Bill Gates, Dim The Sun

So he is wanting to flood the stratosphere with calcium carbonate to reduce the amount of sunlight to the earth, for "global cooling"! Sorry, I don't have a link.

He and folks like him are a threat to humankind.....

Funny, the sun is our main source for vitamin D, vitamin D is how our body fights the covid viruses....hmm. A person with dark skin needs around 3X the sun a pale skin person needs, eugenics at its best.... Great guy.

This works also

Before environmentalism became a religion

anti gov you rock brother !!

Seems to me that it is worth investigating. Or would you prefer Biden just eliminate internal combustion engines by executive order ?

We already seed clouds to create rain. Why is it so ridiculous ?

Because global warming or climate change or whatever they call it now is not a threat to anything.

Where is Gerty when ya need her?

I don't know that I would agree with that . What I WOULD agree with is that man doesn't have much to do with causing it.
There is no question in my mind that the climate is changing. Every winter seems to be a little milder. Erosion is visibly increasing (talking about where I live). Energy use for cooling will be increased with all the downstream expense that follows.
Forest fires ? Maybe, More water for agriculture ? Probably.....meaning less for drinking and other uses. Changes in building practices and materials...more expense. Less control over your own life and livelihood because government is confiscating more of what you earn .

What could go wrong with screwing with our atmosphere.....

I should rephrase, because I agree with you White that the climate does change and that humans have nothing to do with it. Therefore I think its best to just leave it alone.

[/quote]I don't know that I would agree with that . What I WOULD agree with is that man doesn't have much to do with causing it.
There is no question in my mind that the climate is changing. Every winter seems to be a little milder. Erosion is visibly increasing (talking about where I live). Energy use for cooling will be increased with all the downstream expense that follows.
Forest fires ? Maybe, More water for agriculture ? Probably.....meaning less for drinking and other uses. Changes in building practices and materials...more expense. Less control over your own life and livelihood because government is confiscating more of what you earn .[/quote]


You're looking at it from a small "human-size" prism...what happens in our lifetime doesn't amount to a speck on the arse of a gnat. I'm not implying that things aren't more "extreme" than in the past, but one would have to admit that things tend to equal out as time goes on.

So smart, yet, so freaking dumb. All we did is for Kerry and Gates to team up and our problems are solved. Both are DA's. Sarge

Al Gore invented global warming. Oh and the internet too.

Now he flies around on jets to tell us WE need to lesson our carbon footprint. But hey, as the lawyers 'round here would say at least he isn't that mean on Donald Trump

The world will not be destroyed until the Lord does it.

That might be an alternative .....but there is one group of people in the world who see this as an opportunity. Their "solution", as we all know, involves coercive political and economic measures rather than science.
If there is the possibility of thwarting their plans by using a scientific approach, I think we should explore it.

We already know that injecting dust into the atmosphere has a profound impact on global temperatures. We just need to explore the methods and means of controlling it.

That's why ropes were created!

That gates thinks he's a god

Common sense varies inversely with wealth.

Why don't weather reports include intensity readings for solar energy/heat reaching various points on earth? That might shoot down the 'global warming' nonsense.

Considering things like the solar cycle, volcanic activity and the shift in the earths magnetic field I doubt that anything mankind could do would have much of an impact.
Why expend enormous resources that could otherwise be used to known good effects when those efforts could be made moot by natural forces?

Gates and the other obscenely rich people play in a much different sandbox.

We are always just one major volcanic eruption away from another ice age.

Keith

Even major volcanic eruptions(tambora for example) could only halfway come close to the reductions they hope to accomplish and even then those effects are temporary. Of course those results would be devastating to the world population. And take more material into the atmosphere than humans are capable of doing save of carpet nuking every rainforest and most of the US.

The Climate has been changing for millions of years, and will continue to do so even though humans want it a comfortable 72 degrees. We are literally riding a twirling ball of molten rock thats beltching smoke and gas into our atmosphere. We got very lucky the sun don't fry us like ants under a magnifying glass. If you dont like heat move to the arctic. If you don't like the cold migrate to the south. Its that simple.

Can I get a Amen!

He’s still grudging from having his lunch money stolen in grade school.

AMEN

since we are the most adaptable organisms on the planet, this CANNOT be about saving *US*...it has to be about maintaining the status quo for other creatures.

so I ask you...why does Algore et al HATE/DENY Science? [evolution].

Because like all fraudsters they depend on maintaining the lie as long as they can so they can continue to make money or have power and so they'll try to persecute the "skeptics" as long as enough people still believe the lie.

Jesh, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Humanity has been building great "things" for a long, long time. This bunch is just our modern day version.
Same philosophy, different era.
Babel on Gates and company.
Babel on.


Blessings,
Mark

You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive gas, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the Earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.
Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park
×

“And we very well might be gone,” Hammond said, huffing.
“Yes,” Malcolm said. “We might.”
“So what are you saying? We shouldn’t care about the environment?”
“No, of course not.”
“Then what?”
Malcolm coughed, and stared into the distance. “Let’s be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven’t got the power to destroy the planet—or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves.”

Any attempts to "control" the environment has to confront the law of unintended consequences.... especially on the scale that might actually alter anything.

So....what happens if the atmosphere is "seeded" to lower tempertures and we then have a spate of large volcanic activity??....

Messing with the atmosphere didn't work out so well in Highlander II.

The climate is changing in my opinion and based on my anecdotal observations of 47 years. I don't know why. If it is manmade climate change, there are simpler ways to address it that (1) don't jack with the earth and (2) don't destroy the economy.

How do they know it won't act like a prism and INTENSIFY the heat from the sun !!!!

That's why climate change alarmism is more religious debate than science. You cannot test theories on climate change. You can get observational data easily but never can you actually test your theories. Even if we're possible to test the effects of seeding the atmosphere with any type of particles it would never be allowed. It would be like playing Russian roulette with a double barreled shotgun.

You got it. Like I have said before "Adapt or die."

Though he knows how to write code he is pretty much an idiot. Add to that, that he has absolutely no "walking around sense" he probably needs to be issued a Darwin award and removed from the gene pool.

People don’t need to fear climate change in the world as much as the world needs to fear the climate change in people.

Your 4 1/2 million/billion whateverillion years is more religion than science.

People can’t fathom how long a billion years is. To try to say what happened here 3.8 billion years ago is a guess...like a fairytale movie...made up.

missing the point a bit here.

There's even more recent events that point out that Earth is more resilient than it's given credit for. Take as an example the oil leak in the Gulf a few years ago. Yes some of that got washed up on the coast and gave people heartache but most of it just got eaten up by the ocean. Oil leaks from the seabed all the time. Forest fires bring about new growth, etc.

because it might be irreversible.

"And he who lay down by the rich man's gate ...."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaGVAkwY-2M

I saw a documentary years ago, called The Global Warming Myth. One of the two founders of Greenpeace quit and called BS on the whole thing... using scientific fact to disprove CO2 levels were causing the change. In ice core samples they've found much higher levels over the last 5000 years.

They explained that if it weren't for the particulate matter in the stratosphere, and the reflective properties of water droplets forming around those particles, the earth would be much warmer. Only 350 years ago the Thames river in London would freeze thick enough to hold horse drawn wagons.

Things change.

Pete

https://www.investors.com/politics/...admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

what are the odds that "they" would get the process/amount PRECISELY correct?

but even if they could get it right, what are the odds that every climate variable would stay the same forever? what happens when the sun's output is reduced from time to time? or one more volcano erupts that they hadn't planned for? or...

isn't it likely that "dimming" the sun's influence on Earth would have unintended consequences that mere mortals cannot POSSIBLY predict?

THAT'S why the concept is so ridiculous!

The idea has not been endorsed by the pudgy AlGore. Therefore it has no credibility.

What about agriculture crops, meaning food. Lets dim the sun and all starve to death? Plants need a certain amount of sun light to produce fruit.

This^^^

Gates' idea might have some true merit... But what happens if it works and then some unpredictable natural occurrence coincides with seeding the atmosphere? A decent volcanic eruption... An asteroid strike... Etc...

On the upside, fur night be worth something again.

Mike

There is no question that there are unknowns about what COULD happen. All the more reason to do some research.

Recall that when the first atomic bomb was tested, the scientists did not know whether or not all oxygen in the area would be consumed........suffocating all the observers. But they did it any way.

Look at all the tons of particulates and gases we emit into the atmosphere daily.

For example, Just the electricity required to mine Bitcoin worldwide puts 60 million tones of particulates and CO2 into the atmosphere annually.
I don't really think releasing four and a half ( 4.5) POUNDS of water-soluable Tums into the atmosphere, is a recipe for Armageddon.

Those are very valid possibilities that should certainly be discussed and researched, IMO.

But let's also make sure we are clear that this is NOT Gates' idea. It is his money funding the research. The ideas are from the engineers and geophysicists at Harvard.

that doesn't exactly make me sleep any better...

I hear ya where Harvard is concerned

How are we going to get enough solar energy to power our electric vechiles or grow organic veggies like Chaz did