SRM/GEOENGINEERING

[bentom187]

sorry mate, but you seem to lack a great deal of understanding of what is happening out here.

you want to end aid for the Palestinian territories? that's kind of crazy if you were to ask me. :

Its preferable to end all foreign aid as it props up dictators of the banks choosing. It never goes to the poor that's why they stay poor. What ever we are doing is for the banks as well we will deal with that in time.
One step at a time is good. He has to appear to support Israel as no one is going to the presidency speaking in terms of cutting aid to them in any form. But it is a great method to watch the cognitive dissonance of the typical war hawks in congress play out as they support him in support of Israel like good little puppets following the play book, with the exception of AIPAC.

You'll only accomplish more radicalization of already radical militants, and at the same time you'd be screwing over the people who just want peace who live under the authoritarian regime of Hamas and Fatah.

Their wars are their wars,(Israel and Palestine) that money could be spent better over here. We could be minding our own business and not get involved at all.
But cutting aid to all countries like I said is preferable. They (the Palestinians) are going to resist aggression in any form, its only common sense. They are going to be radical no matter what, except it will be aimed at their real enemies (the ones committing genocide) not us. We will be withdrawing support eventually to Israel in time.

Rand Paul has already shown himself to be a loud mouth with no understanding of anything at all, this would not be the first time he'd be talking out of his poorly informed mouth.

surely, you won't listen to reason though, as you are convinced the Devil himself is the supreme leader of all banks

I can listen to reason ,but to insult him for using politics to get to a peaceful end is showing how uninformed you are.

I also think the banks are the problem not the puppets they use. For the millionth time. Religion is neither here nor there in my opinion. The character of the people doing these things to the world is what I am scrutinizing ,which is the charicter of the people in charge of the banks.

The US will be making changes to its foreign policy under his presidency ,in the manner of minding our own business and not conquering other countries for the banks.

 

[foomar]

It was harder than I expected to find a figure for the number of fuel dumps done every year.

This is an estimate of the total worldwide.

It has been estimated that as much as 15 million pounds of fuel was released over the world's oceans by commercial and military aircraft during the 1990s.

Which sounds a lot until you see that we burn ten billion tons of kerosene in jets every year

Citizen's Aviation Watch asked the (US) EPA that a few years again, and in the response letter, the EPA stated that the FAA reported that "fuel dumping occurs only about 127 times per year." I assume that's in the US, although the letter doesn't specify.

This for an individual airport , civil and military , reasonable size but not a major hub , would like to see figures for Heathrow ect.

Goose bay labrador

Based on occurences for this period, four to five events are predicted over the course of a season.

Only the larger long distance jets have the capability to dump , the smaller ones do not exceed the weight ratio.

 

[bentom187]

It was harder than I expected to find a figure for the number of fuel dumps done every year.

This is an estimate of the total worldwide.



Which sounds a lot until you see that we burn ten billion tons of kerosene in jets every year



This for an individual airport , civil and military , reasonable size but not a major hub , would like to see figures for Heathrow ect.



Only the larger long distance jets have the capability to dump , the smaller ones do not exceed the weight ratio.

So according to this article ,its effects at ground level are bad and do occur , but at altitude they are fine even though the altitude most aircraft travel, are lower than the harmless zone.
But the subject they didn't get into is what happens after if freezes at altitude, im assuming it falls to earth. Where we live. Either in the form of ice or water/vapor and associated contaminants.
They have either suggested that greenhouse gases are harmless ,or that contrails are harmful because they contain the same substances.

So they need to pick on or the other. Seeing as how I am extremely skeptical about .Gov sources referenced in this paper, I would say they are lying about it being harmless they are covering the aviation/oil industries collective ass.


I think in the mean time we can agree, dumping and burning are both bad.





Airplane Exhaust Trails Affect the Environment

A Look at Contrails

Humans have undeniably affected the atmosphere and air quality of our planet. However, because most gasses are invisible to the human eye, it can be hard to physically see some of the changes we've brought about. Smog, exhaust from cars and trucks and smoke from chimneys and fires are a few of the visible signs, but one of the most intriguing visual manifestation of how we've changed the atmosphere are the jet trails left behind by airplanes. These lines of clouds are called contrails, and anyone who lives close to an airport or commonly used airspace sees them every day. This paper will examine what contrails are, how they are made and what effects they might have on our atmosphere. These effects are particularly important because of the rapid growth of the airline industry, which has been increasing two and a half times the average rate of economic growth since 1960. (6)





Most modern commercial airplanes run on jet engines that burn fossil fuels, usually kerosene, which is a hydrocarbon liquid obtained from crude oil (5). The process used by the engine to convert fuel to energy is internal combustion, the same process used by a normal car engine, where the fuel is combined with oxygen to produce heat, water, and carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is of course one of the most common greenhouse gasses that contributes to global warming, and according to NASA, aircraft are responsible for four percent of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels across the globe. It is estimated that the world's 16,000 commercial air jet aircraft produce 600 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, nearly equal to the amount produced per year by all human activities in Africa (6). (1)





Higher carbon dioxide emissions are the result of incomplete combustion, which occurs at the lower power levels the jet engines operate at during taxiing, and landing. The higher the temperature inside the engine, the more efficiently the fuel is burned. Unfortunately, higher engine temperatures come with their own pollution problems. One of these is the increased amount of nitrogen oxide that is emitted. Nitrogen oxide leads to the formation of ozone in the atmosphere, and although ozone is necessary in the upper atmosphere (about fifteen miles high), it can be a harmful pollutant at ground level. Since most commercial jet aircraft only operate about a mile high, this is a significant concern. NASA reported that "In 1993, a study of toxic emissions at Chicago's Midway Airport revealed that arriving and departing planes released more pollutants than the industrial pollution sources in the surrounding 16-square-mile area. A more recent study at London's Heathrow airport showed that aircraft contributed between 16 and 35 percent of ground level NOx concentrations." (1)





Are these gasses, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide, what make up the visible contrails left by airplanes? In fact, they are not. These emissions are the same gasses produced by automobiles and are largely invisible. However, understanding the production of these gasses helps us to understand what contrails really are. When a jet engine operates, it combines fuel and air to produce heat and energy. Carbon dioxide is one byproduct of this reaction. Steam is another. There is water vapor in the air, and under the intense heat of the combustion reaction, this vapor is heated up into steam. This, combined with the fact that water itself is a byproduct of an internal combustion reaction, means that about a gallon of water being produced per gallon of fuel burned. As a result, when the engine operates at a higher power and more fuel is burned, more steam is produced, and increase at the same time that nitrogen oxide increases. (3)





Because the air temperature at the altitude airplanes operate at, is far below freezing, the steam quickly freezes into ice particles, which along with any dissolved particles, or aerosols in the air, are what make up the visible contrail. If the air is very dry, there will be little water vapor present and no contrail will be formed. The more moisture present in the air, the larger the contrail will be and the longer it will last. Sailors have used this as sign to help them judge the weather conditions for many years. (2)





It seems then, that in the face of more significant pollutants like carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide, contrails are relatively harmless. However, they can have serious affects on the lower atmosphere. In 1998 NASA ran an experiment where they flew a jet in circles and found that the contrails they created ultimately coalesced into a cirrus cloud covering 1400 square miles (3). However, the effects of contrails on the atmosphere are still currently being debated. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, affirms that contrails can from into cirrus clouds, and asserts that both cirrus clouds and contrails themselves contribute to global warming themselves (4).





Other groups believe that contrails actually contribute to global dimming, or the blocking of light and heat from reaching the earth's surface. They point to the average increase of one degree Celsius in the temperature over the United States during the three day suspension of commercial air travel after September 11 2001 as evidence that contrails, possibly because of the aerosols within them, deflect solar radiation. (3)





Either way, it is certain that contrails, the vapor trails left behind by airplanes that we see every day, play a define role in the climate of our planet and the health of the atmosphere.

 

[bombadil.360]

Its preferable to end all foreign aid as it props up dictators of the banks choosing. It never goes to the poor that's why they stay poor. What ever we are doing is for the banks as well we will deal with that in time.
One step at a time is good. He has to appear to support Israel as no one is going to the presidency speaking in terms of cutting aid to them in any form. But it is a great method to watch the cognitive dissonance of the typical war hawks in congress play out as they support him in support of Israel like good little puppets following the play book, with the exception of AIPAC.






Their wars are their wars,(Israel and Palestine) that money could be spent better over here. We could be minding our own business and not get involved at all.
But cutting aid to all countries like I said is preferable. They (the Palestinians) are going to resist aggression in any form, its only common sense. They are going to be radical no matter what, except it will be aimed at their real enemies (the ones committing genocide) not us. We will be withdrawing support eventually to Israel in time.




I can listen to reason ,but to insult him for using politics to get to a peaceful end is showing how uninformed you are.

I also think the banks are the problem not the puppets they use. For the millionth time. Religion is neither here nor there in my opinion. The character of the people doing these things to the world is what I am scrutinizing ,which is the charicter of the people in charge of the banks.

The US will be making changes to its foreign policy under his presidency ,in the manner of minding our own business and not conquering other countries for the banks.

We are debating things way out of topic man... and as I said, your position is that bankers are evil and control the world; you also think the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians was created and is perpetuated by the bankers, which is pretty incorrect to say the least; and there's no amount of debating that will make you reconsider many of your stances and conclusions.

hopefully, you'll be able to outgrow this stage in your intellectual development and not become stuck, slowly choking with your own hate.

edit: Rand will never become the president of the U.S, I really hope you are joking if you truly believe that, after Obama, Rand will be elected; talk about cognitive dissonance.

be good.

 

[bentom187]

We are debating things way out of topic man... and as I said, your position is that bankers are evil and control the world; you also think the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians was created and is perpetuated by the bankers, which is pretty incorrect to say the least; and there's no amount of debating that will make you reconsider many of your stances and conclusions.

hopefully, you'll be able to outgrow this stage in your intellectual development and not become stuck, slowly choking with your own hate.
edit: Rand will never become the president of the U.S, I really hope you are joking if you truly believe that, after Obama, Rand will be elected; talk about cognitive dissonance.

be good.

Well it does fall within conspiracy theory's and you went there.

I know they have their underlying religious problems but Israel could not sustain its fighting without the US's assistance.The US gets its money from these bankers. Israel lobbies for it. Apart from the US's involvement It does not matter to me, because after thousands of years these people still want to murder each other. I don't think anyone is going to be talking any sense into them. They are going to have to figure out a peaceful resolution by themselves.
Its best for us to just wash our hands of this problem.

Because hate is holding a differing opinion from you ? Just keep saying im a hateful Buddhist Libertarian Anarcho-capitalist. Wanting people to be free and having the US stop its war across the globe and on its own citizens. That makes sense./Sarc.


And yes I believe that he is doing the appropriate political moving to become president seeing as all other mainstream politicians have been utter failures and continue each others policies R or D.
Policies will be the same deficit spend to infinity and perpetual war. Take your pick Bush or Clinton.Again .

If America does that we deserve the catastrophic outcome that we get.

 

[foomar]

That looks to be a sensible article on contrails , and not the usual chemtrail hype.
The only statement I would query is this

Since most commercial jet aircraft only operate about a mile high

I would suggest that the majority of flight time is at far in excess of 5000 feet , maximising fuel economy and reducing noise pollution to a minimum , short range internal flights are lower but few as low as stated.

It is worth noting that commercial flights account for about 3% of world fuel consumption , similar to that of shipping.

Burnt or dumped , the results are going to have a deleterious impact on the environment but hard to quantify its significance amongst that from road transport and power generation.

A chemship conspiracy never took hold as its hard to see and popularise compared to contrails , vehicle emissions are a proven hazard and a real killer.

I also find it strange that some of the chemtrail theorists are happy to evaporate multiple cans of butane or solvents into the environment without any qualms.

Would caution against mentioning Israel in any thread , they tend to get deleted at that point.

 

[bombadil.360]

Well it does fall within conspiracy theory's and you went there.

I know they have their underlying religious problems but Israel could not sustain its fighting without the US's assistance.The US gets its money from these bankers. Israel lobbies for it. Apart from the US's involvement It does not matter to me, because after thousands of years these people still want to murder each other. I don't think anyone is going to be talking any sense into them. They are going to have to figure out a peaceful resolution by themselves.
Its best for us to just wash our hands of this problem.

Because hate is holding a differing opinion from you ? Just keep saying im a hateful Buddhist Libertarian Anarcho-capitalist. Wanting people to be free and having the US stop its war across the globe and on its own citizens. That makes sense./Sarc.


And yes I believe that he is doing the appropriate political moving to become president seeing as all other mainstream politicians have been utter failures and continue each others policies R or D.
Policies will be the same deficit spend to infinity and perpetual war. Take your pick Bush or Clinton.Again .

If America does that we deserve the catastrophic outcome that we get.

hehehe... so you think the AIPAC uses the money the U.S gives to Israel in order to lobby for pro-Israel issues? wow... I've been really wasting my time trying to see if you manage to see the web of confusion into which you have woven yourself.

your understanding of economics is as good as Rand's.

I really hope that someway, somehow, you'll come out of this stage of intellectual immaturity where you think you have it all figured out with all these scapegoats you are always promoting.

and yes, foomar is right, if you guys want to keep the thread going, it is best not to discuss things against the TOU.

I'm out, got a party to go to, Independence Day out here

peace

 

[foomar]

Forgot to mention the deliberate spraying of light oils for the control of malaria , the quantities used worldwide are far in excess of that lost in fuel dumping , aviation kerosene is often used as a cheaper alternative in poor countries , there is little data available on the damage caused to the environment.

Application of Mosquito Larvicidal Oil:

Eastto Mosquito Larvicidal Oil is either poured gently or suitably sprayed on the desired area periodically. A lethal dosage of minimum 0.001 cm thickness is suggested. On IM2 only 10cc of Easto Mosquito Larvicidal Oil may be poured.

Between 5 - 8 gramme per square meter is the practical dose.

 

[bentom187]

hehehe... so you think the AIPAC uses the money the U.S gives to Israel in order to lobby for pro-Israel issues? wow... I've been really wasting my time trying to see if you manage to see the web of confusion into which you have woven yourself.

your understanding of economics is as good as Rand's.

I really hope that someway, somehow, you'll come out of this stage of intellectual immaturity where you think you have it all figured out with all these scapegoats you are always promoting.

and yes, foomar is right, if you guys want to keep the thread going, it is best not to discuss things against the TOU.

I'm out, got a party to go to, Independence Day out here

peace

No you are misunderstanding me, I said they (AIPAC) being the largest lobby for Israel, lobby congress for funding to be used by Israel and their associated interests. That's it. Have fun.

 

[foomar]

These might raise a smile , but chemcars are real enough.

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

 

[bentom187]

Ok ,so following links trying to understand this better and the advocates of global warming's motives I have not come to a conclusion but this David Keith and bill gates keep popping up. He's invested in the oil industry and geo engineering.It just does not make sense investing in something that causes a problem your other investments are trying to stop.


Biological and health effects of exposure to kerosene-based jet fuels and performance additives.

These exposures may occur repeatedly to raw fuel, vapor phase, aerosol phase, or fuel combustion exhaust by dermal absorption, pulmonary inhalation, or oral ingestion routes. Additionally, the public may be repeatedly exposed to lower levels of jet fuel vapor/aerosol or to fuel combustion products through atmospheric contamination, or to raw fuel constituents by contact with contaminated groundwater or soil.

Investment in Monsanto, BP and Other Controversial Corporations

Bill Gates Funding Geoengineering Research

Caldeira and physicist David Keith of the University of Calgary in Canada have been in charge of deciding how to dispense the money. The pair have been informal energy and climate advisers to Gates for several years, and they say they remain independent. "This is philanthropic money and when it arrives [to Calgary] Gates does not control it," says Keith.

There are other grantees, Keith says, but he declined to identify them or say why.

http://thearrowsoftruth.com/bill-mr-vaccine-gates-advocates-forcible-chemtrail-spraying/

As we pointed out last week in our article of February 2nd, Bill Gates: The Patron Saint of Eugenetics, this is fully consistent with Bill Gates’ admitted agenda of reducing world population with the help of drug company technologies. At a TED conference, he announced in front of a live audience: “…if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower [global population] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

 

[sprinkl]

These might raise a smile , but chemcars are real enough.


View Image]View Image[/URL]

View Image]View Image[/URL]

View Image]View Image[/URL]

Thats funny we all knew a lot of chems are being dumped illegally on sea but i never figured it could be in those trails too. /sarcasm

Heard this on the radio recently. People living close to highways are more likely to get cancer, strokes, the usual. I was like whaaat. Get outtaaaa heeere
In my country everyone lives close to some goddamn highway. I guess thats why they dont have to use chemtrails as much here. We're killing ourselves enough already yay for us!

 

[foomar]

The arrowsoftruth is a tame version of infowars without the ranting or illuminati , but with the same scaremongering agenda and selective slant , twisting facts to fit their point of view.

Anything evil in this grant ?

$13.6M research grant from Gates to develop plant to cure malaria

The Centre for Novel Agricultural Products (CNAP), part of the University of York, has received a $13.6 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to complete research on a plant that could help alleviate the global shortage of effective treatments for malaria – a disease that kills more than 1 million people every year, most of them children in Africa. The Centre, part of the Biology Department at York University, has been working on a fast-track breeding research programme for the plant "Artemisia annua" – currently the sole source of the leading anti-malarial drug, artemisinin.

The goal of the research is to create a non-GM variety of the plant with greatly increased yields of artemisinin for use in Artemisinin Combination Therapies (ACTs) – identified as the most effective treatment for malaria by the World Health Organisation. Demand for artemisinin and ACTs has increased dramatically in recent years because the malaria parasite has developed resistance to traditional single-drug treatments such as chloroquine. A shortage of artemisinin has arisen, leading to an increase in its price of up to fivefold since 2004.

Gates is an easy target thanks to windows frustrations and microsofts dodgy business practices over the years , having a smug face and enormous wealth does not help his public popularity.

Using the word eugenics is deliberate and emotive , commonly linked by the public with racism , forced sterilisation , Nazi ideology and the final solution , and unfair in this case.

if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower [global population] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent

The main reason for large families in the third world is to have enough children survive to support you in old age , vaccines that lower infant mortality and offering contraception will reduce this need and allow a higher standard of living in countries with low or finite resources , lowering the rate of future population growth seems a perfectly decent idea to me.

The Gates foundation has done an enormous amount of good work in the third world promoting health , vaccination , education and sanitation with local projects and development groups , if they really wanted to harm people they would stop all vaccination and health initiatives and go back to the horrific death rates and life long damage existing before their introduction.

 

[bentom187]

Here is the video from TED talks, so there is no spin associated with it.

[YOUTUBEIF]Gc16H3uHKOA[/YOUTUBEIF]


Sorry foomar, Eugenics is not good in any form. Its the same thing no matter who is doing it. Im not sure what type of psychopath thinks he should be deciding who gets to live and die ,but he fits the bill.
Microsoft problems are solved by tech's. Not eugenics.
Eugenics isn't bad for ethnic Germans and good for sub-Saharan Africans.
Again allocating resources wisely and monetary reform will fix a lot of problems around the globe not to mention real charity,not foreign aid derived from taxes that go to dictators.
Charity in the form of death is not charity, and bill is working within governmental framework which allows for this guy to do his dirty work so bill does not get a pass there.
I dont think murdering them is doing them any favors if they need enough children to support them in old age.

About malaria treatments, im skeptical about treatments offered by bill gates. I would be weary it might be another eugenics program. I mean if its Monsanto you know about their past, and the Monsanto protection act which free them from any and all culpability in the legal system .You dont need that unless you didn't care what happens as a result of using your products.

As far as global warming goes its a open book to me.

oGlobal Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists
Madam Speaker, before voting on the "cap-and-trade'' legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:

Here is article I found ,it has some interesting statements in it.

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'

President Obama has put salvation from dreaded climate catastrophes on his action agenda hot list. During his inaugural address he said: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” He went on to shame anyone who disagrees with this assessment, saying, “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.”

This sort of scary presidential prognostication isn’t new. He previously emphasized at the Democratic National Convention that global warming was “not a hoax”, referred to recent droughts and floods as “a threat to our children’s future”, and pledged to make the climate a second-term priority.

As much as I hate to nit-pick his doomsday scenarios, it might be appropriate to correct a few general misconceptions before getting back to that “overwhelming judgment of science” stuff.

Regarding wildfires, for example, their numbers since 1950 have decreased globally by 15%. According to the National Academy of Sciences, they will likely continue to decline until around midcentury.

As for those droughts, a recent study published in the letter of the journal Nature indicates that globally, “…there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.” And as the U.N. Climate panel concluded last year: “Some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia.”

Also, by the way, global hurricane activity, measured in total energy (Accumulated Cyclone Energy), is actually at a low not encountered since the 1970s. In fact, the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century. Wilma, the last Category 3 or stronger storm, occurred more than seven years ago.

But supposing these recent circumstances were different…because after all, climate really does change. Even virtually all of those who the president claims “deny” that “overwhelming science” recognize this. (If climate didn’t change, would we even need a word for it?)

The larger issue has to do with just how many of those who stoke the global warming alarm fires have real confidence in that “science”. So let’s briefly review just a few candid comments that some of them have offered on this topic. These are but a very small sampling of my favorites.




How Climate Alarmism Advances International Political Agendas:

The term “climate” is typically associated with annual world-wide average temperature records measured over at least three decades. Yet global warming observed less than two decades after many scientists had predicted a global cooling crisis prompted the United Nations to organize an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and to convene a continuing series of international conferences purportedly aimed at preventing an impending catastrophe. Virtually from the beginning, they had already attributed the “crisis” to human fossil-fuel carbon emissions.

A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”




Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

How Some Key IPCC Researchers View Their Science:

For starters, let’s begin with two different views by some of the same researchers that are reported in the same year regarding whether there is a discernible human influence on global climate.

First, taken from a 1996 IPCC report summary written by B.D. Santer, T.M.L Wigley, T.P. Barnett, and E. Anyamba: “…there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcings by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols…from geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change…These results point towards human influence on climate.”

Then, a 1996 publication “The Holocene”, by T.P. Barnett, B.D. Santer, P.D. Jones, R.S. Bradley and K.R. Briffa, says this: “Estimates of…natural variability are critical to the problem of detecting an anthropogenic [human] signal…We have estimated the spectrum…from paleo-temperature proxies and compared it with…general [climate] circulation models…none of the three estimates of the natural variability spectrum agree with each other…Until…resolved, it will be hard to say, with confidence, that an anthropogenic climate signal has or has not been detected.”

In other words, these guys, several of whom you will hear from later, can’t say with confidence whether or not humans have had any influence at all…or even if so, whether it has caused warming or cooling!

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

The late Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book warning that global cooling risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed that view 180 degrees, serving as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. In a quotation published in Discover, he said: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”




Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journal Nature.com, admitted: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state”.

Christopher Landsea, a top expert on the subject of cyclones, became astounded and perplexed when he was informed that Trenberth had participated in a 2004 press conference following a deadly 2004 Florida storm season which had announced “Experts warn that global warming [is] likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense activity.” Since IPCC studies released in 1995 and 2001 had found no evidence of a global warming-hurricane link, and there was no new analysis to suggest otherwise, he wrote to leading IPCC officials imploring: “What scientific, refereed publications substantiate these pronouncements? What studies alluded to have shown a connection between observed warming trends on Earth and long-term trends of cyclone activity?”

Receiving no replies, he then requested assurance that the 2007 report would present true science, saying: “[Dr. Trenberth] seems to have come to a conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity, and has already stated so. This does not reflect consensus within the hurricane research community.” After that assurance didn’t come, Landsea, an invited author, resigned from the 2007 report activity and issued an open letter presenting his reasons.

Some Interesting ClimateGate E-Mail Comments:

A note from Jones to Trenberth: “Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature [journal] paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW [global warming] is having an effect on TC [tropical cyclone] activity.”

Jones wanted to make sure that people who supported this connection be represented in IPCC reviews: “Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.”

Raymond Bradley, co-author of Michael Mann’s infamously flawed hockey stick paper which was featured in influential IPCC reports, took issue with another article jointly published by Mann and Phil Jones, stating: “I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year reconstruction.”




Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote: “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …”

Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another e-mail to Mann: “If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”

A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”

A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”

Tom Crowley, a key member of Michael Mann’s global warming hockey team, wrote: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”

Several e-mail exchanges reveal that certain researchers believed well-intentioned ideology trumped objective science. Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

Phil Jones wrote: “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”




Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised caution, saying: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary…”

In another e-mail, Thorne stated: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

Another scientist worries: “…clearly, some tuning or very good luck [is] involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”

Still another observed: “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

One researcher foresaw some very troubling consequences: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…”

The Costs of Ideology Masquerading as Science:

As Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore observed on Fox Business News in January 2011: “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and it’s not good for the environment…In a warmer world we can produce more food.”

When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: “A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.”

Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, “The Population Bomb”, reported in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues in big sweats: “Everyone is scared s***less [fecally void], but they don’t know what to do.”




Yes, and it should, because consequences of subordinating climate science to ideology, however well intentioned, have proven to be incredibly costly.

The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) reports that federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010 (a total $106.7 billion over that period). This doesn’t include $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, tax breaks for “green energy”, foreign aid to help other countries address “climate problems”; another $16.1 billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to green energy subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities in the 2009 “Stimulus Bill”.

Virtually all of this is based upon unfounded representations that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, a claim based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. And what redemptive solutions are urgently implored? We must give lots of money to the U.N. to redistribute; abandon fossil fuel use in favor of heavily subsidized but assuredly abundant, “free”, and “renewable” alternatives; and expand federal government growth, regulatory powers, and crony capitalist-enriched political campaign coffers.

It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was.

 

[foomar]

Just a few of hundreds of grants , guess he must be truly evil to try and improve the lives of so many people rather than squander money like an Arab prince.

The foundation is not perfect and makes mistakes , but you don't look a gifthorse in the mouth when nobody else is going to fund research.

Precise effects of big charity projects can be hard to measure, especially over a relatively short period. But already two bodies that the foundation funds heavily, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (Gavi) and the Global Fund to Fight HIV/Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, have, according to the foundation, delivered vaccines to more than 250 million children in poor countries and prevented more than an estimated five million deaths.

The Grand Challenges initiative was launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in 2003, in partnership with the National Institutes of Health, with a $200 million grant to the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH), and is a major international effort to achieve scientific breakthroughs against diseases that kill millions of people each year in the world's poorest countries. It is funded with a $450 million commitment from Gates Foundation, $27.1 from the Wellcome Trust, and $4.5 million from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). The initiative is managed by global health experts at the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH), the Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and CIHR.

With a $5 million grant to the SGC from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and $10 million in supporting funds from the participating academic initiatives, the SDDC will work on a portfolio of high-impact drug targets from malaria and tuberculosis over the course of three years. The primary aim is to deliver drug candidates to antimalarial and anti-tubercular pre-clinical development partners, while providing public access to the resulting information in order to benefit the scientific community.

The SDDC is committed to supporting structure-guided drug discovery efforts on the highest priority targets in malaria and tuberculosis. Funding from the Gates Foundation will enable the Coalition to surpass the most common bottleneck in academic drug discovery: developing the chemistry required to generate novel drugs.

Grand Challenges Explorations is a five-year, $100 million initiative of the Gates foundation to promote innovation in global health. The program uses an agile, streamlined grant process – applications are limited to two pages, and preliminary data are not required. Proposals are reviewed and selected by a committee of foundation staff and external experts, and grant decisions are made within approximately three months of the close of the funding round.

Among the successful bidders is London's Imperial College, which will receive £11m to fund work on TB.
St George's Medical School in London will get £10.7m to develop a HIV vaccine for women.
Two teams at Oxford University have been awarded grants.
One will be given £9m to investigate why some people appear to be more resistant to malaria than others, and a second will be given £5.4m to investigate vaccines for HIV, TB and malaria

 

[bentom187]

Just a few of hundreds of grants , guess he must be truly evil to try and improve the lives of so many people rather than squander money like an Arab prince.

The foundation is not perfect and makes mistakes , but you don't look a gifthorse in the mouth when nobody else is going to fund research.

Well you have to wonder why no one else is funding it. Its a economic reason, and definitely a ethical as well.
Its illogical to think you could improve someone's life by killing them ,since that's what he means by reducing populations.
Im sorry foomar you know this is true, you wouldn't volunteer for such a vaccine that you know would or could kill you, unless someone told you that it was for your own good.

There are a number of ways to prevent it ,one big one would be improving the standard of living in those countries. You do that by letting them move about freely and letting them develop their economic situation by themselves. No states, no ruling authority ect... Then they can choose the best method to deal with their problems and evolve past them.

Who gets tuberculosis?

Tuberculosis is spread from person to person through tiny droplets of infected sputum that travel through the air. If an infected person coughs, sneezes, shouts, or spits, bacteria can enter the air and come into contact with uninfected people who breath the bacteria into their lungs.


Although anyone can become infected with TB, some people are at a higher risk, such as:11
Individuals who live with others who have active TB infections.
Poor or homeless people.
Young children.
Nursing home residents.
Alcoholics and intravenous drug users.
Anybody who suffers from malnutrition.
Patients with HIV/AIDS or other immune system problems

In October 2012, Dr. Mario Raviglione, Director of the WHO Stop TB Department, warned that the number of people becoming infected with MDT-TB (multi-drug-resistant) tuberculosis has risen considerably. He added that too few patients are being diagnosed and treated.6

The global campaign to reduce TB infections by half by 2015 could be seriously jeopardized by MDT-TB.

Just giving people vaccines does not seem to actually solve the problem. It just a band-aid on the problem.

EDIT :additional info straight from the CDC, why wait for .Gov to move their butts they can do this themselves by either importing it or developing their own technology.

Prevention
•Water, sanitation and hygiene has the potential to prevent at least 9.1% of the global disease burden and 6.3% of all deaths 1.The impact of clean water technologies on public health in the U.S. is estimated to have had a rate of return of 23 to 1 for investments in water filtration and chlorination during the first half of the 20th century 5.
•Water and sanitation interventions are cost effective across all world regions. These interventions were demonstrated to produce economic benefits ranging from US$ 5 to US$ 46 per US$ 1 invested 6.
•Improved water sources reduce diarrhea morbidity by 21%; improved sanitation reduces diarrhea morbidity by 37.5%; and the simple act of washing hands at critical times can reduce the number of diarrhea cases by as much as 35%. Improvement of drinking-water quality, such as point-of-use disinfection, would lead to a 45% reduction of diarrhea episodes 7.
•In order to meet the United Nations' Millennium Development Goal 13 to halve the proportion of people without sustainable access to improved drinking water and basic sanitation by 2015: ◦An estimated 784 million people will need to gain access to an improved water source.
◦o An estimated 173 million people on average per year will need to begin using improved sanitation facilities (accounting for expected population growth) 2.

•Even if the United Nations' Millennium Development Goal 13 for improved drinking water and basic sanitation is reached by 2015, it will still leave: ◦An estimated 790 million people (11% of the world’s population) without access to an improved water supply.
◦An estimated 1.8 billion people (25% of the world’s population) without access to adequate sanitation 15.

 

[foomar]

Its illogical to think you could improve someone's life by killing them ,since that's what he means by reducing populations.

That's not what he is saying at all , he refers to reducing the growing population by reducing the birth rate , nobody gets killed , people are simply not born.

 

[PaullyHighBred]

How are vaccines, (which reduce child mortality) condoms and contraceptives (which prevent unwanted pregnancy and the spread of AIDS) EUGENICS???....

 

[foomar]

Its the unsubstantiated crap you find on infowars and other alex jones sites saying that vaccines and gm food is a method of directly reducing fertility in third world countries by poisoning people , where bentom and trichy get most of their crazy ideas from.

The US has a history of real eugenics only exceeded by Nazi Germany.

When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II, they justified the mass sterilizations (over 450,000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration
The Nazis had claimed American eugenicists inspired and supported Hitler's racial purification laws, and failed to understand the connection between those policies and the eventual genocide of the Holocaust.

 

[bentom187]

That's not what he is saying at all , he refers to reducing the growing population by reducing the birth rate , nobody gets killed , people are simply not born.

Actually I don't go there (AJ) at all, he's just annoying as hell. So its really a strawman argument you are putting forward. Time stamp 2:42 - 2:46 . ""if we do a really good job with new vaccines"

Please tell me how something that is supposed to save lives, contributes to lowering the population which reduces Co2 according to him. You cant give vaccines to people who are not yet born and the reduced birth rate is only part of his goal. And like you stated before in the poorer countries the elderly need their children to take care of them otherwise they die.

[VIDEO] Al Gore: Africa’s Population A Problem That “Must Be Addressed”

[YOUTUBEIF]ggSNDfVhzOc[/YOUTUBEIF]

Eugenics is alive and well here in America too.

Human papilloma virus vaccine and primary ovarian failure: another facet of the autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants.

http://www.toomanyaborted.com/
NUMBER ONE KILLER

Abortion is the #1 killer of black Americans, according to CDC & Guttmacher stats, outnumbering all other causes of death combined–363,705 to 285,522.

U.S. & U.K. Taxpayers Funding Forced Sterilization in India

Citing dubious United Nations theories about “climate change,” population-reduction fanatics — especially in the West — have been working fiendishly around the world for decades to scale back the number of humans. Their methods include everything from promoting abortion and contraception to developing sterilization programs targeting poor women in particular. And the barbarity is largely being bankrolled by taxpayers and elite donors in the U.S. and the United Kingdom.