to bed so easily with all the science grant whores, politicians, and general bandwagoneers who wish to cultivate a few dimes, and all with agendas. Keith is no exception, he is not fecking stupid, and what you don't hear him say is that jet contrails on their OWN..excuse caps, are doing nicely enough creating both an atmospheric heat trap and a cooler median temperature at ground level, which means you shiver because there is not much Sun, and you probably lack some vitamin, while at the same time there is a atmospheric increase in temperature.
Here is one decent example on contrail research,

news.psu.edu...
Something I would guess that Keith would be already savvy about.


edit on 13-12-2013 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

smurfy

Keith is no exception, he is not fecking stupid, and what you don't hear him say is that jet contrails on their OWN..excuse caps, are doing nicely enough creating both an atmospheric heat trap and a cooler median temperature at ground level, which means you shiver because there is not much Sun,


That would be because contrails are a miniscule part of the whole and barely contribute:


Air traffic condensation trails, or contrails, are believed to have a net atmospheric warming effect1, although one that is currently small compared to that induced by other sources of human emissions.
- source



Here is one decent example on contrail research,

news.psu.edu...
Something I would guess that Keith would be already savvy about.


I thought you chemmies all believed that there's no such thing as a persistent contrail, and that all "contrail" research was a Govt cover up?

Are you now actually arguing real science about pollution rather than fantasy??

That would be a great improvement....


edit on 13-12-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: tags



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul

smurfy

Keith is no exception, he is not fecking stupid, and what you don't hear him say is that jet contrails on their OWN..excuse caps, are doing nicely enough creating both an atmospheric heat trap and a cooler median temperature at ground level, which means you shiver because there is not much Sun,


That would be because contrails are a miniscule part of the whole and barely contribute:


Air traffic condensation trails, or contrails, are believed to have a net atmospheric warming effect1, although one that is currently small compared to that induced by other sources of human emissions.
- source



Here is one decent example on contrail research,

news.psu.edu...
Something I would guess that Keith would be already savvy about.


I thought you chemmies all believed that there's no such thing as a persistent contrail, and that all "contrail" research was a Govt cover up?

Are you now actually arguing real science about pollution rather than fantasy??

That would be a great improvement....


edit on 13-12-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: tags


Never really read many of my posts did you? you really are a bit of a tool. If you had, you would see I always accepted persistent contrails as a matter of fact. There is no improvement on my part as to what I have already given, so go look up my posts, try the old school search, or the new one I don't care really. What I do care about is waffle as opposed to something spoken in earnest. Do carry on though, is David Keith promoting a book or his company? it's not very clear is it? and all this from a golden boy!



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



David Keith: It would be a totally imperfect technical fix, it would have risks, it wouldn't get us out of the long run need to stop polluting, but it might actually save people and be useful.


I don't see this as Keith being against the idea, but rather suggesting it as an option.
Keith won't be having anyone want to read his book after this show IMO.

Sorry, but I get the feeling there is an agenda and it has a number and this agenda has the NWO and UN behind it.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


He certainly sees it as an option - the worst one available nd if we HAVE to use it we will really be in hte brown and sticky stuff.

That is pretty much what the scientific consensus is about SRM - sulphur injection would be a "quick fix" - but a nasty one.
This is well known by the "chemtrail hierachy" - and often totally misrepresented - eg see www.abovetopsecret.com...






top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join