Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering

reply to post by burntheships

Yes. I saw the link the first time.
Please tell me where in the video he says that the benefits outweigh the risks. A timestamp would be helpful.

reply to post by Afterthought


Great links there, thank you for all of the info!

I do think that much of this scientific weather control has roots in the determination
of Nations to rule over each other, and Man to rule over mankind. Yes...

Yet in reality, what gives them the right to play God?

Who can make it right to hand to any nation the power to play with the weather!?

This is why the U.N. has a moritorium on Weather Modification aka Geoengineering
for hostile purposes, but for non hostile purposes it is allowed.

Perhaps that is why the push to develop so much national policy on governance!

reply to post by burntheships

This is why the U.N. has a moritorium on Weather Modification aka Geoengineering for hostile purposes, but for non hostile purposes it is allowed. Perhaps that is why the push to develop so much national policy on governance!

Thats why i dont understand this..........

because if you manipulate weather in one place, it could cause catastrophe in another.........doesnt seem very well thought out to me

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

The UN has no moratorium on weather modification (cloud seeding).
They do have a moratorium on geoengineering. The are not the same thing.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

In the History Channel program documenting the Dust Bowl they showed where Seeding Clouds makes them bigger and more apt to drop water. Not actually changing weather patterns per say

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


I agree, and one of the main players in this whole scheme, David Keith (leading scientist)
addresses this in the video.

www.youtube.com...

I think that the key is that if it is intended to be hostile.

At 4:45 he discusses adding particulate by aircraft to the atmosphere,

At apprx 5:50 he talks of consequences,

At apprx 6:00 he acknoledges that SRM is not equal to
all countries, very scary thoughts if you ask me.

At 7:17 he skirts the issue and says its more important to figure out
WHO would decide who gets what - who controls the knob.

At 8:23 he says that small SRM is beneficial, no question
that is not even, but its not that unfair!

Who does he think he is kidding???

Originally posted by Phage
Yes. I saw the link the first time.
Please tell me where in the video he says that the benefits outweigh the risks. A timestamp would be helpful.

Pardon, I added that to this post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I cant watch this again, did three times, Keith comes off as a psycopath.

ETA:

Global Warming "science" is very much a politcally driven agenda, its very clear
after watching that video three times! Keith is a weasel!

Yet, even todays science is ignored by the fanatics.

The scam of 'incontrovertible' warming faces challenges often by top scientists,
take for instance this scientists claims that we are in a CO2 famine!

Washington, DC — Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken” and noted that the Earth was currently in a “CO2 famine now.” Happer, who has published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, made his remarks during today’s Environment and Public Works Full Committee Hearing entitled “Update on the Latest Global Warming Science.”

“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million - ppm) – that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that,” Happer told the Senate Committee
epw.senate.gov...

reply to post by burntheships

I don't see Keith ever say:

He also says that even a small amount of SRM the benefits outweigh the dangers

I do hear him stress repeatedly the need for more research before real world application of SRM is considered.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

No, he is talking about taking money and re-distrubuting it to the uber wealthy.

You mean those uber-wealthy underdeveloped countries which, because they have a small carbon footprint, would be able to sell huge amounts of carbon credits to the developed countries which produce huge amounts of carbon?
Those uber-wealthy?

Read what he said.

Oh, sorry I missed that. This is a real gem!

You know, thats a perfect example of just how sick this whole scam is!

I mean seriously, what you have just described is a Ponzi Scheme!

No matter that small countries have a small carbon footprint, lets
find a way to make a racket out of it!

I am sorry, I just cant help but point out how wrong that is!

reply to post by burntheships

I'm sorry. I don't understand your point.

It is not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is a fake investment scheme. There is no investment here, the underdeveloped countries would be selling something which costs them nothing. Under the global trading plan underdeveloped nations would be able to sell their carbon credits to megacorporations. That's 100% profit for those underdeveloped nations.

Edenhoffer's words:

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capital basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

real-agenda.com...
That is the "redistribution of wealth" he was talking about.

I'm quite surprised that after 13 pages the mods have'nt moved this thread to the
geo-engineering forum where it belongs and more members may want to contribute ?

Mods ?

Sorry for off topic, still reading through posts !

Peace

reply to post by Phage


Its certainly a scheme, call it what you wish. In no way will that kind
of a racket (and yes that is what it is) reduce emissions.

In order for that to have any long term effects, the small nations
are limited, not able to develop larger carbon footprints or they would lose the credits.
Hence, the cycle continues.

Thats a long discussion better left for another thread.

Originally posted by ProRipp
I'm quite surprised that after 13 pages the mods have'nt moved this thread to the
geo-engineering forum where it belongs and more members may want to contribute ?

Mods ?

Sorry for off topic, still reading through posts !

Peace

We're a major reason that forum exists

We were the ones lobbying ats to make it!
I actually made the first post link

Here is the thread we started lobbying ats to make the geoengineering forum: link

Check out those threads for all the players who helped I count most of them my ATS friends now. They are a goldmine of information on the subject. BTS, MathiasAndrew, flyintheointment, backingblack, clearskies, cayotepoet, many many others sorry if i'm leaving out quite a few names, but my memory is not that good.

And of course Phage, Essan, Weedwacker, pilot guy i forget his name, ATG etc.... provided the perfect foil for us to sharpen our knowledge on, so I tip my hat to them too...

reply to post by burntheships

Thats a long discussion better left for another thread.

You brought it up.

In no way will that kind of a racket (and yes that is what it is) reduce emissions.

Remember? I agree that carbon credits are unlikely to help the situation.

In order for that to have any long term effects, the small nations are limited, not able to develop larger cargon footprints or they would lose the credits.

It depends on how much they sell. And Edenhofer pointed that out.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

In no way will that kind of a racket (and yes that is what it is) reduce emissions.

Remember? I agree that carbon credits are unlikely to help the situation.

Well, we agree at least on one thing then.

reply to post by ProRipp


The reason this thread has been able to thrive in a civil fashion is because it hasn't been dumped into the geo-engineering forum. The usual pack of wolves who derail every thread with snide bickering and rude comments have been conspicuously missing and I have to admit it is a bit refreshing!!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

The UN has no moratorium on weather modification (cloud seeding).
They do have a moratorium on geoengineering. The are not the same thing.

Moreover the moratorium is on geo-engineering that might affect biodiversity - if there is any geo-eng that does not affect biodiversity (and I have no idea whether that exists or not) then it is unaffected.

reply to post by Goldcurrent


Oh you don't need to tell me that my friend !

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by burntheships

Great links there, thank you for all of the info!

You're quite welcome!

Regarding the global control of nations, you can see from the below information how confusing this all is.
It is basicly the textual definition of too many cooks in the kitchen.
www.scienceforpeace.ca...

Consider some examples. Let’s start with “International Government Organizations,” such as the WTO, the G20, and the World Health Organization, the International Postal Union, and the International Civil Aviation Organization, created in 1944 to promote aviation. All States belong to it, but the stake-holders also include passengers, airline shareholders, pilots, baggage handlers, and environmentalists who worry about airplane emissions. None of these stakeholders are represented on ICAO’s decision-making boards, but they should be.

There’s also Interpol, which pursues criminals across international borders. One of its functional constituencies comprises citizens concerned about the global narcotics traffic —

e.g. whether to crack down harder on the consumers or the producers. Such decisions are still mainly made by sovereign states, without consulting the stakeholders, who include drug users, the bereaved families of addicts, poppy farmers, and drug lords, etc. Instead, the US government decides whether to burn the crops of Afghan farmers. (If Afghans were consulted, they might vote for their poppies to be made into morphine and given to hospitals in poor countries, where patients cannot afford painkillers. The decision-makers should at least POLL the producers and users, as well as certain other functional constituencies, such as the taxpayers who pay for law-enforcement.)

Transnational NGOs also influence global governance. They include the YMCA, Greenpeace, the International Peace Bureau, the International Sociological Association, and the Rotary Club. Although they are democratic, they are not represented in official regulatory bodies, but should be.

Next: corporations. They often wield more power than democratic States. We need to make them accountable to citizens. Various approaches have been proposed. Rabbi Michael Lerner suggests that all corporation charters be issued for only five or ten years, after which their records should be reviewed. If a corporation is found to have violated environmental, economic, or societal standards, its charter would be re-assigned to a different group.

We've seen one too many times how our own Congress cannot agree on anything, so my confidence in anything getting done properly is not too high considering the many agencies involved in the global climate race. Things are changing so quickly that it's difficult to keep up. As far as I've seen, things don't look too promising and the weather is going to get way screwed up by people who may or may not have life's best interest. They're more concerned with money and power. Also, since weather modification and geo-engineering can both be used for weather warfare, I feel that we're going down a very dark road indeed.

The bottom line is that humans seem to screw up everything more than they fix. I'd like to believe that controlling the weather would heal Mother Nature more quickly, but I just don't see it happening.

If you would read the paper I posted a link to a few pages back, you will easily see that they really don't know what they're doing whatsoever. They are talking about geo-engineering by trial and error. They have designed tables and one of the columns is titled 'REVERSABLE?'. Some geo-engineering techniques are not. What do we do then? Come up with new technology to correct what we've screwed up? It's a vicious cycle, if you ask me. We need to just focus on modifying the technologies that are already in use such as vehicles and industry standards and leave the weather alone. What Mother Nature decides is best she will do anyways, but we may just be helping her along, too.

reply to post by burntheships



I'm curious is this is actually happening now. I noticed during this past summer that the sun and sky seemed more red than usual. More red, as in red enough to cause a slight concern. Has anyone else noticed this or know if such geoengineering would cause an effect like that?