Well some of their reports have been exposed and Pachauri is not a scientist...
And The Earth has not warmed up for the last 15 years which might lead one to question the myth of AGW...
Well some of their reports have been exposed and Pachauri is not a scientist...
And The Earth has not warmed up for the last 15 years which might lead one to question the myth of AGW...
The fact is that global regulation is being implemented all over the, er, globe. And now you're regulating your own writings. Apart from the irony, you may be missing a vital element. Whose consensus are we talking about? A consensus among politicians and corporate media (like in, say, the invasion of Iraq), or the consensus of the people? There have been no formal policy discussions...you say, so therefore what? everything is lovely and normal? there are no secrets? what exactly?Originally Posted by SR1419
And you still haven't substantiated any of your claims. You just keep saying things like 'feel free to look back over this thread if you want evidence', that type of thing. I'm asking you, specifically, to give me a piece of evidence that gives weight to your claims, 'in my opinion', 'as I see it', 'read some of this thread' just isn't a valid argument, no matter how you dress it up.
If what you say is true. . . Why is a consensus of scientists and their organizations totally behind the concepts . . .?
American Physical Society Sites
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
AGU Position StatementNational Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE
(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
Climate Change Commentary
(adopted by Council on April 18, 2010)
The American Geophysical Union
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions...ange2008.shtml
Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.
Last edited by Mick; March 10th, 2012 at 11:36 AM. Reason: quote tags
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
No sure where that first link was supposed to go, but the wikipedia page says:Rajendra K. Pachauri.
Rajendra Pachauri , the IPCC chairman often wrongly described in the media as the world leading climate scientist he actually a railway engineer Railway engineer A train driver , a train chauffer ......
http://ktwop.wordpress.com/tag/rajendra-k-pachauri/
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2010...laim-debunked/
The IPCC are fairly unreliable...
He's also written or been cited in 938 scientific papers:Pachauri was born in Nainital, India. He was educated at La Martiniere College in Lucknow[4] and at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Jamalpur, Bihar. He belongs to the Special Class Railway Apprentices, 1958 Batch, an elite scheme which heralded the beginning of mechanical engineering education in India. [5] He began his career with the Indian Railways at the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi. Pachauri was awarded an MS degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, in 1972, as well as a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974.[6] He lives in Golf Links, New Delhi.[7] He is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment.[8]
He served as Assistant Professor (August 1974 - May 1975) and Visiting Faculty Member (Summer 1976 and 1977) in the Department of Economics and Business at NC State. He was a Visiting Professor of Resource Economics at the College of Mineral and Energy Resources, West Virginia University. On his return to India, he joined the Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad, as Member Senior Faculty (June 1975 - June 1979) and went on to become Director, Consulting and Applied Research Division (July 1979-March 1981). He joined TERI as Director in April 1981.[9] and presently heads the organisation. He was also a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Resource Systems Institute (1982), and Visiting Research Fellow at the World Bank, Washington DC (1990). On 20 April 2002, Pachauri was elected Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations panel established by the WMO and UNEP to assess information relevant for understanding climate change.[10]
Pachauri was on the Board of Governors, Shriram Scientific and Industrial Research Foundation (September 1987); the Executive Committee of the India International Centre, New Delhi (1985 onwards); the Governing Council of the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi (October 1987 onwards); and the Court of Governors, Administrative Staff College of India (1979–81) and advises such companies as Pegasus Capital Advisors, GloriOil, the Chicago Climate Exchange, Toyota, Deutsche Bank and NTPC.[11] He has served as member of many societies and commissions. He has been the Member of Board of the International Solar Energy Society (1991–1997), World Resources Institute Council (1992), while Chairman of the World Energy Council (1993–1995), President and then Chairman of the International Association for Energy Economics (1988–1990), and the President of the Asian Energy Institute (Since 1992).[12] He was a part time advisor to the United Nations Development Programme (1994—1999) in the fields of Energy and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources.[13] In July 2001, Dr R K Pachauri was appointed Member, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India.[13]
So the only truth there is that he's not a climate scientist. He's an industrial engineer and economist.
The point is inherent in the post
Why can you never tell us what point you are trying to make? It would save a lot of time.
Your initial statement first describes a correlation ("If you are the subject of starvation in utero, then you are more likely to suffer diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure etc. in later life") and then says that maybe it's a correlation ("It could be there is a correlation"), then asks what someone thinks about it.
Perhaps you mean "causal relationship", rather than "correlation"?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...mply_causation
Can you explain what you mean, what your point is, and how it pertains to the topic?
i'll have a go...
if A believes B is wrong
and B believes A is wrong
and B and A represent billions of people each,
then either A is right, therefore B, representing billions, is wrong,
or B is right, therefore A, representing billions, is wrong,
or, they are both wrong, representing billions of people being wrong.
(oh bugger, someone made the point already.)
Last edited by Pete Tar; March 10th, 2012 at 01:56 PM.
So you support the IPCC ?
You accept their reports?
Yet you accept the fact that there has been no 'warming' for 15 years?
1) I didn't say I accept the fact there is no evidence of warming for 15 years. . . Where is the evidence of what you said . . .?
2) I accept the fact they, respected scientific organizations, made public statements of support of global warming . . . I just quoted them . . .
3) I believe I have said that the premise for an aerial aerosol injection program is predicated upon a belief that it could or has been used to mitigate global warming. . . .
4) I have also said that policy makers may have slow rolled the imposition of stricter sulfur maximum standards on commercial aviation fuel in an attempt to increase global dimming and decrease global warming. . .
5) I have also stated that the decision not to mitigate persistent contrails and contrail induced cirrus clouds may be an attempt to experiment with local temperature range manipulation. . . i.e. Compress the highs and lows. . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Sorry...
It matters little anyway. The subject has been changed and the fact that the person was proven wrong...ignored. As usual.
That's one thing I've notice....When someones point is shown to be rubbish, they just move on to the next ridiculous point, without acknowledging they were wrong about the previous one. They just keep throwing bullsh*t at the wall...and hoping something sticks.
It's quite interesting to witness. It's almost as if these folks think we don't notice.
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz1onsEHoPk
The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal dropped a bombshell over the weekend, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...#ixzz1onsp9QP3
1) Would not surprise me that the whole thing is possibly a ruse; never-the-less, global warming is the Center piece of massive public indoctrination, publicity and waving of arms and gnashing of teeth by the authorities and prestigious scientific organizations . .
2) If you believe the above is accurate, and the authorities are manipulating the whole thing, why would you doubt something like an Aerosol Injection Program for a number of other reasons. . . .???
3) I personally never thought that a warming trend was predominately anthropomorphic . . . However, I believe the most recent press releases from NASA, etc. indicate that very thing. . . .
4) I lived in Alaska from 1990 until almost 1995 and personally witnesses major reductions of land locked glaciers. . . They receded hundreds of yards each year. . . Unless this was a local perturbation I think it constitutes evidence for me something is happening. . . .
Last edited by George B; March 11th, 2012 at 05:43 AM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
If global warming is a hoax. . . .someone is going to great effort to present evidence like the following. . . .
Greenland Ice Sheet
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-...cksexpert.html
"Aerial oblique view of the Petermann glacier front on 24 July, 2011 Alun Hubbard of Aberystwyth University, Wales.
The melting of glaciers is seen as a yardstick by which the warming of the planet is measured. Climate change experts have warned that sea-level rises caused as the planet warms and the glaciers melt could devastate coastal and island communities.
A British glaciologist who has been studying the Petermann Glacier in north-west Greenland, which is over 300km long and makes up 6% of the Greenland ice sheet, described pictures showing how fast it had melted as “gob-smacking.”
"New research shows that 2010 set new records for the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, expected to be a major contributor to projected sea level rises in coming decades."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-...eet-video.html
http://www1.ccny.cuny.edu/advancemen...-Ice-Sheet.cfm
"Extreme Melting on Greenland Ice Sheet, Reports CCNY Team *
GLACIAL MELT CYCLE COULD BECOME SELF-AMPLIFYING, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO HALT
Marco Tedesco standing on the edge of one of four moulins (drainage holes) he and his team found at the bottom of a supraglacial lake during the expedition to Greenland in the summer, 2011. (Credit: P. Alexander)
The Greenland ice sheet can experience extreme melting even when temperatures don’t hit record highs, according to a new analysis by Dr. Marco Tedesco, assistant professor in the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at The City College of New York. *His findings suggest that glaciers could undergo a self-amplifying cycle of melting and warming that would be difficult to halt."
Greenland glacier melting faster than expected
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_swZ-...e_gdata_player
Check out this video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SoBF...e_gdata_player
Last edited by George B; March 11th, 2012 at 05:41 AM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
If you want to debate global warming, perhaps another thread would be appropriate. But briefly both those above statements are essentially nonsense, and I'm surprised anyone considers the interpretation of the Daily Mail and Fox News to be reliable. Check what the ACTUAL sources say, not how they were characterized.
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stmToday the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.
This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.
He's just saying the period is not long enough to show statistical significance, not that there's no warming. He's quite sure there's been warming (and the Met office study confirms that warming continues).B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
[...]
E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
And the video show Pachauri making quite reasonable responses. There is global warming, he does not have the figures in front of him, he respects another scientist.
Hmmm . . . seems to fit my model somewhat . . . reduced rate of global warming . . . could it be due to covert geoengineering manipulation . . . .??? . . .LoL
Why would the government try to experiment with climate or weather control . . . some scientists think we are already in crisis and need immediate action taken . . .
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=105483423
Scientists Debate Shading Earth As Climate Fix
by Richard Harris
June 16, 2009
"I think we should consider climate engineering only as an emergency response to a climate crisis, but I question whether we're already experiencing a climate crisis — whether we've already crossed that threshold," Schrag said.
http://www.technologyreview.com/prin...nergy§ion=
This shocking realization has caused many influential scientists, including Obama advisors like Schrag, to fundamentally change their thinking about how to respond to climate change. They have begun calling for the government to start funding research into geoengineering--large-scale schemes for rapidly cooling the earth.
Last edited by Mick; March 11th, 2012 at 06:34 AM. Reason: link fix
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
I would highly recommend you poke around this site a bit:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
You've understood it all perfectly, but without understanding it. The context of the post was in response to another correspondent using 'could' in their argument, or even as their argument. I was just pointing out that sometimes could means a bit more than what was being implied. I didn't realise it needed explanation, sorry.
Hang on a sec. Let me get this straight, based on the evidence presented by the Daily Mail online and Fox, you're saying that 'the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years'? Are you in agreement with this?
lol indeed! Well spotted! Did you use Occam's Razor?
George B (March 11th, 2012)
I'm interested in this in relation to rises in sea level. If, as we are told, that such ice melting will make an addition to sea level, then why haven't I seen it already? I don't doubt what you say, and imagine that this same scene is being repeated all over. I spend a bit of time by the sea and know my moons and tides....and here's the deal: I've seen no difference whatever in highs and lows to what I've seen before. It intrigues me that if the melting situation has been as long-standing as forty plus years, and if it were to increase sea levels, I'd see a difference by now, even if only a little? Given what we've been told, it would appear counter intuitive to think otherwise.
It hasn't cooled either even though we have probably been in a cooler phase of a multi-decadal cycle that is apparent in the time series of surface obs going back to the 19th century. The overall trend is upward. We move into the next warm phase of that cycle and we'll likely overshoot 1998 and 2005.
I installed zone 8 plants in my parents' landscape in 1996 even though the USDA zone was listed as 7. Those plants are still thriving. They would have gotten nuked by freezes in the 1970s and 1980s. USDA switched my home county from zone 7 to zone 8 a couple of years ago. My experience with plant propagation says that move was justified.
One might question AGW for a variety of reasons but the presence of interannual variation and various decadal and multidecadal cycles in the dataset are not among those reasons. It is not a prediction of AGW that increasing radiative forcing by means of increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses will result in an invariant warming trend without variation or cycles.
How precisely are you measuring? Tide gauges not affected by geologic changes (isostatic rebound, subsidence, etc...) have recorded in increase in mean sea level over the last 40 years. The NAVY is having to raise up docks at its Norfolk VA facility because a combination of sea level rise and subsidence has dropped the relative height of the docks to point where they now flood more frequently by smaller tidal departures.
Many things in the world are counter intuitive.
The sea level is rising, just slowly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
It varies a bit by location for non-intuitive reasons.Sea levels are rising. Current sea level rise potentially impacts human populations (e.g., those living in coastal regions and on islands)[1] and the natural environment (e.g., marine ecosystems).[2] Global average sea level rose at an average rate of around 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year over 1950 to 2009 and at a satellite-measured average rate of about 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,[3] an increase on earlier estimates.[4] It is unclear whether the increased rate reflects an increase in the underlying long-term trend.[5]
On the timescale of centuries to millennia, the melting of ice sheets could result in even higher sea level rise. Partial deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet, and possibly the West Antarctic ice sheet, could contribute 4 to 6 m (13 to 20 ft) or more to sea level rise.[13]
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...ons/41075.aspx
About 2mm per year (note the caption on the web page for this chart is incorrect). So about 80mm in 40 years. The rate seems to be increasing a bit, but 80mm is just three inches, so not very noticeable over 40 years, with normal variations.
Last edited by Mick; March 11th, 2012 at 11:16 AM.
I do believe there are sporadic reports of Low lying islands being lost at least at high tide on the east coast of the US. . . . Seems no wholesale reports of ocean depth increases . . .seems the ocean depths are not evenly distributed as one would expect in an enclosed hydraulic system. . . Bulges at or near the equator could suck up excess for some time . . . .until the level is too much and has to be more evenly distributed. . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Something happening slowly doesn't make it counter intuitive, it's just happening slowly - like trying to make a post on this site, or is that just me? That was really my point, that what's happening is happening in slow motion...What makes it counter intuitive is that we've been told a lot that sea level rises are an inevitable outcome of anthropomorphic climate change and that they will likely be catastrophic. If they're happening in slow motion, surely we have time to work out a plan, don't we? Or have we?
Last edited by lee h oswald; March 11th, 2012 at 12:35 PM. Reason: p
Sorry I thought you mean it was counterintuitive that it would not have risen at a noticeable rate.
Sure, most people think we do have time. Just not much. The problem is that if temperatures continue to rise, then the rate of ice loss will accelerate. The average over the last 100 years is about 1.5 mm/year. Currently it's around 3mm/year. Estimates for the next 100 years vary around quite a bit, but are around three feet.
The great unknown is if we would be able to reverse the trend once it gets past a certain stage - a tipping point. It's all quite a complex subject, and understanding is still evolving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_sea_level
But there's no doubt that sea levels are steadily rising, and the rate is increasing. My house sits at 20 feet about sea level. It's fine for the next 100+ years (tsunamis excepted), but there a lot of houses (and countries) at elevations that put them at risk. And eventually this house will quite likely be underwater.
Jet aircraft fly as high as possible and/or allowed in order to burn as little fuel as possible - whether the flight makes contrails or not is of no concern to them whatsoever.
for there to be a "deliberate policy decision" to do something about contrails there would have to be some recognition that contrails are something that needs to have something done about them.
If science comes up with that as a position then governments and airlines will probably start doing something about them.
As long as it only remains the preserve of a small group of internet trolls and ill-informed followers the concept will be laughed at long before it is considered seriously (if there is ever a case to consider it seriously), and so those persons are doing their case a dis-service.
In what way is this "new species of contrail" different from the "old species"?2) I think the high efficiency engines have produced a new species of contrail which is contributing to the situation
I think they are lousy cover - the "marked up skies" will give good background against which to see anything at a lower altitude, and are often only partial and thin coverage when they do occur. Plus, mostly, skies are not actually affected by this over the whole world at all. Any "experiments" could e4asily be done out over the Pacific or Atlantic oceans and out of sight much more easily that constructing an unreliable system of contrail induced cirrus!3) I also think the marked up skies are good cover for any experimentation which could leave visible evidence . . .
Yet again you are fantasising without offering any reasoning.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Seems we mostly agree that a rise in sea level is in process. . . The cause is the melting of the land based ice fields over an extended period of time. . . . Caused by a change in mean air temperature or an alternate cause . . . ground temperature. . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
You assume . . .
1) There have been several statements of concern regarding the effects of persistent contrails and contrail induced cirrus cloud banks especially as they relate to the future projections. . . . We are arguing about whether they have reached the level in the scientific community that would influence policy makers. . . .
2) Policy makers are not simply influenced by published Studies . . . They are influenced by classified information not available to the public. . . And we do not know what that is. . . I guarantee such information exists. . . . Many high level briefs I received while on active duty included both. . . .
Last edited by George B; March 11th, 2012 at 03:06 PM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
It's good to agree on things
However the cause is only half from the melting of grounded ice - the other half of the rise in the sea level in recent times comes from the thermal expansion of the oceans. As they get warmer, they expand, so sea levels rise.
Sure, but do you actually think there is climate science going on at a top-secret level? That's just basic science, carried out by a vast community of scientists who all share information and data. The idea that there was a parallel set of scientists who figured out the climate 20 years ago does not seem very realistic. The entire world's climate scientists have not figured it out, yet you think some skunk-works climate scientists did it 20 years ago? And then kept it all secret?
1) The cover I speak of is analogous to herd animals to a predator . . . So many potential targets . . . Which do I choose to attack . . . I end up missing them all . . . The old and injured are hidden amongst the healthy
2) Why would I use flight paths that are easily recognized as unusual. . . This would call attention to my activities . . ???
3) My choice of flights, vectors, altitude and airframe would be predicated on my goals and mission, the prevailing winds, fall rate, and general weather conditions. . . Ocean release may be an advantage or may be counter productive. . . Day or night operations the same. . . .
4) If my goal is simply global geoengineering it may not matter at all where I inject the aerosols as long as they are at altitude. . .
Last edited by George B; March 11th, 2012 at 02:29 PM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
I think we are veering dangerously back towards robot cats again.
All you are saying is that something might be happening, for unknown reasons, that leaves no evidence.
Noble1965 (March 11th, 2012)
I think several scientists not necessarily climatologists were speculating on future projections . . . Like Dr. Edward Teller for example. . . I guarantee he and many more at think tanks like Los Alamos, DARPA, LLNL, etc. Were getting information we will never know about. . . They also had the luxury of direct access to decision makers with huge budgets and power. . . .the old and ever present Military Industrial Complex. . .
What you are saying, I think, is such information could not exist without the rest of the climate scientists in the world knowing or finding out about it. . . Good premise . . . Yet I submit there are technologies available to the people within the covert world not available to the rest of the world. . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
I disagree. . . .the above are simply common sense. . . Anyone designing a program they wish to keep out of public notice would recognize the same principals. . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Yes, it is..and it is also a fact that it has proven difficult to achieve and in many cases was not achieved. I sited several examples which you conveniently ignored.
All of the above and more- ie; scientists- There is no consensus as what the net effects of contrails are and thus no consensus that mitigation is necessary or that non-mitigation would result in any desired geo-engineering outcome. How difficult is that to understand? The fact that there have been NO formal policy discussions is EVIDENCE that there has not been a deliberate decision not to mitigate. Inaction due to lack of understanding and lack of consensus is not the same as deliberate inaction for a purposeful outcome. How hard is that to understand?
I provided several facts that substantiated my claims.
There is plenty of evidence that a crisis is recognized by scientists and policy makers . . . Only the method to deal with the situation is up for debate. . . Who is to say experimentation by default is not desirable and is low risk, cheap, and below the radar screen of most of the public. . .
Why would the government try to experiment with climate or weather control . . . some scientists think we are already in crisis and need immediate action taken . . .
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=105483423
Scientists Debate Shading Earth As Climate Fix
by Richard Harris
June 16, 2009
"I think we should consider climate engineering only as an emergency response to a climate crisis, but I question whether we're already experiencing a climate crisis — whether we've already crossed that threshold," Schrag said.
http://www.technologyreview.com/prin...nergy§ion=
This shocking realization has caused many influential scientists, including Obama advisors like Schrag, to fundamentally change their thinking about how to respond to climate change. They have begun calling for the government to start funding research into geoengineering--large-scale schemes for rapidly cooling the earth.
Last edited by George B; March 11th, 2012 at 03:14 PM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
So you are simply saying that anyone who wanted to run a top secret climate modification program that involved leaving trails in the sky would naturally prefer it if there were lots of natural contrails in the sky, so people would not get suspicious of the "chemtrails". Even though there are good sounding reasons for getting rid of natural contrails (sky obscuration, global warming).
Likewise I'd say that anyone wanting to run a top secret robot cat surveillance program would naturally prefer it if there were lots of semi-feral cats in urban neighborhoods, so people would not get suspicious of the "robocats". Even though there are lots of good reasons for getting rid of natural feral cats (bartonellosis, cat poop, toxoplasmosis).
Since you are dealing in pure hypotheticals with no evidence, you can apply the same reasoning to just about anything.
Again, a pure hypothetical. Who's the say that using robot cats to spy on the public is not cheap and easy. Who knows what advanced robotics they have? Sure 30 years ahead of anything we see on YouTube? Right?
You are speculating without evidence. It's pretty pointless.
How about a direct quote from Dr teller himself directly on point. . . . In 1998 . . .
hoover digest » 1998 no. 1
Sunscreen for Planet Earth
by Edward Teller
http://www.hoover.org/publications/h...t/article/6791
"Perhaps one of the surprises of this analysis is the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented." Indeed, the director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program's Coordination Office has been promoting such geoengineering for three decades. But for some reason, this option isn't as fashionable as all-out war on fossil fuels and the people who use them.
Yet if the politics of global warming require that "something must be done" while we still don't know whether anything really needs to be done--let alone what exactly--let us play to our uniquely American strengths in innovation and technology to offset any global warming by the least costly means possible. While scientists continue research into any global climatic effects of greenhouse gases, we ought to study ways to offset any possible ill effects.
Injecting sunlight-scattering particles into the stratosphere appears to be a promising approach. Why not do that?
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks