Are geoengineering deniers acting immorally?

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by DJW001

 

I have a feeling that even if I managed to get a deposition from someone claiming that they are physically or financially involved with geoengineering on some level, you still wouldn't believe.

Didn't I see elsewhere you claim you don't insult people??

There are plenty of well researched and presented factual papers about all sorts of things to do with geo-engineering that are not debated.

There is geo-engineering going on - carbon sequestration, reforestation, cool roofs, etc.

the particular fantasy proposed in this thread is that there is solar radiation management going on by way of spraying something in the air.

And yet there is no actual evidence presented to show that is the case - jsut a lot of people presenting the sorts of disinfo we have seen before - stating that research into it is actually doing it, that contrails are it, that studies showing changes in the atmosphere prove it when they do nothing of the sort.

When the obvious bunk is pointed out the disinfo-presenters all scream that anyone who disagrees with them must be a paid shill and the like - and how much actual evidence do they have for those claims?? None of course.

It is the classic "bait and switch" - claim something extraordinary, when your "evidence" is shown as rubbish shift your claims to something else you have no evidence for and cry and complain about how everyone who shows that you have no evidence is actually part of the conspiracy!

Here's a great video explaining SRM reality to you - in this David Keith talks to "We are Change Calgary" - David Keith is, of course, oft mentioned on here as an arch-geo-engineering practitioner
eg www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...




It is a long video, and I am grateful to Uncinus who has provided a transcript of some of the points here

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by DJW001

 

There is geo-engineering going on - carbon sequestration, reforestation, cool roofs, etc.

Could you explain or show scientific studies
showing the difference of a white contrail reflecting light
is not Geo-engineering,
but a white cool roof reflecting light is?

Gmoneycricket asks

edit on 17-4-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Gmoneycricket


Gmoneycrickets asks, but never seems to answer - what is it you are an expert on in 3 states?? What is het court case you are going to take?

Why to you think that he water condensing out of a jet exhaust changes the chemical properties of the exhaust so that it is apparently more carcinogenic than the same exhaust when it is invisible at, say, ground level??

Why merely painting roofs white isn't actually much good as geoengineering

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Gmoneycricket

 

Gmoneycrickets asks, but never seems to answer - what is it you are an expert on in 3 states?? What is het court case you are going to take?

Why to you think that he water condensing out of a jet exhaust changes the chemical properties of the exhaust so that it is apparently more carcinogenic than the same exhaust when it is invisible at, say, ground level??

Why merely painting roofs white isn't actually much good as geoengineering

I have an emission license, 72 cert in advanced fuel injection and several brass awards they want me to hang on walls.
So the water that runs out of car exhaust can be drank is that you what you are claiming?


I claim the water that comes out of plane exhaust is like cars and is not fit for living things.
I will wait while you go drink the water that drips from combustion sources then get back to me.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Gmoneycricket

 

Gmoneycrickets asks, but never seems to answer - what is it you are an expert on in 3 states?? What is het court case you are going to take?

Why to you think that he water condensing out of a jet exhaust changes the chemical properties of the exhaust so that it is apparently more carcinogenic than the same exhaust when it is invisible at, say, ground level??

Why merely painting roofs white isn't actually much good as geoengineering

You claim to be a ego-engineering expert but have not shown or told us of your industry and the emissions that are released and how you were trained.

reply to post by Gmoneycricket

Could you explain or show scientific studies
showing the difference of a white contrail reflecting light
is not Geo-engineering,
but a white cool roof reflecting light is?

I'm not sure who you are directing this question to, but I'll answer from my own perspective. Painting a roof white decreases the local albedo, making the house and its immediate surroundings cooler. It is not attempting to change global climatic patterns. It is adaptive architecture, as are subterranean parking lots and planting more trees by the side of the road. It is intentional, but not geo-engineering. There have been some studies that suggest that the growing number of contrails, due to an increase in air travel, may be increasing the entire planet's albedo, which in turn might be affecting the climate. This is not intentional, so it is not geo-engineering. There are proposals to artificially create larger, longer lasting contrails in an attempt to amplify this alleged effect. The intention of such a proposal is to artificially change the Earth's albedo, and is thus geo-engineering.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
You claim to be a ego-engineering expert but have not shown or told us of your industry and the emissions that are released and how you were trained.

I have never claimed to be a geo-engineering expert, and what has that got to do with whatever it is you claim to be an expert in?

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Gmoneycricket

 

Gmoneycrickets asks, but never seems to answer - what is it you are an expert on in 3 states?? What is het court case you are going to take?

Why to you think that he water condensing out of a jet exhaust changes the chemical properties of the exhaust so that it is apparently more carcinogenic than the same exhaust when it is invisible at, say, ground level??

Why merely painting roofs white isn't actually much good as geoengineering

I have an emission license, 72 cert in advanced fuel injection and several brass awards they want me to hang on walls.

So what is it you aer an expert in?

So the water that runs out of car exhaust can be drank is that you what you are claiming?

no.

I claim the water that comes out of plane exhaust is like cars and is not fit for living things.

I would agree.

I will wait while you go drink the water that drips from combustion sources then get back to me.

Why would I do something as stupid as that?? don't hold your breath

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Would you please answer this question before you go?
Repeat before personal attack.

Could you explain or show scientific studies
showing the difference of a white contrail reflecting light
is not Geo-engineering,
but a white cool roof reflecting light is?
From your post about Geo-engineering from above.

reply to post by jdub297


I do see a lot of narrow Mindedness here and anti-science.

Strange, those taliking about geoengineering and it's dangers are the ones searching out, reading, and posting the science. Like in my OP.

I've yet to see your side refute all the science I posted saying geoengineering is dangerous... God-like pronouncements aside...

reply to post by Gmoneycricket


Would you please read the link I posted above showing that painting a roof white is not effective geo-engineering at all.

Would you please look at he definitions of geoengineering which describe it as a deliberate and planned action to change a climate, and understand that contrails from aircraft are neither deliberate nor planned in order to change a climate.

From google:

ge·o·en·gi·neer·ing
Noun:
The deliberate large-scale manipulation of an environmental process that affects the earth's climate, in an attempt to counteract the...

Would you stop using dishonest sophistry to try to show that contrails are anything more than contrails.

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by jdub297

 

I've yet to see your side refute all the science I posted saying geoengineering is dangerous... God-like pronouncements aside...

Because some geo-engineering IS dangerous - and all the people studying understand that - the uncertainty and possible serious side effects of SRM by atmospheric alteration of various kinds are actually what most of the study is about.

you don't have to do much research to find this - even wiki says it

Congratulations - you managed to find something that is NOT bunk, not secret, and not new!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Gmoneycricket

 

Would you please read the link I posted above showing that painting a roof white is not effective geo-engineering at all.

Would you please look at he definitions of geoengineering which describe it as a deliberate and planned action to change a climate, and understand that contrails from aircraft are neither deliberate nor planned in order to change a climate.

From google:

ge·o·en·gi·neer·ing
Noun:
The deliberate large-scale manipulation of an environmental process that affects the earth's climate, in an attempt to counteract the...

Would you stop using dishonest sophistry to try to show that contrails are anything more than contrails.

I did not start this,
I read pages and pages of contrails are nothing but harmless water vapor leaving out the facts.
Even on this thread I have had some tell me water from contrails never hits the ground.
I am not the one trying to protect a polluting industry that might have side effects of Geo-engineering!
I do not even protect my own industry, Cars kill.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I think the majority of people believe all geo-engineering is dangerous and that is why we see these threads, I am in the camp of hell yes its bad and prove to me it is not and I am your friend for life.
PS your wiki link is not working and that is not a very sound source anyways.
Regards, Iwinder
ETA
Your link is working now

reply to post by Iwinder


If you look around at "debunkers" on here you'll see that most of us are well aware of the potential problems of SRM by spraying stuff in the atmosphere.

But I do not think all geo-engineering is dangerous at all - reforestation, for example, seems to have little in the way of a downside.

Part of the problem is that some people think that SRM by "spraying stuff" is actually:

1/ happening right now, and
2/ actually a major part of geoengineering proposals
3/ being proposed without any consideration of the potential dangers

Whereas in fact it is being studied, and there is a lot more than it going on, and a great deal of the actual study that is happening is into the dangers!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket

Would you stop using dishonest sophistry to try to show that contrails are anything more than contrails.

I did not start this,

You hare happy to keep it going with silly word games though.

I read pages and pages of contrails are nothing but harmless water vapor leaving out the facts.

What is not factual about contrails being water?

Even on this thread I have had some tell me water from contrails never hits the ground.
I am not the one trying to protect a polluting industry that might have side effects of Geo-engineering!

since geo-engineering is a deliberate activity, an activity "might have side effects" as you describe it is clearly not geoengineering.

It might be climate change - but even that is not established, and if it is it seems the amount due to contrails is minuscule compared to other sources of anthropogenic climate change.

I do not even protect my own industry, Cars kill.

Wow...who'dathunk that??!!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Iwinder

 

Part of the problem is that some people think that SRM by "spraying stuff" is actually:

1/ happening right now, and
2/ actually a major part of geoengineering proposals
3/ being proposed without any consideration of the potential dangers

How do you propose the consortiums undertaking SRM research will get any real world data and verifiable field test research? Strictly computer models?

So you think that international aggreements and accords with regards to SRM will be ratified without any real world testing? Hmm.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Or maybe some companies have already had the foresight to delve into this lucrative industry.

www.evergreenaviation.com...

Nah, the corpratists and scientists couldn't possibly be in bed together?

They never had any help from the military industrial complex and it's contractors either.

Back to lollipop land and dancing with the stars for this lad.

edit on 18-4-2012 by Goldcurrent because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Goldcurrent

So you think that international aggreements and accords with regards to SRM will be ratified without any real world testing? Hmm.

A small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Geoengineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the technology could undermine efforts to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich countries to their advantage. In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on experiments in the sea and space, except for small-scale scientific studies.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Funny, I thought someone assured us that the UN was spending millions on geo-engineering in Africa.

Or maybe some companies have already had the foresight to delve into this lucrative industry.

The Supertanker offers many dramatic efficiency improvements related to drop capability, mission diversity and response time. And, when it comes to costs, the Evergreen Supertanker will put out fires in less time, require fewer aircraft, flight missions and hours flown.

Compared to the existing aerial firefighting fleet, the Evergreen Supertanker offers at least eight times more drop capability over other commonly used large airtankers. This large gallonage increase gives the Supertanker an opportunity to save a substantial amount of time and money fighting fire.

www.evergreenaviation.com...

You make an excellent point; fighting forest fires interferes with Nature. Some plants rely on forest fires in order to reproduce. By not allowing forest fires to burn themselves out, aerial firefighting not only reduces the carbon contribution of the fire, but by saving trees it reduces carbon dioxide in the future. Aerial firefighting is indeed geo-engineering. Should it be banned?

Originally posted by Goldcurrent

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Iwinder

 

Part of the problem is that some people think that SRM by "spraying stuff" is actually:

1/ happening right now, and
2/ actually a major part of geoengineering proposals
3/ being proposed without any consideration of the potential dangers

How do you propose the consortiums undertaking SRM research will get any real world data and verifiable field test research? Strictly computer models?

I am sure they will test sooner or later.

So you think that international aggreements and accords with regards to SRM will be ratified without any real world testing? Hmm.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Or maybe some companies have already had the foresight to delve into this lucrative industry.

www.evergreenaviation.com...

Nah, the corpratists and scientists couldn't possibly be in bed together?

Why not?

But even if they are it still isn't evidence of anything happening, and Evergreen's super-tanker being available for all sorts of missions still isn't evidence that that 1 aircraft has ever sprayed anything for SRM.

They never had any help from the military industrial complex and it's contractors either.

Back to lollipop land and dancing with the stars for this lad.

If you must - but you sucking sweets and prancing around on TV still isn't actually evidene of anythign happening.

Originally posted by Iwinder
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I think the majority of people believe all geo-engineering is dangerous and that is why we see these threads, I am in the camp of hell yes its bad and prove to me it is not and I am your friend for life.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
reply to post by Gmoneycricket

 

I do not even protect my own industry, Cars kill.

It is incredibly narrow-minded thinking that centers on a specific "target," such as cars, fossil-fuel exhausts, contrails and geo-engineering, gins-up the unknowns about them and the risks, without an examination of the real-life evidence and effects; usually for attention, self-gratification or enrichment.

"Cars kill." So does fire!
"Geo-engineering is dangerous." So is pure oxygen!
"I think the majority of people believe ... ." First, what you think doesn't count as evidence of what "most people believe." Most people believe in a Supreme Being; does that prove the existence of a divine creator of their-own choosing?

All of this drivel about the dangers of an unown (to them) quantity, without empirical support, is a waste of time and bandwidth.

If we feared, or refrained from doing what we KNOW is dangerous, where would we be? There is risk in every part of our lives, from giving birth, to engaging in surgery to extend lives. Do we not do things simply because "I think," "I believe" or I'm afraid?

ATS has been overridden by Luddites!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Iwinder

 

If you look around at "debunkers" on here you'll see that most of us are well aware of the potential problems of SRM by spraying stuff in the atmosphere.

But I do not think all geo-engineering is dangerous at all - reforestation, for example, seems to have little in the way of a downside.

Part of the problem is that some people think that SRM by "spraying stuff" is actually:

1/ happening right now, and
2/ actually a major part of geoengineering proposals
3/ being proposed without any consideration of the potential dangers

Whereas in fact it is being studied, and there is a lot more than it going on, and a great deal of the actual study that is happening is into the dangers!

If the fearmongers would post honestly, instead of self-servingly, they would quote those parts of the studies, articles, protocols and experimental outlines that emphasize the dangers. But that would serve their agenda. Instead, they ignore the safety concerns and admitted uncertainties, hopimg to draw in more of the gullible and uninformed.

By facing the uncertainty, and addressing the dangers, we advance our knowledge, increase our safety, and benefit mankind through knowledge instead of fear of the unknown or misunderstood.
jw