Colbert Exposes Climate Engineering Expert on Chemtrails

Back on topic after that bit of vitriolic nonsense, here is a link where Keith warns of the dangers of geoengineering research slipping out of sight into the private domain and the importance of it remaining public. Just the opposite of a cover up.

www.scientificamerican.com...

reply to post by Eryiedes

(And everyone knows TED is full of hot air now...)

Then why did you post a vid that is a short clip from the very TED video you're now trying to discredit?

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


I've had a chance to view the videos. It would appear that eryiedes first posted video is edited to make it look like Gates is talking about population reduction, but the unedited version makes it plain he is talking about reducing CO2 emissions in relation to population as part of an ultimate aim to get them to zero.

One has to wonder why the member eryiedes is actively promoting a barefaced lie, propagated through a video deliberately edited to change it's meaning?

The question is, is eryiedes deliberately hoaxing, or was he duped? I like to think that people generally join ATS with the best of intentions.

When someone is agenda-pushing like that it is surely fair to ask why.

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Eryiedes

 

(And everyone knows TED is full of hot air now...)

Then why did you post a vid that is a short clip from the very TED video you're now trying to discredit?

I didn't post the TED video.
That was Tsurfer.

-Peace-

tsurfer2000h
You see what you posted is not proof that Bill Gates has done these things yet you post them as fact why is that?

Actually those articles (vaccines & sterilizations) aren't quoting what Gates will do.
They are saying what he is doing as in "currently in Africa"...not next week...for years now.
You can't dress up this pig and tell me it's a horse.

-Peace-

waynos
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Yeah, that's why he calls it horrifying, ugly and totally imperfect. He' s SOOOO in favour

Chemmies and comprehension = total strangers.

By your reaction I'm just going to guess here that the OP video is what you all call inconvenient.

Nonetheless, let's highlight some of it.

According to David Keith, the planet is totally warming.

He's been thinking about ways to stop it.

(Curbing emissions is not on the table.)

Spraying sulfuric acid into the stratosphere is, according to Keith, horrifying but doable.

He says that spraying pollution into the atmosphere will stop the planet from warming. Who knew?

Keith says it wouldn't get us out of the long run need to stop polluting. Wait...what???!!!

Also, per Keith, in order to stop the planet from warming by 2020, we'd need 2 or 3 business jets. Wait...what??!! What happened to the fleets and enemy tanks you all have had us going in circles looking for???!!!

20,000 tons of sulfuric acid into the stratosphere. Every year. And each year you have to put in a little more...he makes it all sound like such fun. Can't wait.

Currently, according to David Keith, we put 50,000 million tons of sulfuric acid into the atmosphere as pollution and it kills a million people a year world-wide.

So why stop? With more sulfuric acid, more will be killed. Starting to make sense yet?

David Keith's biggest fear: how to get countries to agree on sulfuric acid. What???

He wakes up sweating about other countries not opting in.

The sulfuric acid will rain down, according to Keith, but it's just a tiny addition (10,000 more lives lost) to the million lives a year that are already lost.

We can't really save the million because cutting emissions is not on the table...wait...what?? So we'll just add
to the death toll.

This is what happens when you have a self-made elitist (Bill Gates) calling global geoengineering shots.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Bull's Eye.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes

I proved my point.

And what point would that be?

reply to post by Eryiedes


I'm thinking that we owe the OP video to vinas veritas. And it sure is dark and ugly once you start to get under the covers with these guys.

Scary, too, is that there are a lot of things that are not illegal if done from private land (with a bevy of stratosphere seeking drones.)

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


That Gates has both financial and personal interests vested in the population reduction agenda.
Nothing more...nothing less.

-Peace-

Eryiedes

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Eryiedes

 

(And everyone knows TED is full of hot air now...)

Then why did you post a vid that is a short clip from the very TED video you're now trying to discredit?

I didn't post the TED video.
That was Tsurfer.

-Peace-

Did you read my post?

You posted this

From 1:10 on is from the TED video tsurfer posted, that YOU are now trying to discredit with the remark I originally replied to.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


I believed the interview preceeding the clip I posted is not from TED and is from a television interview.
You are mischaracterizing your point.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes

I believed the interview preceeding the clip I posted is not from TED and is from a television interview.

As I said previously, from 1:10 on is a clip from the TED vid. Have you watched it?

Here is the TED vid. Begin at 3:56

You are mischaracterizing your point.

My point is made. You don't seem to know what yours is.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


I'm sorry...the interview that opens the clip I posted is not from TED sir.
This is going nowhere.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes

I'm sorry...the interview that opens the clip I posted is not from TED sir.

It's in the vid you posted in response to this post from tsurfer www.abovetopsecret.com...

The interview portion of the vid doesn't begin to address tsurfer's question. From 1:10 on is an attempt and it is from the TED vid which you in turn attempted to discredit. It's there for anyone who looks at it to see.

This is going nowhere.

You may not like where we are but we are here.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


This is the last time I will respond on your query.
TED has had a numerous of speakers (which I first caught wind of on a Joe Rogan podcast..appologies but I don't recall who the guest was but it wasn't Degrasse Tyson) who were de-invited from TED at the VERY last moment (as they went to talk) after securing spots to speak simply for "unpopular" subjects. TED's investors get to cherrypick what they believe will best support their own interests and the interests of their fellow investors.
They don't give a rat's behind about educating anybody. They are as censored and cloistered as any other organization.
That's why a blowhard (investor) like Gates shows up on their most "esteemed" roster of speakers to peddle his crypto-eugenics crap.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Nothing in my opinion of TED or Gates invalidates Bill's own words.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes


Please understand that I am not concerned with your opinion of TED or Gates or anything else really. I was simply calling you on trying to discredit info you presented. Whether you realize it or not, that's what you did.

This will be my last post on this matter as well, as long as you keep your promise not to post any more about it.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


The only good thing about your strawman is you can use it to sweep up some of this mess.

-Peace-

waynos
reply to post by tsurfer2000h

 

I've had a chance to view the videos. It would appear that eryiedes first posted video is edited to make it look like Gates is talking about population reduction, but the unedited version makes it plain he is talking about reducing CO2 emissions in relation to population as part of an ultimate aim to get them to zero.

One has to wonder why the member eryiedes is actively promoting a barefaced lie, propagated through a video deliberately edited to change it's meaning?

The question is, is eryiedes deliberately hoaxing, or was he duped? I like to think that people generally join ATS with the best of intentions.

When someone is agenda-pushing like that it is surely fair to ask why.

edit on 14-12-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)

I hope the mods will allow the full quote since selection here is a bit thorny, however the idea that Zero CO2 emissions is possible is not on the agenda and makes no sense. Now Gates does say that there is a need for a zero in there somewhere. If he meant neutral CO2, that is a big different kettle of fish and really the only proper usage in what he may have meant, but he used the word zero. There is not much doubt either that he is talking about reducing population, and even China got the nod and a wink from the UN on it's policy on birth control, and which is now something China has under review..WTF!
Now, Gates and his wife Melinda are affiliated with David Rockefeller of the "Useless eaters" quote, and not only that, they had a similar conference in the UK in 2012 on the 100th anniversary of a Eugenics conference led by Leonard Darwin. So, okay no big shiite then?
There is more, why has Gates given $20 Billion plus for aid in Africa when he makes the case for crop failure and disease and death on a grand scale, when in fact Africa could easily feed the world, (plus the CO2 of course) if properly managed, it just doesn't add up. Eugenics however does. I think you are honest in your posts, but I do think there is a lot under the radar that escapes all of us.

reply to post by smurfy



You make a fair point (and on reflection I think that generally speaking you are one of the few "believers" I star quite frequently). I do agree that aiming for zero emissions is a bit of a fantasy, I was just saying that the unedited video makes it obvious that was being said, as part of a wider discussion. Not using poisons to kill off people which the clipped version says.

I do also think that some conclusions are being wrongly jumped to in relation to activities like this. Maybe I just haven't seen the source material but it is true that when I see something such as was linked last night with it's clearly nonsense claims about products the site is selling, sat alongside supposed news stories, that people hold them up as being bringers of truth when the sites themselves couldn't make it any plainer that they are not to be trusted, then I tend to conclude that person is a bit of a fool, mea culpa.

Maybe the proper management of Africa's resources that you alluded to is the ultimate aim? That would make sense to me more than eugenics and there would be hard cash in it, should it be achievable.

It certainly isn't being properly managed now, and bosses always want fit and healthy workers to maximise earning potential. Strength Through Joy and all that. I'm not saying there's nothing sinister, just that killing people off seems to be just about the wrongest conclusion to draw. They could do nothing at all and Africa and large parts of Asia would be decimated all by themselves.

And your last made point, well yes, that's true of all of us I think.