the climate change scam
- Thread starter kinglear
- Start date
are there ways in which we might be affecting climate?
well yes but these are only now being discussed in the mainstream media and they are saying that they might deploy them to....you guessed it....'fight climate change'!!!
so its not like they have already been messing with the climate? uh huh....ok whatever...this is how they are going to make it legit:
Controversial plan to artificially cool the planet by firing aerosols into the atmosphere might NOT be as risky as thought, experts claim
Some scientists have proposed using aerosols to reflect radiation and cool Earth
But, a study earlier this year claimed it could backfire by making warming worse
If the technique were abruptly stopped, it would cause warming at faster rate
Scientists now say that this worst-case scenario, while scary, is not very likely
By Cheyenne Macdonald For Dailymail.com
Published: 22:07, 12 March 2018 | Updated: 22:15, 12 March 2018
As the world grapples with different strategies to mitigate the warming climate, few have sparked such controversy in recent times as solar geoengineering.
The proposed plan would use aerosols, fired into the stratosphere with high-flying aircraft, to cool the planet by blocking radiation from the sun.
It would essentially mimic the effects seen after volcanic eruptions – but, an analysis published at the beginning of this year warned that the approach could have grave consequences.
If the plan to artificially cool Earth were abruptly stopped, the experts warned it could trigger extreme warming at rates far more dramatic than the current climate is changing, in a phenomenon known as the ‘termination shock.’
But now, some scientists have hit back, arguing that the risk might not be as it seems.
In a new paper published to the journal Earth’s Future, a pair of researchers from the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam, Germany and the John A Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Harvard University explain that the current analyses focus on the worst-case scenario.
And, while termination shock would be catastrophic, it could mostly be avoided by taking a few simple precautions.
‘Most studies so far have focused on the extremes, like in a large-scale deployment that’s ended instantly and permanently,’ explains co-author Peter Irvine, of Harvard’s engineering school, in a video about the work.
‘If solar geoengineering were deployed at small scales, say cooling only a few tenths of a degree Celsius, then if it were ended there wouldn’t be substantial warming.
‘If it were phased out over the course of decades, there would not be a rapid warming, so that would also not constitute a termination shock.
‘And if it were turned off for some reason and then turned back on again, the termination shock could be avoided.’
Aerosols will remain in the stratosphere for months after their deployment has ended, giving a large window of time to restart the process before the shock takes hold, the researcher notes.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ol-Earth-NOT-risky-thought.html#ixzz59ddmOnUR
well yes but these are only now being discussed in the mainstream media and they are saying that they might deploy them to....you guessed it....'fight climate change'!!!
so its not like they have already been messing with the climate? uh huh....ok whatever...this is how they are going to make it legit:
Controversial plan to artificially cool the planet by firing aerosols into the atmosphere might NOT be as risky as thought, experts claim
Some scientists have proposed using aerosols to reflect radiation and cool Earth
But, a study earlier this year claimed it could backfire by making warming worse
If the technique were abruptly stopped, it would cause warming at faster rate
Scientists now say that this worst-case scenario, while scary, is not very likely
By Cheyenne Macdonald For Dailymail.com
Published: 22:07, 12 March 2018 | Updated: 22:15, 12 March 2018
As the world grapples with different strategies to mitigate the warming climate, few have sparked such controversy in recent times as solar geoengineering.
The proposed plan would use aerosols, fired into the stratosphere with high-flying aircraft, to cool the planet by blocking radiation from the sun.
It would essentially mimic the effects seen after volcanic eruptions – but, an analysis published at the beginning of this year warned that the approach could have grave consequences.
If the plan to artificially cool Earth were abruptly stopped, the experts warned it could trigger extreme warming at rates far more dramatic than the current climate is changing, in a phenomenon known as the ‘termination shock.’
But now, some scientists have hit back, arguing that the risk might not be as it seems.
In a new paper published to the journal Earth’s Future, a pair of researchers from the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam, Germany and the John A Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Harvard University explain that the current analyses focus on the worst-case scenario.
And, while termination shock would be catastrophic, it could mostly be avoided by taking a few simple precautions.
‘Most studies so far have focused on the extremes, like in a large-scale deployment that’s ended instantly and permanently,’ explains co-author Peter Irvine, of Harvard’s engineering school, in a video about the work.
‘If solar geoengineering were deployed at small scales, say cooling only a few tenths of a degree Celsius, then if it were ended there wouldn’t be substantial warming.
‘If it were phased out over the course of decades, there would not be a rapid warming, so that would also not constitute a termination shock.
‘And if it were turned off for some reason and then turned back on again, the termination shock could be avoided.’
Aerosols will remain in the stratosphere for months after their deployment has ended, giving a large window of time to restart the process before the shock takes hold, the researcher notes.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ol-Earth-NOT-risky-thought.html#ixzz59ddmOnUR
D
Deleted member 16771
Zombie Vampire Elite Grandmas
Does that sound more... horror movie or escort site to you?
I think the 'Elite' part is throwing me off. Hmmmmmmmmmm
If the sun doesn't affect climate then why does a group that monitors the climate need to concern itself with solar radiation management?
Governing Solar Radiation Management
A Report from the Academic Working Group on Climate Engineering Governance
In 2016, the Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment convened a group of fourteen global governance experts to study the governance of solar radiation management (SRM) and offer recommendations for policymakers and civil society. This Academic Working Group on Climate Engineering Governance spent two years studying SRM and deliberating about the best way to govern it. Their report, Governing Solar Radiation Management, explains the need for governance and offers twelve essential, actionable recommendations for governing SRM in the near term.
Report Highlights
An introduction to the issue argues that even as SRM research is moving forward, the world is not yet ready to govern that research or the technologies it could create. In light of the risk-risk trade-offs involved in researching and governing SRM, the time to begin building better governance is now.
The Working Group lays out four objectives of SRM governance:
Keeping mitigation and adaptation first
Thoroughly and transparently evaluate risks, burdens, and benefits
Enable responsible knowledge creation
Ensure robust governance before any consideration of deployment
The Working Group offers twelve actionable recommendations for governing SRM out to 2025, which fall into three clusters:
Create politically legitimate deliberative bodies
Leverage existing institutions
Make research transparent and accountable
Download the executive summary [134 KB] or the full report [1.1 MB] for details.
About the Academic Working Group
The Academic Working Group consists of fourteen academics with deep expertise in global governance. Starting in March 2016, the Working Group gathered for five meetings to consider and define the challenges and opportunities associated with SRM technologies and to craft a set of specific, actionable governance recommendations. During these meetings, the group heard from established experts on SRM as well as experts in the governance of other emerging technologies. Between meetings, group members delved into and contributed to the academic literature on SRM and related policy conversations. You can read more about the Working Group members here and download summaries of each of their five meetings here.
http://ceassessment.org/SRMreport/
Governing Solar Radiation Management
A Report from the Academic Working Group on Climate Engineering Governance
In 2016, the Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment convened a group of fourteen global governance experts to study the governance of solar radiation management (SRM) and offer recommendations for policymakers and civil society. This Academic Working Group on Climate Engineering Governance spent two years studying SRM and deliberating about the best way to govern it. Their report, Governing Solar Radiation Management, explains the need for governance and offers twelve essential, actionable recommendations for governing SRM in the near term.
Report Highlights
An introduction to the issue argues that even as SRM research is moving forward, the world is not yet ready to govern that research or the technologies it could create. In light of the risk-risk trade-offs involved in researching and governing SRM, the time to begin building better governance is now.
The Working Group lays out four objectives of SRM governance:
Keeping mitigation and adaptation first
Thoroughly and transparently evaluate risks, burdens, and benefits
Enable responsible knowledge creation
Ensure robust governance before any consideration of deployment
The Working Group offers twelve actionable recommendations for governing SRM out to 2025, which fall into three clusters:
Create politically legitimate deliberative bodies
Leverage existing institutions
Make research transparent and accountable
Download the executive summary [134 KB] or the full report [1.1 MB] for details.
About the Academic Working Group
The Academic Working Group consists of fourteen academics with deep expertise in global governance. Starting in March 2016, the Working Group gathered for five meetings to consider and define the challenges and opportunities associated with SRM technologies and to craft a set of specific, actionable governance recommendations. During these meetings, the group heard from established experts on SRM as well as experts in the governance of other emerging technologies. Between meetings, group members delved into and contributed to the academic literature on SRM and related policy conversations. You can read more about the Working Group members here and download summaries of each of their five meetings here.
http://ceassessment.org/SRMreport/
Weather As A Force Multiplier: Owning The Weather In 2025
by USAF Air University, Air Command and Staff College
Publication date 1996
Usage Public Domain Mark 1.0
Topics Conspiracy Theory, HAARP, Weather control -- War use, Military meteorology, Chemtrails, Military planning -- United States, Space Weather, Chemtrail, Weather Modification
Collection folkscanomy_agriculture; folkscanomy; additional_collections
Language English
Weather As A Force Multiplier: Owning The Weather In 2025
1996 USAF paper about weather modification: "The purpose of this paper is to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather modification system to achieve military objectives rather than to provide a detailed technical road map."
Popular among conspiracy theorists.
Identifier WeatherAsAForceMultiplier
Identifier-ark ark:/13960/t2n59ts9z
Ocr ABBYY FineReader 9.0
Pages 52
Ppi 300
Year 1996
https://archive.org/details/WeatherAsAForceMultiplier/page/n1
CIA DIRECTOR JOHN BRENNAN ADMITS TO CHEMTRAILS (STRATOSPHERIC AEROSOL INJECTION)
by USAF Air University, Air Command and Staff College
Publication date 1996
Usage Public Domain Mark 1.0
Topics Conspiracy Theory, HAARP, Weather control -- War use, Military meteorology, Chemtrails, Military planning -- United States, Space Weather, Chemtrail, Weather Modification
Collection folkscanomy_agriculture; folkscanomy; additional_collections
Language English
Weather As A Force Multiplier: Owning The Weather In 2025
1996 USAF paper about weather modification: "The purpose of this paper is to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather modification system to achieve military objectives rather than to provide a detailed technical road map."
Popular among conspiracy theorists.
Identifier WeatherAsAForceMultiplier
Identifier-ark ark:/13960/t2n59ts9z
Ocr ABBYY FineReader 9.0
Pages 52
Ppi 300
Year 1996
https://archive.org/details/WeatherAsAForceMultiplier/page/n1
CIA DIRECTOR JOHN BRENNAN ADMITS TO CHEMTRAILS (STRATOSPHERIC AEROSOL INJECTION)
so there you go....'climate change' will be used as the excuse through which governments will begin to disclose geoengineering except they will say that they are only now starting the programmes...
United Nations Pushes Geoengineering As Last Ditch Effort to Save Humanity
Derrick Broze
October 10, 2018
In their new report the United Nations is sounding alarm bells about the need for controversial climate engineering technology.
On October 8 the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a new report which makes several calls for further investigating climate engineering technology known as geoengineering. The IPCC report, titled “Global Warming of 1.5 °C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways”, warns that without investment into geoengineering technology the Earth’s temperature will continue to increase.
Geoengineering is the deliberate and large-scale manipulation of the weather and climate using a variety of technologies. One popular form of geoengineering being explored by IPCC scientists is known as Solar Radiation Management (SRM), a process which involves planes spraying aerosols in the skies designed to reflect sunlight in an effort to combat “anthropogenic global warming.”
https://www.activistpost.com/2018/1...ng-as-last-ditch-effort-to-save-humanity.html
United Nations Pushes Geoengineering As Last Ditch Effort to Save Humanity
Derrick Broze
October 10, 2018
In their new report the United Nations is sounding alarm bells about the need for controversial climate engineering technology.
On October 8 the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a new report which makes several calls for further investigating climate engineering technology known as geoengineering. The IPCC report, titled “Global Warming of 1.5 °C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways”, warns that without investment into geoengineering technology the Earth’s temperature will continue to increase.
Geoengineering is the deliberate and large-scale manipulation of the weather and climate using a variety of technologies. One popular form of geoengineering being explored by IPCC scientists is known as Solar Radiation Management (SRM), a process which involves planes spraying aerosols in the skies designed to reflect sunlight in an effort to combat “anthropogenic global warming.”
https://www.activistpost.com/2018/1...ng-as-last-ditch-effort-to-save-humanity.html
D
Deleted member 16771
@kinglear Relax, you're blowing your load.
If you want a debate, just let people come and discuss.
It's courteous to enter any debate with the willingness to have your mind changed. In fact, if you initiate the debate, that ought to be what you seek, otherwise you're just proselytising.
What people are detecting is that you've already made up your mind and potentially aren't interested in other perspectives, so what's the point?
Mate, ask yourself: are we capable of changing your mind on this subject?
If the answer is no, then you set up this thread on false and misleading premises.
If you want a debate, just let people come and discuss.
It's courteous to enter any debate with the willingness to have your mind changed. In fact, if you initiate the debate, that ought to be what you seek, otherwise you're just proselytising.
What people are detecting is that you've already made up your mind and potentially aren't interested in other perspectives, so what's the point?
Mate, ask yourself: are we capable of changing your mind on this subject?
If the answer is no, then you set up this thread on false and misleading premises.
lol
Alexa falls for conspiracy theories too: Amazon fixes embarrassing 'error' that saw its voice assistant telling users the government is secretly behind CHEMTRAILS
Alexa has been recorded telling users that chemtrails are a conspiracy theory
Amazon has since fixed the error by changing Alexa's answer to the question
Numerous scientists have debunked the chemtrails conspiracy theory
The white streaks are actually contrails created in high altitudes by aircrafts
By Annie Palmer For Dailymail.com
Published: 00:15, 12 April 2018 | Updated: 00:44, 12 April 2018
If you ask Alexa what chemtrails are, you might be surprised by what she says.
The voice assistant has been spouting a government conspiracy theory as an explanation for the oft-debated condensation trails.
Alexa has been recorded telling users: 'Chemtrails are trails left by aircraft [that] are actually chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for a purpose undisclosed to the general public in clandestine programs directed by government officials'.
Amazon says it has taken steps to fix the issue since the error was first discovered by Mashable.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...vernment-conspiracy-theory.html#ixzz5CU02QYv5
Alexa falls for conspiracy theories too: Amazon fixes embarrassing 'error' that saw its voice assistant telling users the government is secretly behind CHEMTRAILS
Alexa has been recorded telling users that chemtrails are a conspiracy theory
Amazon has since fixed the error by changing Alexa's answer to the question
Numerous scientists have debunked the chemtrails conspiracy theory
The white streaks are actually contrails created in high altitudes by aircrafts
By Annie Palmer For Dailymail.com
Published: 00:15, 12 April 2018 | Updated: 00:44, 12 April 2018
If you ask Alexa what chemtrails are, you might be surprised by what she says.
The voice assistant has been spouting a government conspiracy theory as an explanation for the oft-debated condensation trails.
Alexa has been recorded telling users: 'Chemtrails are trails left by aircraft [that] are actually chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for a purpose undisclosed to the general public in clandestine programs directed by government officials'.
Amazon says it has taken steps to fix the issue since the error was first discovered by Mashable.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...vernment-conspiracy-theory.html#ixzz5CU02QYv5
I don’t get it. Why would you think climate change is a scam?
D
Deleted member 16771
debate and discussion aren't necessarily the same thing
How about .. yes?
i have to go now but i'll get back to you on that
in the meantime you might want to peruse some of the info above!
PuzzNuzz: "Can you clarify your position?"
Commander Kinglear Shepard: "I have to go."
Commander Kinglear Shepard: "I have to go."
D
Deleted member 16771
All the best proselytes can rely on pressing engagements to dodge questions.
PuzzNuzz: "Can you clarify your position?"
Commander Kinglear Shepard: "I have to go."
Lolololol.
He'll just come back in two months to tell us that he found our dead brother on a cargo vessel or something.
D
Deleted member 16771
LmaoPuzzNuzz: "Can you clarify your position?"
Commander Kinglear Shepard: "I have to go."
Well I'm allergic to conspiracy theories on the whole, and I think it's a shame when good honest scientific scepticism gets overlaid with prejudices. The world's climate is so complex and chaotic looked at over timescales of tens of thousands of years and longer that I don't believe any of the models can really be anything other than indicative. I don't think the scientists are involved in any illuminati type global mastery plot, though they may be guilty of going where the research grants are most fruitful. In the 1960s the media was full of scare stories about the end of the current inter-glacial period - this one has been longer than they usually are, and according to the 1960s media the scientists were convinced then that we were all going to be buried under glaciers and doomed within a few decades. Science moves on and changes it's mind all the time about things as they become better and better understood. The politicians are a different thing altogether - they'll just go where the political advantage lies within a timespan of 3-5 years.
I'm just to the pessimistic side of agnostic myself on whether pollution is causing climate change - and I'm very aware of the human tendency to put ourselves centre stage in the universe whenever we are given a free vote. No, the Earth is not at the centre of all things like we used to think, it's a small planet stuck in the suburbs of a pretty small star, which is located no-where special inside a galaxy that's pretty ordinary, located nowhere special in the universe. So at first sight I'm a little cagey about the hubris that says we are all on our own are changing the climate, potentially catastrophically, but it is looking increasingly likely.
But .... it is very obvious that we are doing a lot of damage to our environment in all sorts of other ways as well. So we make this marvellous stuff called plastic that doesn't rot, can't be eaten by almost anything out there, and use it everywhere in everything, mostly disposable. And boy do we chuck it away! The way we are going on we'll turn the whole planet into a midden, ground, sea, atmosphere. It can't go on, and unless we get ourselves into a balance so that we set up closed cycles of use and recycling that leaves the world in an indefinitely sustainable state then it must all come to a grinding halt at some point. That's just maths, physics, chemistry and biology and if it isn't global warming that does it, it will be something equally bad, like killing off the oxygen generating life in the oceans, or poisoning ourselves with the chemicals in our waste that get into the food chain, etc.
The thing is the kinds of action we need to take are the sorts of things that we need to do to reduce carbon emissions anyway, so I'm all for it, even if I'm not absolutely sure yet that global warming is a problem. I don't want to be choking on air contaminated with increating amounts of nanoparticles, and pollution gases even if they don't raise the global temperature. The same technology that reduces carbon emissions also helps tackle these other very obvious risks as well.
Another angle - we are all used to dealing with small risks of a very high loss. I insure my house against fire, and reducing carbon emissions is at very worst no more illogical than doing the same thing on a global basis. You don't have to look very hard to see what's potentially at hazard - the flood that drowned the land that is now the Black Sea thousands of years ago, and the innundations of the continental shelves at the end of the last glacial period were truly spectacular and not all that long ago geologically speaking.
I'm just to the pessimistic side of agnostic myself on whether pollution is causing climate change - and I'm very aware of the human tendency to put ourselves centre stage in the universe whenever we are given a free vote. No, the Earth is not at the centre of all things like we used to think, it's a small planet stuck in the suburbs of a pretty small star, which is located no-where special inside a galaxy that's pretty ordinary, located nowhere special in the universe. So at first sight I'm a little cagey about the hubris that says we are all on our own are changing the climate, potentially catastrophically, but it is looking increasingly likely.
But .... it is very obvious that we are doing a lot of damage to our environment in all sorts of other ways as well. So we make this marvellous stuff called plastic that doesn't rot, can't be eaten by almost anything out there, and use it everywhere in everything, mostly disposable. And boy do we chuck it away! The way we are going on we'll turn the whole planet into a midden, ground, sea, atmosphere. It can't go on, and unless we get ourselves into a balance so that we set up closed cycles of use and recycling that leaves the world in an indefinitely sustainable state then it must all come to a grinding halt at some point. That's just maths, physics, chemistry and biology and if it isn't global warming that does it, it will be something equally bad, like killing off the oxygen generating life in the oceans, or poisoning ourselves with the chemicals in our waste that get into the food chain, etc.
The thing is the kinds of action we need to take are the sorts of things that we need to do to reduce carbon emissions anyway, so I'm all for it, even if I'm not absolutely sure yet that global warming is a problem. I don't want to be choking on air contaminated with increating amounts of nanoparticles, and pollution gases even if they don't raise the global temperature. The same technology that reduces carbon emissions also helps tackle these other very obvious risks as well.
Another angle - we are all used to dealing with small risks of a very high loss. I insure my house against fire, and reducing carbon emissions is at very worst no more illogical than doing the same thing on a global basis. You don't have to look very hard to see what's potentially at hazard - the flood that drowned the land that is now the Black Sea thousands of years ago, and the innundations of the continental shelves at the end of the last glacial period were truly spectacular and not all that long ago geologically speaking.