Geoengineering debate shifts to UN environment assembly

Posted by  $  nickursis 2 weeks ago to Science
50 comments | Share | Flag

Another "conspiracy theory" is revealed and goes mainstream. For years now, people have said there was "chem trails" being laid in the skies, with particular emphasis on the use of Aluminium dioxide, and possible negative health effects. For years people said "No, thats just conspiracy theory", and yet, now, they are at the UN deciding how to best contaminate the atmosphere to protect us from a non existent "global climate change"....nice when you find out it was always there....
SOURCE URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00717-6


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Stormi 1 week, 4 days ago
    This is just another stupid idea by the UN, whose goal is to turn the US into a third world member of a world government. They want prorpty rights gone, cars, guns, capitalism, red meet and freedom, to name only a few. This latest sound really bad, as we need CO2 to grow crops, so gues they want us to starve as well. They need to be kicked out of the US completely, cinluding their twisted gun statue, and temple to Gaiia!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 week, 3 days ago
      All you list seem to reflect what we have been told the deep state's goals are...hmmm...connection maybe?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Stormi 1 week, 3 days ago
        Absolutely, and for too long. Hillary was for population density, using Green programs to control. Obama promised them he would get gun bans for them. He failed, but he left in power his "shadow government", as he called them. They have been scared to death of people asking about HAArP. When Jess Ventura went into the Congressional offices, they ran from him and closed the door.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 1 week, 4 days ago
    As long as the USA doesn't pay for whatever BS cloud seeding scheme they come up with, this collection of tin-pot dictators and hucksters will never do anything more than make noise. We need to exit the US and evict them from the UN building.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 1 week, 6 days ago
    Check out "Biomass, another green fraud", further down the page...it ain't about carbon otherwise they wouldn't be advocating for creating power with this...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 weeks ago
    Well, the climate will change...just Not in the direction they claim...we know man made global warming is bunk.
    Question is, what is their real agenda, most of us suspect what that is; but let's say they are truly ignorant...what they are doing not only harms life on the planet but will likely make the coming natural changes even worse that they will be normally.

    I have posted the entire series of what we can expect in the future, Could Aluminum possibly mitigate the solar and cosmic radiation? Seems to me that the HOT dust and plasma would heat up the proposed aluminum in our atmosphere and really make things worse.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mcsandberg 1 week, 4 days ago
    The chemtrail types will be going even crazier. The world’s highest bypass ratio engine’s exhaust will be colder than any other engine. Therefor it will leave more contrails than ever seen before https://pwgtf.com .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 week, 3 days ago
      Yes, I do understand that, however, there have been several aeronautical engineers who have pointed out the differences and the environmental conditions needed to sustain a contrail over a long duration, and then brought up cases where that was not the case. There are several websites detailing HOW to "theoretically" geoengineer the atmosphere to reduce heat and CO2. For instance, look at the WW2 air battles, Battle of Britain and Bombing missions, very heavy contrails lasting a long time, due to the large water vapor content of exhausts.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 1 week, 5 days ago
    For three years people on this board have totally denied Chemtrails and said it was just different fuel and so forth. Contrails don’t last and linger for hours. Wonder what other so called conspiracy theories are soon to be revealed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 6 days, 8 hours ago
    A frequent commentator (again) asserts that this matter is outside my area.
    Rather than withholding judgment, more comments are made proving the assertion.

    My opinion: Global warming alarmism is a political movement supported by fraudulent data.

    Facts:
    -No experimental evidence exists that CO2 in the atmosphere causes increases in surface temperature.
    -The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is (primarily) due to the take up and emission from oceans - see Henry's Law which defines CO2 solubility in water.

    There being no problem, action taken as a supposed solution can only be harmful.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  6 days, 7 hours ago
      Lucky, your opinion is probably closer to the reality, than some of the others here, if only because you are fitting the facts to a proposed motive. Since we have seen numerous other stories, lies, made up requirements, and all to steal money from the taxpayers and citizens, this just fits the mold. Keeping in mind, all the glorious "save the world" efforts seem to be attached to new and novel ways to gouge us, and NEVER seem to provide the details of just how much they would steal, and what it would go for, except "to stop climate change". Therefore, you have a good chance of being correct.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 1 week ago
    The UN shouldn't meddling in a soveriegn countries affairs. They should be doing their geo-engineering over China, India and other third world countires. Of course their planes would be shot down!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  6 days, 12 hours ago
      Well, they would have a hard time with black helicopters only, can't fake contrails. They haven't any black planes I have heard of, so they would need to use other countries and they have stirred up so much hate with their politics, ...nope, not happening...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 week, 3 days ago
    We should propose a rule with the UN that Geoengineering by this body can not be begun without a consensus vote, since whatever is done affects everyone.

    That ought to ensure nothing ever happens.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnJMulhall 1 week, 4 days ago
    These stupids need a good volcanic eruption like Krackatoa (sp?) to freeze their butts off. Volcanoes throw 2-1/2 CUBIC MILES of dirt into the air annually.
    If that isn't enough to reflect heat back into space, maybe we need to go primitive and sacrifice important people to Pele (like the UN and their lemmings)....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 week, 3 days ago
      Now there is a good idea...may not have to wait too long, most solar minimums result in a few popping off, and a Grand Solar Minimum sees the big boys wake up. I have heard it is a result of the change in solar flux and basically heating the core, which is also what causes the overall increase in activity and earthquakes.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 1 week, 4 days ago
    Yes, let's all of us globalists in the UN's Environmental Assembly fly on big fat jet airplanes to Nairobi to discuss pulling carbon dioxide out of the air so crops can't breathe.
    Then to further discuss this with huge meets and tasty eats, let's next all fly to Singapore, then to Tokyo, then to Geneva, then to Bora Bora and then to even Timbuktu.
    Anyone else got a bucket list for places for us all to fly to before the world comes to an end?
    Let's hurry now. AOC, the new darling socialist goddess of AC during her oft-traveled jet flight, pontificates that~oh, woe!~we only have 12 years to go!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by CircuitGuy 1 week, 6 days ago
    In my opinion we should be pursuing geoengineering to deal with global warming. The problem with global warming is not there was one perfect state of the environment that "mother nature" intended. It's that it destroys value. It also creates value, but it's a net cost so far. We should work on technologies that could drive the ecosystem in such a way to create value.

    The enormity of the problem compared to the benefit of slightly reducing carbon emissions is what terrifies people and causes people more prone to irrationality to deny reality altogether or make up conspiracy theories. We need to find more powerful tools to deal with climate change and use them very wisely.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 week, 5 days ago
      And if your Geoengineering crap kills or injures a significant part of the population? That is one of the problems, their current method (that they have never admitted to in 20 years) uses aluminum oxide and there are thousands of samples that have been take and tested. Aluminum is toxic in the body, and is easily absorbed in the powdered form they use. Yet anyone who has claimed this in the last 20 years was labeled a "conspiracy theorist" and dismissed DESPITE hard evidence and data. The fact you would endorse such a position is telling, as you are saying you believe the state, and their claims of climate change being man made and controllable, which has never been proven, and data manipulation has also been proven.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 week, 3 days ago
      Re: “We need to find more powerful tools to deal with climate change and use them very wisely.”
      A few questions come to mind:

      1) Who are “we”?
      2) Who should determine the specifications for these “more powerful tools”?
      3) Who should be in charge of developing these “more powerful tools”?
      4) Who should pay for developing these “more powerful tools”?
      5) Should such payment be voluntary or coerced?
      6) Who, specifically, should determine when, where and how to use these “more powerful tools”?
      7) By what criteria should “we” decide the best way to use these “more powerful tools” “very wisely”?
      8) Who should pay for any damage caused by these “more powerful tools”?
      9) Who should be held responsible if these “more powerful tools” are not used “very wisely”?

      Looking forward to your answers.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 days, 17 hours ago
        "4) Who should pay for developing these “more powerful tools”? [And #5]"
        Using the metaphor of the lake from my other reply, it's the people who deploy the fertilizers causing the algae growth. If they had to pay for the lost value of their neighbors' property, they might find an alternative fertilizer, choose not to fertilize, or find some anti-algae treatment that counteracts the fertilizer that rolls off their property. In all cases, the property owners pays, either by more expensive fertilizer, an unfertilized lawn or garden, or by paying for the anti-algae. It's the owner's choice, whatever maximizes value for her.

        [#8 and #9]
        If the anti-algae treatment has unforeseen costs, the person who deployed it has to pay for the value he accidentally destroyed.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 days, 16 hours ago
          A metaphor is not an answer, it is a means of avoiding the real answer. I'm guessing that your real answers to questions 2 and 3 are "the government", to questions 4, 8 and 9 are "the taxpayers", and to question 5 is "coerced". Correct me if I'm wrong.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  5 days, 15 hours ago
            Sounds pretty accurate. I posted a video from the Climate Change Conference that directly ties into this, and is exactly what is being discussed. They control the public narrative, and offer no rational facts and data to support their position, so they just skipped that step, and moved to a fiction called "consensus science" and the guy uses a casual study done that says UFO sightings are directly related to the rise of temperature in the oceans, by their logic, to reduce the temp of oceans, we now have to eliminate UFOs. Which may be cheaper in the long run than Cap and Trade and other ponzi schemes the liberals are trying to impose on us.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 days, 17 hours ago
        Thanks for the questions. I'll answer one at time.
        "1) Who are “we”?"
        That's the rub. It's like having many land owners around a lake using various fertilizers that contribute to algae growth. Imagine the algae growth impedes various uses of the lake more than others. Somehow, they (the "we") have to figure out exactly how much net destruction of value there is who contributed how much of it. (I say net value b/c there may be some benefits to increased algae.) It's so easy to say this sounds like collectivism, so I'd rather pretend that the lake is big enough that activities on the surround land really don't have an impact. Obviously pretending is wrong b/c reality is what it is regardless of whether its consequences are problematic or helpful.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 days, 17 hours ago
          In an Objectivist context the analogy doesn't hold. The lake would either be privately owned or would be equivalent to a homeowners association "common area" owned jointly by the surrounding land owners. Either way, rules for use of the lake would be set by the individual or joint owners. No "pretending" necessary.

          So the question remains, who exactly are the "we" that "need to find more powerful tools to deal with climate change and use them very wisely”?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 days, 17 hours ago
        [Answering 2, 3, 6, 7 together]
        This is a question we should be working through right now. I do not have the answer. My inclination is for prudence: "when in doubt, don't" The only lever we have that the evidence points to being reliable is reducing carbon emissions. Maybe there are other low-impact approaches, like increasing the albedo of human structure. I suspect these will be a drop in the bucket, so I don't rule out categorically stronger interventions.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 days, 17 hours ago
          Again, a "we should" answer that is not really helpful. Do "we" have a duty to "work through" this question? If "we" don't want to, and don't consider it to be a serious issue, should "we" be forced to? Should "we" give the government carte blanche to enforce whatever "stronger interventions" it deems appropriate?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  5 days, 17 hours ago
            "We", when used in terms encompassing a mythical group, such a the socialists like to do, always seems to encompass the genius ruling elite, who so wisely can see what we peasants cannot, and impose the draconian fixes necessary, by force or theft, or corruption, as needed. All for the cause. For the People!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 week, 3 days ago
      The problem is that no one knows what the problem is. It is quite clearly not CO2 action directly, and every geoscientist knows it. You should too.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  1 week, 3 days ago
        Of course, the problem has several possibilities, the most logical, and data driven is the solar cycle and the Grand Solar Minimum, some other possibilities I have heard are axial tilt, the pole shifting, as well as a possibility of a relation to acidification of the oceans due to pollutants and sunlight reactions. All I know is that "manmade" is a BS notion, especially when they have been caught cherry picking data on several occasions and NOT owning up to it.If they were serious, why do they insist on using private jets and big vehicles? Why is their contribution of no consequence but mine is so great I need to be taxed at every level of production to fix it? Hmmm... maybe because there is a huge pile of money to be scammed and no way to account for it? Oregon and Washington are pushing hard to encase a carbon tax into the price of gas (15 cents a gallon in Washington) and all they say is "to combat climate change". Never a specific, never a program, just vague notions and the money will disappear...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 days, 17 hours ago
        "The problem is that no one knows what the problem is.It is quite clearly not CO2 action directly, and every geoscientist knows it. "
        It's outside my area, but my understanding is there's a direct line from CO2 emissions to global warming.

        I see the problem being that no one knows the solution. I am not clear that reducing emissions moves the needle, unless it somehow leads to a breakthrough in an energy source and storage vehicle that don't cause global warming. So the idea CO2 causes global warming, so lets reduce CO2 might be simplistic.

        I find the notion of denying the reality of the problem to be pure wishful thinking. Science is open to new evidence, and there are breakthrough where we discover happy surprises, like butter being more healthful than margarine. It's wishful thinking to cling to the hope that new evidence will uncover we were wrong and things are exactly as we wished they were.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 6 days, 8 hours ago
          No, this is incorrect. There is no direct line from CO2 and warming, particularly from a greenhouse effect. It is possible to calculate the effect of all atmospheric constituents on the heat absorbed/retransmitted and thus the steady-state temperature of the planet from these effects. CO2 is wholly incapable of having the effect Al Gore described. This is quite clearly NOT the problem.

          It is possible that CO2 causes something else, and the something else (water vapor, cloud cover, etc) is the cause, but it is well know (among climate experts) that the direct effect of CO2 is NOT the issue.

          Isn’t it interesting that this isn’t well publicized? It is possible to find information on this, but it is so suppresssed it should be scary to anyone wondering if there is an alterior motive. Of course their is, “power”.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  6 days, 7 hours ago
            Old Ugly Carl has posted some links to Ssuspicious Observers that indicate the changes in the sun, and cosmic rays able to penetrate due to the reduced and altered magnetosphere, could be a cuase, causing cloud nucleation, that has altered established patterns. This has the effect of causing new dry areas, hotter areas, and colder ones. Ask the people in the Midwest how cold it is. Diamond at Oppenheimer Ranch also goes into some very detailed explanations of how this works, and continually throws out data that is usually not in MSM, proving we are getting colder, not warmer.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo