U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 08-26-2012, 01:00 AM
Location: Old Mother Idaho
21,500 posts, read 14,403,478 times
Reputation: 15892


Originally Posted by Don9 View Post
If you watch the documentary or read any of the credible links you would discover that our government is acknowledging and promoting geoengineering which includes aerosol spraying from aircraft ... aka "chemtrails". So its no longer a "conspiracy theory".
I used to know one of the very first guys who believed that, long before it ever reached your consciousness. I don't have to watch the documentary, because I got chapter and verse long ago from one of the originators.

Chemtrails? We don't need no stinking chemtrails. Western Airlines and all the others are doing just fine with no government conspiracy needed.

You just came to it very late in the day.

Old 08-26-2012, 01:44 AM
15,924 posts, read 17,429,916 times
Reputation: 7641
Originally Posted by Don9 View Post
If you watch the documentary or read any of the credible links you would discover that our government is acknowledging and promoting geoengineering which includes aerosol spraying from aircraft ... aka "chemtrails". So its no longer a "conspiracy theory".
You fail to recognize that the government and the military do all kinds of studies and research which I had pointed out to you before in Post #132.

To keep you life simple I have copied that entire post:

The military looks at all options when it comes to weapons, more grasping at straws by the loony chemtrail conspiracy folks

So when are you going to launch into your other wild fantasies? HAARP? Area 51? the Master Computer controlling chemplanes? We need more laughs...

In war, innovation can mean the difference between a glorious victory and a world shattering defeat. When research and development departments have the funding of a desperate nation behind them, and are faced with a long and brutal campaign, the ideas that are spawned can turn the tide of battle. It’s inevitable that some of the wilder ideas would later seem ridiculous.

Top 10 Weirdest Weapons | Top 10 Lists | TopTenz.net

9 Absolutely Insane Weapons of War - Oddee.com (cool weapons, weird weapons...)
Old 08-26-2012, 01:51 AM
15,924 posts, read 17,429,916 times
Reputation: 7641
And in Post #137 I posted the ultimate chemtrail machine, it was much cheaper to operate than this conglomeration of chemical aircraft, the supercomputers you told us about that control them and the Master Control center determining which parts of the globe get sprayed with what the chemical compond of the day is....

I wonder why the other chemtrails groups insists it's UFO's projecting 3D images of aircraft spraying when in fact it's the UFO's that are doing the spraying..
Old 08-26-2012, 02:06 AM
15,924 posts, read 17,429,916 times
Reputation: 7641
Warning to newer readers, if you disagree with the OP this is his attitude on people who disagree with THE FACTS and THE TRUTH.

Originally Posted by don9 View Post
Yeah Right! plwhit proves that he/she is nothing but a spammer who spews post after post of garbage with the intent to derail real conversation on the subject matter.
So as you can see, "real discussion" is a discussion that only agrees with his point of view.....
Old 08-26-2012, 08:30 AM
5,113 posts, read 4,958,314 times
Reputation: 1732
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
I used to know one of the very first guys who believed that, long before it ever reached your consciousness. I don't have to watch the documentary, because I got chapter and verse long ago from one of the originators.

Chemtrails? We don't need no stinking chemtrails. Western Airlines and all the others are doing just fine with no government conspiracy needed.

You just came to it very late in the day.
Not only do you not watch the documentary but you don't even read the post you are responding too.

If you do just a little current reading you would find that geoengineering is mainstream and promoted by geoengineering scientist, pro AGW politicians and even liberal celebrities and the rich ...

Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering

The billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates is backing a group of climate scientists lobbying for geoengineering experiments.

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.

The scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a "plan B" for climate change will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US government and others should pay for a major programme of international research.

Solar geoengineering techniques are highly controversial: while some climate scientists believe they may prove a quick and relatively cheap way to slow global warming, others fear that when conducted in the upper atmosphere, they could irrevocably alter rainfall patterns and interfere with the earth's climate.

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.

Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy.

"We will need to protect ourselves from vested interests [and] be sure that choices are not influenced by parties who might make significant amounts of money through a choice to modify climate, especially using proprietary intellectual property," said Jane Long, director at large for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, in a paper delivered to a recent geoengineering conference on ethics.

"The stakes are very high and scientists are not the best people to deal with the social, ethical or political issues that geoengineering raises," said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace. "The idea that a self-selected group should have so much influence is bizarre."

Pressure to find a quick technological fix to climate change is growing as politicians fail to reach an agreement to significantly reduce emissions. In 2009-2010, the US government received requests for over $2bn(£1.2bn) of grants for geoengineering research, but spent around $100m.

As well as Gates, other wealthy individuals including Sir Richard Branson, tar sands magnate Murray Edwards and the co-founder of Skype, Niklas Zennström, have funded a series of official reports into future use of the technology. Branson, who has frequently called for geoengineering to combat climate change, helped fund the Royal Society's inquiry into solar radiation management last year through his Carbon War Room charity. It is not known how much he contributed.

Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, [see footnote] are the world's two leading advocates of major research into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield. They have so far received over $4.6m from Gates to run the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (Ficer). Nearly half Ficer's money, which comes directly from Gates's personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of large-scale interventions.

According to statements of financial interests, Keith receives an undisclosed sum from Bill Gates each year, and is the president and majority owner of the geoengineering company Carbon Engineering, in which both Gates and Edwards have major stakes – believed to be together worth over $10m.

Another Edwards company, Canadian Natural Resources, has plans to spend $25bn to turn the bitumen-bearing sand found in northern Alberta into barrels of crude oil. Caldeira says he receives $375,000 a year from Gates, holds a carbon capture patent and works for Intellectual Ventures, a private geoegineering research company part-owned by Gates and run by Nathan Myhrvold, former head of technology at Microsoft.

According to the latest Ficer accounts, the two scientists have so far given $300,000 of Gates money to part-fund three prominent reviews and assessments of geoengineering – the UK Royal Society report on Solar Radiation Management, the US Taskforce on Geoengineering and a 2009 report by Novin a science thinktank based in Santa Barbara, California. Keith and Caldeira either sat on the panels that produced the reports or contributed evidence. All three reports strongly recommended more research into solar radiation management.

The fund also gave $600,000 to Phil Rasch, chief climate scientist for the Pacific Northwest national laboratory, one of 10 research institutions funded by the US energy department.

Rasch gave evidence at the first Royal Society report on geoengineering 2009 and was a panel member on the 2011 report. He has testified to the US Congress about the need for government funding of large-scale geoengineering. In addition, Caldeira and Keith gave a further $240,000 to geoengineering advocates to travel and attend workshops and meetings and $100,000 to Jay Apt, a prominent advocate of geoengineering as a last resort, and professor of engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. Apt worked with Keith and Aurora Flight Sciences, a US company that develops drone aircraft technology for the US military, to study the costs of sending 1m tonnes of sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere a year.

Analysis of the eight major national and international inquiries into geoengineering over the past three years shows that Keith and Caldeira, Rasch and Prof Granger Morgan the head of department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University where Keith works, have sat on seven panels, including one set up by the UN. Three other strong advocates of solar radiation geoengineering, including Rasch, have sat on national inquiries part-funded by Ficer.

"There are clear conflicts of interest between many of the people involved in the debate," said Diana Bronson, a researcher with Montreal-based geoengineering watchdog ETC.

"What is really worrying is that the same small group working on high-risk technologies that will geoengineer the planet is also trying to engineer the discussion around international rules and regulations. We cannot put the fox in charge of the chicken coop."

"The eco-clique are lobbying for a huge injection of public funds into geoengineering research. They dominate virtually every inquiry into geoengineering. They are present in almost all of the expert deliberations. They have been the leading advisers to parliamentary and congressional inquiries and their views will, in all likelihood, dominate the deliberations of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as it grapples for the first time with the scientific and ethical tangle that is climate engineering," said Clive Hamilton, professor of Public Ethics at the Australian National University, in a Guardian blog.

The scientists involved reject this notion. "Even the perception that [a small group of people has] illegitimate influence [is] very unhealthy for a technology which has extreme power over the world. The concerns that a small group [is] dominating the debate are legitimate, but things are not as they were," said Keith. "It's changing as countries like India and China become involved. The era when my voice or that of a few was dominant is over. We need a very broad debate."

"Every scientist has some conflict of interest, because we would all like to see more resources going to study things that we find interesting," said Caldeira. "Do I have too much influence? I feel like I have too little. I have been calling for making CO2 emissions illegal for many years, but no one is listening to me. People who disagree with me might feel I have too much influence. The best way to reduce my influence is to have more public research funds available, so that our funds are in the noise. If the federal government played the role it should in this area, there would be no need for money from Gates.

"Regarding my own patents, I have repeatedly stated that if any patent that I am on is ever used for the purposes of altering climate, then any proceeds that accrue to me for this use will be donated to nonprofit NGOs and charities. I have no expectation or interest in developing a personal revenue stream based upon the use of these patents for climate modification.".

Rasch added: "I don't feel there is any conflict of interest. I don't lobby, work with patents or intellectual property, do classified research or work with for-profit companies. The research I do on geoengineering involves computer simulations and thinking about possible consequences. The Ficer foundation that has funded my research tries to be transparent in their activities, as do I."

• This article was amended on 8 February 2012. The original stated that Phil Rasch worked for Intellectual Ventures. This has been corrected. This article was further amended on 13 February 2012. Prof Caldeira has asked us to make clear that the fact that he advocates research into geoengineering does not mean he advocates geoengineering.
Old 08-26-2012, 08:47 AM
5,113 posts, read 4,958,314 times
Reputation: 1732
Here is a 2012 pro geoengineering article from Science Daily ...
Geoengineering includes the aerosol spraying of RF conductive nano-particles from specially equipped aircraft.

Sunshade Geoengineering More Likely to Improve Global Food Security, Research Suggests

ScienceDaily (Jan. 25, 2012) — Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas have been increasing over the past decades, causing Earth to get hotter and hotter. There are concerns that a continuation of these trends could have catastrophic effects, including crop failures in the heat-stressed tropics. This has led some to explore drastic ideas for combating global warming, including the idea of trying to counteract it by reflecting sunlight away from Earth. However, it has been suggested that reflecting sunlight away from Earth might itself threaten the food supply of billions of people.

New research led by Carnegie's Julia Pongratz examines the potential effects that geoengineering the climate could have on global food production and concludes that sunshade geoengineering would be more likely to improve rather than threaten food security. Their work is published online by Nature Climate Change Jan. 22.

Big volcanoes cool the planet by placing lots of small particles in the stratosphere, but the particles fall out within a year and the planet heats back up. One proposal for cooling the planet is to use high-flying airplanes to constantly replenish a layer of small particles in the stratosphere that would scatter sunlight back to space. But such so-called sunshade geoengineering could have unintended consequences for climate, and especially for precipitation.

Although scientists know that climate change in recent decades has negatively impacted crop yields in many regions, the study by Pongratz and colleagues is the first to examine the potential effect of geoengineering on food security. Pongratz's team, which included Carnegie's Ken Caldeira and Long Cao, as well as Stanford University's David Lobell, used models to assess the impact of sunshade geoengineering on crop yields.

Using two different climate models, they simulated climates with carbon dioxide levels similar to what exists today. A second set of simulations doubled carbon-dioxide levels -- levels that could be reached in several decades if current trends in fossil-fuel burning continue unabated. A third set of simulations posited doubled carbon dioxide, but with a layer of sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere deflecting about 2% of incoming sunlight away from Earth. The simulated climate changes were then applied to crop models that are commonly used to project future yields.

The team found that, in the model, sunshade geoengineering leads to increased crop yields in most regions, both compared with current conditions and with the future projection of doubled carbon dioxide on its own. This is because deflecting sunlight back to space reduces temperatures, but not CO2. "In many regions, future climate change is predicted to put crops under temperature stress, reducing yields. This stress is alleviated by geoengineering," Pongratz said. "At the same time, the beneficial effects that a higher CO2 concentration has on plant productivity remain active."

Even if the geoengineering would help crop yields overall, the models predict that some areas could be harmed by the geoengineering. And there are other risks that go beyond the direct impact on crop yields. For example, deployment of such systems might lead to political or even military conflict. Furthermore, these approaches do not solve the problem of ocean acidification, which is also caused by carbon dioxide emissions.

"The real world is much more complex than our climate models, so it would be premature to act based on model results like ours," Caldeira said. "But desperate people do desperate things. Therefore, it is important to understand the consequences of actions that do not strike us as being particularly good ideas."

"The climate system is not well enough understood to exclude the risks of severe unanticipated climate changes, whether due to our fossil-fuel emissions or due to intentional intervention in the climate system," Pongratz said. "Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is therefore likely a safer option than geoengineering to avert risks to global food security."
Old 08-26-2012, 10:31 AM
6,635 posts, read 4,604,790 times
Reputation: 13350
Plwhit - Thanks for all your posts. Even if Don9 isn't listening to reason, be assured some of us are. Too bad for Don9 that he can't put your posts on ignore for everyone. I'm sure it would suit him fine to have only his posts and those of is followers available for our review. To ignore points of view other than your own shows his lack of scientific thought and lessens no ones views other than his own.
Old 08-26-2012, 11:07 AM
Location: Northern CA
12,770 posts, read 9,849,183 times
Reputation: 4243
They are looking for any excuse to spray us
West Nile: they're lying to you again

They count on people like plwhit and the rest of the useful idiiots to disinform and keep us stupid. Think for yourself, the purpose is obvious, a sickly population is weak and short-lived.

I have read that chemtrails are global, except for over China. Don, is that still the case?
Old 08-26-2012, 11:28 AM
Location: Northern CA
12,770 posts, read 9,849,183 times
Reputation: 4243
This is why all these govt shills gravitate towards threads like this, they don't want you to THINK. They want you to believe all those chemicals painting the sky are normal, they want you to believe the gov't is looking out for you. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wake up! Turn of the television and start building dendrites, don't let your brain shrivel to nothingness. Don't be a walking zombie, living off disability.

This is America if you dont vote Ron Paul: Vote to Change the Path - YouTube
Old 08-26-2012, 11:31 AM
Location: Old Mother Idaho
21,500 posts, read 14,403,478 times
Reputation: 15892
Dang, Don... you are like the kid in a barn full of manure, digging away. There's gotta be a pony down there, somewhere.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:16 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top