Bill Gates Has Decided To Pollute The Skies

[Joseph C.]

Bill Gates funds scheme to spray artificial 'planet-cooling' sulfur particles into atmosphere
Geo-engineers are finally coming out of the "chemtrail" closet, as reports are now emerging about deliberate plans in the works to dump untold tons of sulfate chemicals into the atmosphere for the purported purpose of fighting so-called "global warming."

The U.K.'s Guardian and others are reporting that a multi-million dollar research fund, which just so happens to have been started and funded by Microsoft founder and vaccine enthusiast Bill Gates, is being used to fund the project. A large balloon hovering at 80,000 feet over Fort Sumner, New Mexico, will release the sulfates into the atmosphere within the next year.

The stated purpose for this massive release of toxic sulfate particles is that doing so will allegedly reflect sunlight back into the atmosphere, and thus cool the planet. But many environmental groups and advocates of common sense are decrying the idea as dangerous, and one that could result in permanent damage to ecosystems all across the globe.

"Impacts include the potential for further damage to the ozone layer, and disruption of rainfall, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions, potentially threatening the food supplies of billions of people," said Pat Mooney, Executive Director of the ETC Group, a Canadian environmental protection group.

"It will do nothing to decrease levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or halt ocean acidification. And solar geo-engineering is likely to increase the risk of climate-related international conflict, given that the modeling to date shows it poses greater risks to the global south."

But the Gates-backed cohort is persistent in its efforts to geo-graffiti the world, as its scientists insist that governments are not doing enough to fight back against the supposed environment impacts of global warming. If governments refuse to implement high enough carbon taxes to eliminate greenhouse gases, in other words, then Gates and Co. believes it has no choice but to "save the planet" by polluting it with sulfate particles.

Spraying the skies with sulfate particles will destroy the planet faster than 'global warming' ever could

Sulfate particles are toxic, though, and constitute the very same type of ambient particulate matter (PM) that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers to be a noxious air pollutant. Deliberately spraying the skies with tiny particles composed of any material, for that matter, is hazardous both to respiratory health in humans and animals, as well as to water sources, soils, and other delicate environmental resources.

"Sulfate particles from acid rain can cause harm to the health of marine life in the rivers and lakes it contaminates, and can result in mortality," says an online water pollution guide (http://www.water-pollution.org.uk/health.html). A University of Washington (UW) report also explains that sulfate particles "contribute to acid rain, cause lung irritation, and have been a main culprit in causing the haze that obscures a clear view of the Grand Canyon."

Blocking the sun with reflective particles will also deprive humans of natural sunlight exposure, which is a primary source for naturally generating health-promoting vitamin D in the body. So once again, Bill Gates is at the helms of a project that seeks to control the climate in artificial ways using toxic chemicals, an endeavor that is sure to create all sorts of potentially irreversible problems for humanity and the planet.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036583_geoengineering_Bill_Gates_global_warming.html#ixzz2QSGTW0zZ

 

[Kingfish]

Spraying the skies with sulfate particles will destroy the planet faster than 'global warming' ever could

Says who?

~KF

 

[fizzit]

so-called "global warming

Are you serious? This isn't real journalism. This is an angry monkey mashing on a keyboard.

 

[Joseph C.]

Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering

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.

 

[neptronix]

Sulfate... sulfur... aren't these components of acid rain - something we don't want?
Yet, our govt has been tightening sulfur emissions because of their effects..

It would be interesting to see how that works out - hey you mr trucker - go pay more for your low sulfur diesel fuel so that you emit less of this nasty stuff, but Bill Gates, you have free reign to spread it all over, at your own cost.. :lol:

We ought to keep our hands outta mother nature as much as possible. Gains in efficiency on internal combustion vehicles should be focused on. Hell, they are just getting around to putting aerodynamic fairings on semis - something we could have done 50 years ago, and could have cut around 15%-25% of our shipping emissions from that alone. Nothing like sending a giant brick through the road at 65mph!

We could have adopted European and Japanese emissions rules long ago; we finally implemented 1990's engine technology in 2013, pretty sad.

What other low hanging fruit is our system ignoring?

 

[Joseph C.]

so-called "global warming

Are you serious? This isn't real journalism. This is an angry monkey mashing on a keyboard.

Me? I didn't write the piece and agree it is poorly written and biased but thought that it would spark debate.

Are you referring to the thread title?
Here are my actual thoughts. I think it is foolish to start interfering with processes that we have only a primitive understanding of - something that could come back to haunt the entire world.

From Wikipedia here is a list of the possible side-effects:

Drought, particularly monsoon failure in Asia and Africa is a major risk.

Ozone depletion is a potential side effect of sulfur aerosols; and these concerns have been supported by modelling.

Tarnishing of the sky: Aerosols will noticeably affect the appearance of the sky, resulting in a potential "whitening" effect, and altered sunsets.

Tropopause warming and the humidification of the stratosphere.

Effect on clouds: Cloud formation may be affected, notably cirrus clouds and polar stratospheric clouds.

Effect on ecosystems: The diffusion of sunlight may affect plant growth. But more importantly increase the rate of ocean acidification by the deposition of hydrogen ions from the acidic rain.

Effect on solar energy: Incident sunlight will be lower, which may affect solar power systems both directly and disproportionately, especially in the case that such systems rely on direct radiation.

Deposition effects: Although predicted to be insignificant, there is nevertheless a risk of direct environmental damage from falling particles.

Uneven effects: Aerosols are reflective, making them more effective during the day. Greenhouse gases block outbound radiation at all times of day.

Stratospheric temperature change: Aerosols can also absorb some radiation from the Sun, the Earth and the surrounding atmosphere. This changes the surrounding air temperature and could potentially impact on the stratospheric circulation, which in turn may impact the surface circulation.

Further, the delivery methods may cause significant problems, notably climate change and possible ozone depletion in the case of aircraft, and litter in the case of untethered balloons.

 

[fizzit]

I was referring to the article itself. I felt like I lost a few IQ points while reading that. I think that you could have easily picked a better article, such as the top 3 google results on "sulfate geoengineering"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)
http://www.ucar.edu/governance/meetings/oct08/followup/head_and_chairs/phil_rasch.pdf
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/4007.long

There are definite side effects to geo-engineering with sulfate aerosols. But as these articles point out, it's not a brand-new idea and we have a pretty good grasp on many of the effects that it causes. For example, on the probability of acid rain:

While the introduction of the geoengineering source of sulphate aerosol will perturb the sulphur cycle of the stratosphere signicantly, it is a small perturbation to the total (stratosphere and troposphere) sulphur cycle. The geoengineering source would thus be a small contributor to the total global source of ‘acid rain’ that could be compensated for through improved pollution control of anthropogenic tropospheric sources.

From wikipedia:

"one kilogram of well placed sulfur in the stratosphere would roughly offset the warming effect of several hundred thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide."

The PDF was especially good as an overview of the topic.

-If one thinks of an Earth System Model as a model that includes the
physical, biological, and social components, then geoengineering
provides a fascinating context in which to explore interactions between
components.
-Even our crude initial exploration provides surprises and reminds us of
how complex the system is.
-We are already engineering the planet, but doing it inadvertantly.
Considering a deliberate engineering confronts us with all the same
issues that we encounter in any climate change problem, ranging from
the moral, and ethical to the scientific.

 

[Joseph C.]

I was referring to the article itself. I felt like I lost a few IQ points while reading that. I think that you could have easily picked a better article, such as the top 3 google results on "sulfate geoengineering"

You're right. This piece is doing the rounds on Facebook.

 

[Doctorbass]

Bad idea...

The more you try to control the nature, the more it become complicated and... the more mother nature will .. one day, show you it is not of your business!

doc

 

[salty9]

I was going to post that Gates would a good choice for this type of pollution since he has done such a fine job polluting our desktops but that wouldn't be polite so I won't.

 

[friendly1uk]

Won't that increase the twilight hours?

I much prefer the idea of 'hot mirrors' in a rapidly decaying orbit. Cooler days and warmer twilight. Then it all burns up. Test over.

 

[lbz5mc12]

Yeah lets just shoot more crap into the atmosphere that'll fix it. Why can't they seem to figure out it's all the exhaust and just do something about clearing that up.
All I keep reading about on here when it comes to electric cars is the lack of range. Other than the people that have a long commute to work, how often do people drive more than 50 or so miles a day other than delivery drivers and such? I think car manufacturers preempted the electric vehicle movement by making your gallon of gas go further just to trick people into thinking that they need all that range. It has nothing to do with fuel conservation or the atmosphere it's just a trick to keep consumers suckling at the teat of the oil companies. So now you can drive further on a gallon of gas, well woopadie flippin dooo. People don't seem to understand that lessening the amount of exhaust doesn't solve the problem. They forget that the smaller amount of exhaust is still adding to the large amount we've already pummeled our atmosphere with. All it's doing is just delaying the inevitable. Maybe we've got this all wrong and quit wasting our time on EV and just start investing in sunscreen?

 

[neptronix]

I think car manufacturers preempted the electric vehicle movement by making your gallon of gas go further just to trick people into thinking that they need all that range. It has nothing to do with fuel conservation or the atmosphere it's just a trick to keep consumers suckling at the teat of the oil companies.

Actually, the CAFE regulations did that. So at the same time that the late Bush / early Obama administration was investing in electric vehicles, they were also mandating that the car companies bring over the kind of engine tech that japan/europe has had for decades by increasing the corporate average fleet economy target for automakers..

Which is a good thing, but if you want alternatives to take off, don't subsidize the development of alternatives and the status quo at the same time.. that isn't doing anyone any favors, just encouraging people to use more energy.

 

[Dauntless]

so-called "global warming

Are you serious? This isn't real journalism. This is an angry monkey mashing on a keyboard.

Me? I didn't write the piece and agree it is poorly written and biased but thought that it would spark debate.

Are you referring to the thread title?
Here are my actual thoughts. I think it is foolish to start interfering with processes that we have only a primitive understanding of - something that could come back to haunt the entire world.

I don't believe you. I think your actual thoughts are:

Oh, goody, an old, discredited, foolish hoax that's probably forgotten by now. I get to go make fools of people on Endless Sphere with it. What a wonderful way to insult everyone. (Sick twisted laugh.)

Seriously, what are you up to posting this tired, best left forgotten nonsense? They'd have long ago sprayed if IF they were going to. Shouldn't you be warning us that the Republicans are planning to cancel the 2004 election? Wouldn't want to see that one neglected, would you? Why not sound the alarm in Stalin trying to undermine the Marshall Plan instead? At least that was REAL. (Emphasis should have been on WAS.) When I see someone dredging up the old lies some demented mind thought up, I find myself wondering. And yes I do find your intentions to be an insult to everyone who comes here and reads it. The sheer mockery in such a ridiculous posting.

I mean, the mere fact that you found it on the Natural Enquirer should warn even someone who believed in chemtrails that it's not true.

Not that there's anything WRONG with that.

[youtube]KDFDLCd5IOg[/youtube]