Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering

reply to post by BelieverInAllThings


Very vivid, colored sunsets, yes they say that would be one of the effects.

www.guardian.co.uk...

reply to post by BelieverInAllThings

No.
I haven't noticed that. But I do remember what the sunsets and sunrises looked like after the Pinatubo eruption. A lot of deep blue, almost purple. Like this:
forum.mflenses.com...

Originally posted by Afterthought
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.

Mother nature also does things like spew millions of tons of aerosols into the air. Via volcanoes.

All the geoengineering options being discussed are basically there as contingency plans, as insurance. Nobody really wants to mess with nature. Everyone would prefer it if we could just stop emitting CO2, and let things go back to normal.

The problem is that even if we reduced carbon emissions to zero, it would still take 50 years for that to fully have an effect. But what if there's some kind of environmental tipping point that we need to avoid?

Nobody is doing geoengineering. But there might come a time when we are forced into doing it - or maybe someone is incorrectly forced into doing it because they think it's the best option.

Research is needed to figure out what is really best. Otherwise we might do the wrong thing. Doing nothing might be the right thing to do, but it might also be the wrong thing. By doing nothing you may be gambling with the future just as much as doing something.

reply to post by Uncinus


What point exactly are you trying to argue? I didn't say that they are currently doing geo-engineering. I was referring to their discussions and points of interest within the paper seeming as though they haven't a clue about what problems and solutions may arise from their decision to tinker with the weather.

I also find it very interesting that the paper you referred me to just a few days ago didn't say originally that it couldn't be cited or circulated. Now it does in bold red print.
Maybe you and I are going to prison.
You for circulating it and I for citing it.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Uncinus

 

What point exactly are you trying to argue? I didn't say that they are currently doing geo-engineering. I was referring to their discussions and points of interest within the paper seeming as though they haven't a clue about what problems and solutions may arise from their decision to tinker with the weather.

I also find it very interesting that the paper you referred me to just a few days ago didn't say originally that it couldn't be cited or circulated. Now it does in bold red print.
Maybe you and I are going to prison.
You for circulating it and I for citing it.

It's said that when I looked at it. I figured it was just leftover text, as it's a work in progress.

Anyway, my point is that I think we SHOULD research geoengineering, so we can make a better informed decision on wether to use it or not. And if someone else says they want to use it, and we think it's a bad idea, then we'd have the science to explain to them why it's a bad idea.

There's no evidence that anyone has deployed any geoengineering, even as limited field tests.

I basically have the same position as David Keith and John Holdren do on this. Research it in case we have to use it, or someone else wants to use it.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Uncinus

 

I also find it very interesting that the paper you referred me to just a few days ago didn't say originally that it couldn't be cited or circulated. Now it does in bold red print.

A classic case of not noticing what has always been there!

reply to post by Uncinus

It's said that when I looked at it. I figured it was just leftover text, as it's a work in progress.

Haven't you ever heard that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law?

Anyways, I follow the law. Especially now that SOPA and ACTA are in play. I NEVER would have cited that paper in the other thread had it said that when I read it originally when you provided it to me. I swear on my great grandmother's grave that it didn't say that when I read it the first time. I'd notice bold red print thank you very much.

As for the remainder of your comment, we don't share the same views. You're entitled to your opinion, but I believe that altering the weather and temperatures is an accident waiting to happen. Man always seems to think we can make everything better than nature designed. Just this thought alone means that we aren't as advanced as we'd like to believe we are.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Uncinus

 

I also find it very interesting that the paper you referred me to just a few days ago didn't say originally that it couldn't be cited or circulated. Now it does in bold red print.

A classic case of not noticing what has always been there!

You weren't even involved in the thread we're speaking about, so keep your beak out of this discussion!
You are such an instigator and this comment that I've quoted above is more evidence than anyone can ever build against you! You have no idea what the paper looked like originally since you didn't even participate in the thread!You're just backing your buddy and you need to shut up about what you have no idea about!

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Uncinus

 

It's said that when I looked at it. I figured it was just leftover text, as it's a work in progress.

Haven't you ever heard that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law?

Just as well you haven't broken the law then.

An organisation putting "not for circulation" on its documents is not the same as a law. An employee of the organisation might have broken a law (theft) or the company's policies (obeying such instructions on documents) and might be in trouble for doing so - but if it isn't you then the notice is irrelevant.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Do yourself a favor and back up a few pages to even catch yourself up on things.
The paper is on the organization's own website. It is not a paper taken from somewhere and posted freely like Unicus chose to as he claims now seeing as it is not for circulation. This means that anyone can go onto their website and read it, but it cannot be quoted or reproduced in any way. Anyways, the paper even states that it is the second draft. This was NOT a paper in progress as Unicus is claiming he thought it to be.

If someone circulates something that is stated "Not for circulation", they have violated ownership rights and copyright laws.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Do yourself a favor and back up a few pages to even catch yourself up on things.

do yourself a favour and stop assuming that I haven't read it and followed the discussion.

The paper is on the organization's own website. It is not a paper taken from somewhere and posted freely like Unicus chose to as he claims now seeing as it is not for circulation. This means that anyone can go onto their website and read it, but it cannot be quoted or reproduced in any way.

Bzztt.....there are no such legal strictures unless you have agreed to such a condition.

do yourself a favor and stop being such a worrywort...or alternatively stop being argumentative.

Anyways, the paper even states that it is the second draft. This was NOT a paper in progress as Unicus is claiming he thought it to be.

How is a 2nd draft not "in progress"??

If someone circulates something that is stated "Not for circulation", they have violated ownership rights and copyright laws.

Nope. By making it available freely and without preconditions they have made it freely available.

As I said above - if an employee did so in error then they may be in trouble. You are not.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Go read the paper.
Just go to the website and download it. You don't have to click a little box and say that you promise not to circulate it or cite it.
You are using this topic to derail this thread.

The paper was on what they were discussing in regards to geo-engineering, which has everything to do with this thread. You saying it is in its second draft, which means it's a work in progress is not accurate. I'd quote the part that indicates it's not a work in progress, but then I'd be violating the 'No citation' directive.

I'm done discussing the rules of the paper. People just need to go and read it for themselves, then make their own minds up.

Originally posted by burntheships

Nope, not prospects ATG...what you are looking at is propeitary information, and will be used
as such to obtain patents, and develop methods of delivery, SRM delivery is going to become
a huge business. Billions of dollars a year business.

You see Bill Gates knows this, and he is alreaady funding his bets.

How much money does Gates need? I guess he wants to be THE richest man on the planet.

Which reminds me, one of his colleagues once described Bill Gates as "reptilian" in his dealings with people.
Not as in one of David Icke's Reptilians, but you never know......... [play ominous music]

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Go read the paper.
Just go to the website and download it. You don't have to click a little box and say that you promise not to circulate it or cite it.

Sigh...I know that - I already said I did so - and it is entirely my point....

You are using this topic to derail this thread.

you are the one who raised it and persist in making a mountain out of a mole hill!

I find it odd that for roughly 3 to 5 days I would notice a hand full of jets all day long in a big blue sky. Suddenly to wake up the next morning and see a whole barrage of them with many of the trails abruptly starting on the edge of town, and then to see one fly in the shape of an S pattern. Why would a commercial jet make such a crazy pattern...lol. It wouldnt save on gas. Why so many planes on one day and hardly any the rest of the week, People all decide to fly at the same time on one special day....lol. On a spray day I would tell my friend, watch, by noon they will be gone and come back later. Sadly enough I was correct. Most of the time you can predict the times, along with the thick layered haze that descends just above our shop (apperently unmelted ice crystals...lol) by late afternoon and my throat is killing me and Im spitting up this white stuff. C'mon, There are American and NATO bases probably everywhere with mason pilots eagerly waiting to make the big bucks. This has probably always been a black budget operation and now they want it out in the open to get more money. Who's to say Monsanto and big pharma aren't helping foot the bill. It would probably work in their favour, and if its a slow kill operation they get to take most of us out before we can collect our old age pensions or SS, so in the long run its a win win situation for the Gov. And Bill gates wants to save the Earth, yeah right. He would rather see us all dead after we have all lined his pockets and made him wealthy with the computers he sold us...lol. And Im sorry, but I really can't see a commercial jet pulling such a tight S shape for any reason. Thats just common sense. People cant even tell the difference between a full scale spray operation and a day of regular commercial air travel. Here, drink this anti freeze, it's good for you, trust us. We wouldn't hurt you,
Or ask you to die for us in a war for corporations and greed, We care about you and our Country...yeah, thats right, now drink up......lol.

Hmm planet is cooling slightly and they are still pushing for geo engineering to cut the suns rays that get to our planet.

Underground bunkers all over the world where it would be warmer, scientists that think we are due a mini ice age.

No zombie apocalypse, elenin or nukes needed to get rid of 80% of the population, when they can just speed up the cooling process and let the cold do the job for them.

p.s. does it sound like I read too many things on this site

Originally posted by squad51
I find it odd that for roughly 3 to 5 days I would notice a hand full of jets all day long in a big blue sky. Suddenly to wake up the next morning and see a whole barrage of them with many of the trails abruptly starting on the edge of town,

I think you have struck the nail on he head when you said you don't notice them. Without a contrail a cruising jet is just a miniscule speck in the sky that you don't notice.

and then to see one fly in the shape of an S pattern. Why would a commercial jet make such a crazy pattern...lol. It wouldnt save on gas.

No it sure doesn't - it costs a lot, airlines try to avoid holding patterns and indirect approaches to runways - ie having to fly around the airfield to land from a directoin they didn't come from. They try to avoid it - but often they can't - the wind changes, or someone else is having trouble and they have to hang around in a holding pattern or take a detour to use up some time to get into he right place in the sky for the queue.

Why so many planes on one day and hardly any the rest of the week, People all decide to fly at the same time on one special day....lol.

Nope - like you said - you notice them when they have contrails, and don't notice hem when they don't.

If you want to see how many aircraft are actually flying around when you can't see any contrails you need to use flightradar or flightaware or similar.

OP: good thread and excellent discussion. Just thought I would add some comment about the man, Bill Gates, who expects to use theoretical research scientists with dollar signs in their eyes to advocate for the open spraying of stratospheric aerosols in order to 'save us.'

Billions of dollars donated by the Gates Foundation have gone into the development of vaccines and their use on the population. Malaria and the vaccine KTS,S is an example:

www.forbes.com...

A vaccine invented at drug giant GlaxoSmithKline and funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation…The results from a study of 6,000 children between the ages of 5 and 17 months…still has significant hurdles to jump, and will not be made widely available until 2015 at the earliest. …Results in babies 6 to 12 weeks of age…will arrive in almost exactly a year. …Longer safety follow-up will be required by regulators in Europe, Africa, and at the World Health Organization. …Children in the study were more likely than kids in the west to have serious ailments, with one in five in both the vaccine and control group suffering what doctors euphemistically call adverse events. …but children who received the vaccine were more likely to develop the brain infection meningitis (though this was rare, infecting one child in 500) and to have seizures caused by fever.

www.bbc.co.uk...

More than 15,000 children aged under 18 months took part in the year-long study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine. …The trial was conducted in seven African countries on…newborns aged six-12 weeks – and babies aged five – 17 months. …The trial was designed to test safety…

Yes - you read that right. It was a trial to see if the vaccine was safe, tested on babies. And yes, you read it right when the article said that the babies 'participated' in this test. Anyway, just thought you should know a little bit about the man who is going to keep us safe. And a little bit about what testing and research mean to this man.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Thank you for the added information in this thread, very helpful yes.

This reminds me of other trials....

Research on the vaccines discussed in this article, anti- human Chorionic Gonadotropin (CG) vaccines, is carried out under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, by the National Institute of Immunology (NII) in New Delhi, and by the Population Council in New York. Clinical trials with these vaccines to test the safety and the biological effects have been carried out since the early 1970s, on small groups of women in the United States, India, Brazil, Chile, Dominican Republic, Finland, and Sweden (3, 4, 5,6, 7). In 1986, a WHO-sponsored trial for safety was done in Australia, involving 30 women (8).A trial with 101 women was carried out in India in 1988 with the anti- hCG vaccine developed by the NII (9).

In 1991-1992 the first efficacy trial took place, and 148 women were vaccinated at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and the Safdarjung hospital in New Delhi, and the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in Chandigarh (10). A efficacy trial of the WHO anti- hCG vaccine started in Sweden in 1994, but was suspended a few months later because all the first seven participants experienced serious side effects. www.issuesinmedicalethics.org...

I would not put it past any goverment to experiment on its citizens.

Informed consent in India

A different picture of women’s options for action emerged from the performance of the informed consent procedures in the phase II trial in India. The German documentary- maker and women’s health advocate Ulrike Schaz filmed the recruitment of some women for this trial. The film showed a room in a public hospital in New Delhi where dozens of women were standing in line waiting to see a doctor. The doctor was sitting behind her desk and told a patient "We have got a new injection. The effect of the injection stops children for one year. You need not be afraid about this. The injection has no side effects. You see this injection is absolutely 100 per cent effective. We will also put in a copper- T. Continuous copper- T is not very good. If you have it three years, six years, then there is the risk of cancer. That is why we want you to change (15). "

The doctor’s statements diverged from the protocol. She said the anti-fertility vaccine was a new injection instead of an experimental method for which the duration and efficacy were yet to be established. And there is no evidence three or six years of copper- T use increases the risk of cancer. As a matter of fact the research protocol for this trial had been approved by the Drugs Controller of India, the institutional ethics committees, and the ethics review committee of the Canadian International Development and Research Center, one of the funders of clinical research at the NII

So while these may not have been funded by Gates...any experimental programme is
suspect in the eyes of the test subjects, and rightly so.

Thanks again for your comments!

reply to post by burntheships


Thx for that information and the Gates Foundation donates to the World Health Organization and a number of outfits in partnership with WHO. Their focus has been on new vaccines or vaccines that have fallen out of use and getting these back into use as well as getting the new vaccines used. The main point was that babies don't agree to participate in anything just like us - we have not agreed to participate in tests or trials or experiments in our atmosphere. And the 2nd point was that this man thinks that seizures are acceptable for non-consenting babies and 1 in 500 getting meningitis is acceptable for non-consenting babies. Meningitis is a serious serious illness. People go into coma and die. And the other consequences? The ones that 'would have happened anyway.' It's collateral damage. And they're talking about babies. Someone who treats babies like this - what are they capable of with adults?