As the U.S. House of Representatives held its first hearing on climate engineering it is becoming clear that the technology will lead to international governance.
On Wednesday the U.S. House Subcommittee on Environment and Subcommittee on Energy Hearing held the first House hearing on the controversial subject of climate engineering or weather modification. The hearing, titled “Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology,” brought together members of the House committees as well as representatives of think tanks, scientists, and researchers in the field to discuss the future of geoengineering research and whether the Trump administration should allocate funding.
The push for discussion of geoengineering from the Trump administration should come as no surprise. Back in January 2017, Activist Post reported that “the U.S. Global Change Research Program quietly recommended new studies looking into two specific areas of research involving geoengineering.” With the release of their report, the GCRP became the first scientists in the federal government to formally recommend studies involving geoengineering.
Participants in Wednesday’s hearing include Full Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Randy Weber (R-Texas). Witness testimony came from Dr. Phil Rasch, chief scientist for climate science, Laboratory Fellow, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Dr. Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy at the Niskanen Center; Dr. Douglas MacMartin, senior research associate, Cornell University; and Ms. Kelly Wanser, principal director, Marine Cloud Brightening Project, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington.
Before the discussion began, the committee members established a working definition of geoengineering. According to a 2013 congressional report:
As the hearing unfolded, Committee Chairman Smith acknowledged that geoengineering “could have positive effects on the Earth’s atmosphere,” but cautioned “we have a lot to learn.” Smith’s outlook illustrated his skepticism of man-made climate change, stating, “While we are not sure this is plausible, some scientists believe it could achieve substantial environmental benefits at a cheaper cost than regulations.”
Smith did acknowledge the “unintended consequences of geoengineering,” drawing attention to the fact that studies have shown altering the climate in one part of the world could have disastrous effects elsewhere.
“One concern is that brightening clouds could alter rain patterns, making it rain more in some places or less in others,” Smith stated. “We still do not know enough about this subject to thoroughly understand the pros and cons of these types of technologies.”
Supporters of geoengineering currently find themselves with a lack of public funding for these programs, as well as a skeptical public. This hearing was aimed at bringing the topic into the mainstream consciousness and potentially garnering support for funding. Chairman Andy Biggs mentioned the need for further study, stating “if in the future the government wants to actually apply the concepts and findings of geoengineering research, we must fully examine both the potential merits and potential pitfalls of this emergent field.”
Kelly Wanser, principal director of the Marine Cloud Brightening Project, also encouraged “governance and regulatory efforts.” Wanser emphasized that oversight should be “rapidly established.”
Joseph Majkut, Director of Climate Policy at The Niskanen Center, mentioned that “Congress has already given limited authority to regulate experiments intent on altering the weather, including changing planetary albedo.” However, Majkut noted, “at this point, those regulations are limited to reporting requirements.” Majkut called for Congress to implement “significant civil and administrative penalties” and potentially criminal penalties for violating the regulations.
“Congress might also consider whether to extend that criminal liability not only to such experiments originating within or over the United States, but also conducted outside of our borders that result in an impact on the United States,” Majkut stated. “Such considerations would need the input of the diplomatic and international community.”
The Niskanen Center is described as a libertarian think-tank aimed at influencing “Washington insiders,” as opposed to the public. The Center takes on issues like the environment and works to influence political leaders. In a recent blog titled “RIGHTLY GOVERNING SOLAR GEOENGINEERING RESEARCH,” Majkut and colleagues wrote about need for “small-scale field tests” and “a domestic regulatory governance structure for research.” Further, The Niskanen Center wrote that national governance structures might serve “as a test-bed for governance ideas” which could “seed discussions on international deployment” of geoengineering over the coming two decades.
The hearing’s emphasis on the need for domestic and international governance structures illustrates the uncertainty around how exactly geoengineering will affect neighboring nations and communities. The Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative recently released a statement in support of “well-governed research on geoengineering” and urged governments and other institutions to support the University of Calgary’s recent publication of a Code of Conduct for Responsible Geoengineering Research.
“Geoengineering is a matter for all society, worldwide, as it affects us all,” Carnegie wrote. “This means we need to hear many more voices than currently being heard in the geoengineering debate.”
While these debates have mostly focused on the thoughts and opinions of government leaders and political pundits, the majority of the world is being left out of these discussions. It is absolutely vital for elected officials to discuss matters of such import, but we cannot allow the politicians alone to dominate the conversation. What of developing countries, indigenous communities, and local populations? Their voices must be heard in order to fully assess the risks of geoengineering.
Do the governments of the world care about the will of the people, or will they push forth with their agenda regardless of public opinion or concern? These are important questions which need to be considered among any debate on the potential of engineering the climate of our planet. One way or another, our lives and future depend on the outcome of this scientific debate.
For a much deeper look into the history of climate and weather engineering, please see this.
Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter. Derrick is the author of three books: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 1 and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 2
Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact Derrick@activistpost.com
This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.
Add these names in the article to the list of traitors who have betrayed all of humanity. Perhaps one day justice will be served on them. What else can be expected from people who value money over love for their fellow man and woman?
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Well put. These snakes are interested in nothing but destroying our environment and stealing our precious CO2 via CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal) – CO2 being necessary for life as we know it – under the guise it’s toxic and causing climate change, but under the truth, it’ll make them billions and make us suffer.
I recently read an article, granted it was in the Daily Fail, but it was about DeBeers Diamond company offering their abandoned diamond mines for storage/disposal of the dreaded CO2 which this article claims they are considering removing, which just seemed so… obtuse. Then I thought, wait… Diamonds are made of carbon… Know what happens when you bury CO2 and heat it up? IT BECOMES DIAMONDS. Could this also be why they’re drooling for CO2?
We need water but if you drink too much, it will kil you.
Thank you Grace by Faith. Good to hear from you. Adios.
After decades of spraying us like bugs , it’s time to spray us like bugs .
So you’re asking Republican legislators from oil producing states to come up with solutions to reverse fossil fuel carbon emission that do damage to the planet. To reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change. Seriously? That’s like asking a pack of wolves to guard the shepherds herd.
Climate change is bullshit.
Agreed. “Climate change” is being created by the “wizards” behind the curtain, along with everything else foul.
The Wizards are the fossil fuel oligarchs who are poisoning the earth and brainwashing you to think it is a nefarious group of wizards. Divide, conquer, and loot.
Climate change is the result of allowing dirty fuel billionaires to distract and confuse. Wake up! That foul air and dead seas and record heat is real, and we know exactly who is causing it and why. Follow the money.
I don’t know what you are trying to pull here but its not good. Divide, conquer, and loot seem to describe your true aim by pushing this nonsense about fossil fuel secretly orchestrating all of this for profit. Money is an illusion. What they want is control. Who cares about profit under the NWO?
Money IS power. Who do you think the ruling class is: the oligarchs of great wealth who are destroying the world and trying to brainwash people with fairy tales.
Money is power: people seek money because it confers power. People seek power because it is the path to wealth.
Divide means get people like you and me fighting, arguing; conquer means pick our pockets while we argue about who is picking our pockets. Money is not speech; it is power.
If you follow the money it leads to the UN and all the brainwashed countries donating other peoples money to a bullshit agenda.
Just look at the people who push the concept of climate change. Lying, power tripping psychopaths. The environmental movement was created by the oil barrons. Unfortunately, the environment is in big trouble and getting much worse by the day.
So is gravity! Spread the truth!
Space is fake and the earth is flat.
Pluto is a planet, I mean is NOT a planet. Errr… wait a minute pluto IS a planet or rather people want it to be.
The criminal psychopaths who run NASA have a great sense of humor when it comes to Pluto. https://youtu.be/dsEDbjNaz4g
I know the precise day when gazoo3 will tell the truth. The day donkeys and pigs get pilot’s licenses and mount an aerial assault on a frozen-over hell. That’ll be the day.
Still in denial and the entire f***ing committee meeting is based on its possible use. This program is in full operation world wide, don’t let these ignorant people tell you otherwise.
Those fucking stupid ignorant scientists! We should hang them all! Science is bullshit.
I love it when people finally see the light. Welcome to reality Dale!
Yes, science is bullshit.
Ignorance is Strength (1984).
Only the fossil fuel billionaires can be believed. Thanks for introducing me to alternative reality, trustworthy because it opposes science and human knowledge
“These ignorant people” are the world’s atmospheric and climate scientists. The No Nothing Party will rise again!
Go figure, they call their BS scientists “witnesses”. Go find real witnesses, people who spend their day outside “witnessing” this crap. Ask a real “witness” that has high aluminum or barium content with no obvious source. I encourage everyone to have a heavy metal test done.
Yes, don’t believe people who spend their lives studying the atmosphere. Believe your neighbor who claims he gets sick when he sees white trails in the sky. Ignorance is Truth.
Tennessee 97days one time 104 day another time I watch the sky at least every hour to make sure I I know what is going on Wake up to BLUE skies.At around 7:30 it’s clear at around 9:00 here they come, the jet clouds.All gone blue skies day after day after day. Out of 97 days we in Tennessee get 7 days of blue ones.Out of the 104 we get 9 days of blue ones.If anything the heat would be trapped in.
Yup, and the blue skies aren’t the natural blue either. Notice they have different types of spray? Dale is a government troll paid to discredit what we see with our own eyes.
Conspiracy theories are not always wrong, but evaluating them requires two criteria. What is the motive? Is there an opportunity? Clearly, the opportunity is existent with “chemtrails”, but what is the motive? This is where your conspiracy theory dies from laughter.
Paid? By whom and why? What is your source?
Dude, pollution is a fact, but it isn’t a secret gubmint plot, it’s being done by your beloved capitalists.
“Ocean freighters add particles to the clouds”, “placing extra particles in the upper atmosphere” – None of this is spoken as future potential applications, they already know what works. Everyone of these climate change believers should be shot, after a treason trial of course.
Yes, shoot all the scientists and 90% of the human race for believing them. And let the fossil fuel innocents alone!
If you listened asshole, you would he is making a statement, not a suggestion. So all this knowledge is from testing the atmosphere in a lab? 98%? Your beliefs are well below 40% of the population. GO TRUMP
For those that care – Aluminum is used in the chemtrails. They will tell you that aluminum is the 3rd most prevalent element on earth. Except Alum is the 3rd most prevalent element, Aluminum is the end product of Alum manufacturing. Aluminum testing ended in the late 80’s and human testing was never done. Aluminum gathers in the bone and brain, this is only known from toxicology testing on cadavers, found in heavy concentrations in the brain from Alzheimer patients. Most of the world already knows aluminum is toxic because they do independent testing unlike in the US where the politicians believe the hired scientists, paid for by the manufacturers and applicators. The feds have known for a long time what they planned to do with aluminum, thats why testing was stopped, so there would be no classification of the toxic man made product. If you think the government is not that nefarious, keep drinking your Fluoride and eating your GMO food laced with Roundup and then wonder why you are sick all the time.
There are no chemtrail according to those who study the atmosphere. Where do you get this bullshit?
Not only was I an A&P mechanic, if you know what that is, but also have a very high aluminum content with no contact. That leaves the environment as the source. And you are an ignorant fool.
You were a maintenance mechanic for a grocery store?
Very funny! I was a T and A mechanic, the source of my expertise.
I was talkin’ to Robby. I don’t know about ‘T’, but he’s certainly an ‘A’.
I admire y9ur work at NASA!
??
No, I am reporting what actual scientists who do the research say: are they ignorant fools or are you ? Working on aircraft engines does not give you the expertise to refute a world atmospheric scientists, all of whom explain the white vapors in the sky as ordinary persistent contrails from the millions of flights each year. Your experience is on the ground and you have done no research to refute the findings of actual atmospheric scientists, tho you obviously think they are all lying. I don’t.
This is not applied science, this is theoretical as the data is not complete and there is no peer review as we are in the state of experimentation and we are the laboratory. These people are not experts and can’t be trusted in caring out their Agenda 21/30 “Final Solution”. The recently proven existence of the alien/military/industrial/complex leads me to accept the rogue state/disposable society as the current reality.
Global warming and the greenhouse effect are both empirical facts.
I’ll buy that as soon as you explain to me how you trained CO2 not to be an endothermic molecule. Quite a trick there, sport.
On September 11th 1991, George H.W. Bush stated that “We have a real chance at a New World Order” and two years later they began spraying us with their “Chemtrails” on a global scale to help dumb down the people for what was to come on September 11th 2001 In Manhattan, NY where they were able to pull off the largest conspiracy since the murder of JFK on November 22nd 1963. September 11th, 2001 was the date that triggered their drive to implement their NWO system and to hold “The People” in check, they created the PATRIOT Act which began their spying on the American public so they could eliminate any “Threat” to their ambitious drive towards a New World Order, and now there is a very real threat that at any time, they could load their aircraft with Chemical or Biological weapons and spray any area where they want to eliminate a large portion of the citizens anywhere in the world and the people, at this point, would NEVER suspect that it was those huge trails in the skies that caused the mass murder of people. We MUST DEMAND the immediate end to this spraying campaign world wide to reduce this very real threat to our existence.
Source?
Reception from the tinfoil hat.
another ignorant fool.
I’m not impressed by boasting.
Jay and Dale must be polishing each others knob. There don’t ever seem to be any comments from either without a “me too” in there somewhere. Is there something you girls want to tell us? I didn’t realize cranial rectal inversion could be a duet.
It is the desire of those who are disrupting our climate, the oligarchs of fossil fuels. to shift both focus and blame to the one agency that can defend our right to a healthy environment: a global consensus organized to end the rule of the dirty fuel billioinaires and replace it with clean, green, and free energy.
The real climate engineering is the result of the oligopoly of fossil fuel producers, the destruction of human health, the ecosystem, and the atmosphere with the resulting catastrophic effects of a rapidly warming climate, floods, droughts, rising sea levels, pollutiion, and horrific storms.
These billionaires want us to believe some nefariouis, unnamed, government forces are trying to change the climate in order to blind us to the disastrous results of their insane desire to add still more billions to their heaps of wealth at the expense of the entire planet.
Wake up! The geoengineering is not a secretive plot but the very visible results of an economic system run by and for the profits of the fossil fuel oligarchs who use a tiny portion of their vast fortunes to promote shape-shifting narratives to distract and confuse us.
We know who is changing the climate and why. Rise up, people and take back the earth from those who would destroy us while persuading us that “someone else” is trying to poison us. Wake up and take back our earth before it is destroyed.
Poppycock. Volcanoes emit more CO2, CO, SO2, CH4 and ash in one day than the human race has emitted in its few industrialized years.
That has been shown to be incorrect
Really. Who did the research?
In April 2014, ExxonMobil released a report publicly acknowledging climate change risk for the first time. This was only 40 years after its own scientists discovered it.
Says who? Give me link. Has to be independently funded and peer reviewed.Come on. I’m waiting!
You have had zero classes in the subject. Here is what scientists say:
” Volcanic emissions are a small but important part of the global carbon cycle. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Mörner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.
The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 34 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes.” https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
Give us your source for the bullshit you are repeating.
Who contributes to science departments at Universities?
Corporations? What is your implied point and assumption?
If Exon-Mobil didn’t fund science research and new buildings at many Universities there wouldn’t be any. If Monsanto didn’t fund genetic research at many agricultural universities and fund new buildings there wouldn’t be any. I have personally spoken with employees of universities and grad students doing the work in both cases who confirm grants and funding of research and facilities. No negative or contrarian reports will ever come out of a university that whores for big business. If you can produce one independently funded, peer reviewed study that confirms any of your bull shit I will kiss your behind. Until then, shut up!
Exactly, anyone can pay anyone to write what they want.
That’s why only peer-reivewed studies can be taken seriously; Young scientists can make their careers by exposing flaws in accepted studies.
When science has been betrayed, whether Hitler or Monsanto,it has always thru peer review self-corrected. No other human enterprise can make this claim.
Those who are dishonest and lie, Robby, think everyone is dishonest and lies.
Those who cheat think everyone cheats.
That is the root of your unwarranted generalization. Scientists make good wages working for public and private universities, corporations, governments with competing interests, and non-profits. Your opinion can be dismissed for lack of both evidence and logic. Why would a well-paid researcher risk his reputation when his entire career is based on solid research? Why would 100% of climate scientists all be sell-outs, betraying their lifelong training and passion for the truth and risking their careers? It makes NO sense, but a a dogma, it supports your cynicism and gullabiity, a sad combination based on fear and ignorance and an arrogant claim to know more than a world of experets from 180 nations.
“Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and conservative think tanks, often in the United States.[19][28][29][30] More than 90% of papers sceptical on climate change originate from right-wing think tanks.[31] The total annual income of these climate change counter-movement-organizations is roughly $900 million.[32] Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (£77 million) was anonymously donated via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund to more than 100 organisations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change.[33] In 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation.[34]
Since the late 1970s, oil companies have published research broadly in line with the standard views on global warming. Despite this, oil companies organized a climate change denial campaign to disseminate public disinformation for several decades, a strategy that has been compared to the organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking by tobacco companies.” Wikipedia with primary sources
“Since the end of our study period, data from the Center for Responsive Politics (which was in turn derived from the Senate Office of Public Records) shows that more than $3.1 billion was spent lobbying on environmental issues from 2009 to 2014A 2013 study found that two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions were produced by only 90 companies,”
” harvardbusinessreiview.org
For example,Exxon discovered that global warming was caused by human activity (mostly burning of fossil fuels) in the 70’s but then funded denial for profit motives:
“From the late 1970s and through the 1980s, Exxon funded internal and university collaborations, broadly in line with the developing public scientific approach. After the 1980s, the company was a leader in climate change denial, opposing regulations to curtail global warming. ExxonMobil funded organizations critical of the Kyoto Protocol and seeking to undermine public opinion about the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition of businesses opposed to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.
Between 2007 and 2015, ExxonMobil gave $1.87 million to Congressional climate change deniers and $454,000 to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ExxonMobil denied funding climate denial.[82] ExxonMobil is a member of ALEC’s “Enterprise Council”, its corporate leadership board.[83]
In 2014 ExxonMobil spent at least $8.08 million lobbying on energy and environment, to the European Commission, and made donations to European universities and organisations.
In April 2014, ExxonMobil released a report publicly acknowledging climate change risk for the first time.” wikipedia
You can trust Exxon because after discovering the human cause of current global warming, they spent tens of millions to deny it, and now, 35 years later, admit global warming is caused by human burning of fossil fuels
Pardon the quotations but facts are facts…and you can check the primary sources if you are till one of those brainwashed by Exxon, the Koch brothers, etc.
Dale I trust this conversation has not left the realm of reason. I have believed in climate change for many years. From personal observation I have independently concluded the climate is changing. My objection to the climate change narrative is that people and organizations with unknown motives and agendas are attempting to accomplish changes that may or may not be appropriate or effective. Climate change has been going on in my personal experience since the 1970s. I believe the causality for that change was unrelated to fossil fuels. It may have been exacerbated over time by fossil fuel production and use, but change was happening before it ever became a “green” issue in my opinion. If change was happening then and change has happened in the past as shown in the fossil records, what is to make me believe man is causing the change today or anything he can do will change it? I lived in Southern California in the 60s and used to see smog roll down the arroyos. That has improved through pollution control initiatives but the climate is still changing. I suppose my major objection to the whole line of argument about climate change is that man is so egocentric as to believe he either causes it or can do anything about it. Worse yet I believe politicians of all stripes will use it to implement agendas that serve no useful humanitarian purpose.
I appreciate your scholarship and position on this matter. Regretfully, I believe neither of us will have a significant impact on the outcome of the debate. The money fossil fuel and industrial polluting corporations put into the political process will in my view have much more sway over the outcome. If I am given the choice to support your approach to the problem versus theirs, I’m right behind you. I apologize for any thoughtless comments I may have made and wish you well.
I can trust your repetition of Exxon/Koch brothers propaganda or the scientists: tough choice.
I trust neither. They are both for sale to the highest bidder.
That is an unwarranted generalization,the fallacy of the broad brush. Scientists, young and old, love to expose flaws in research….it is part of the self-correction of peer review, and you trust science every time to get i a car or plane or use the internet or enter a skyscraper…….
Most scientists I have known are honest andi incorruptible,and the ones who do sell out to corporations are later exposed (as with tobacco or biotech).
If you reject science, all you have left is propaganda and opinion based on the lies of those who profit from rejecting science, such as the fossil fuel oligarchs, who discovered the human cause of global warming and then funded the propaganda to dispute it.
I suggest you take some science classes and interact with some real scientists instead of embracing virulent anti-intellectualism, most likely funded by those who cynically have used anti-science to thwart regulation.
Can you name any enterprise which has corrected its missteps and exposed the frauds as science has? And what is your source that all scientists are sell outs?
What you miss is the motivation of scientists to expose the flaws in the work of their peers…which is why uncontrolled peer-review, both pre and post publication has been so successful in rooting out pseudo science.
Do you think 10,000 climate scientists in 180 nations, all with good salaries, working for governments with competing interests, public and private universities, non-profits, and industry corporations are all corrupt frauds….while believing the bullshit on the internet you are repeating (if you have peer-reviewed research to prove your claims, you would present it…you have opinion based on internet horseshit, to be blunt. Your rejection of science beyond ignorant…it assumes superior knowledge based on zero. Your fear of science is based on ignorance, by which I do not mean to insult but to point out your total lack of qualification to reject the peer-reviewed research of the world’s scientists. I do appreciate your civility but am appalled by your willingness to join the anti-science cult.
One bad apple rots the barrel. Monsanto and the pharmacological industries have bought their perspective sciences. Until real progress is made in rolling back the stifling of scientific research that supports the statistical evidence that is apparent to any critical observer, the scientists are as corrupt as the companies that hire them and fund their research. Causes that demand honest research are abundant. If scientists choose to not address relevant social issues honestly like the impact of Fukushima, vaccines, agri-chemical poisoning and fracking they are as bad as the corporate cronies that cause the problems. Anti-science is not a cult. It is a result of continued exposure to the corruption of science by government, corporations and the media. AND my dear fellow, you have no idea what my exposure to the scholastic community or science is generally or in specific so your telling me I’m ignorant is in fact just that. You presume to be superior on so many subjects without any foundation for doing so except your own opinion and bias. I reject one-sided arguments and rejection of alternate view points. Your ad hominem rants are very tiresome and I do not have to be lumbered with them. It appears you gain some meaning from arguing with other people and explaining their faults, so I shall dispense with giving you that forthwith in so much as I am concerned. Adieu.
The science community is not a barrel of apples but a combative group of scientists with motivation to find fault with each other’s work. That is why peer-review works. Here is an example of how Monsanto’s attempts to buy “friendly” research is backfiring. It is the scientific research of others who are not “friendly” that has turned tables and has Monsanto running to merge with others and seeking greener fields to pollute in the 3d world.
“A district judge in the state of Yucatán last month overturned a permit issued to Monsanto by Mexico’s agriculture ministry, Sagarpa, and environmental protection agency, Semarnat, in June 2012 that allowed commercial planting of Roundup-ready soybeans.
The permit authorised Monsanto to plant its seeds in seven states, over more than 253,000 hectares (625,000 acres),
In withdrawing the permit, the judge was convinced by the scientific evidence presented about the threats posed by GM soy crops to honey production in the Yucatán peninsula, which includes Campeche, Quintana Roo and Yucatán states. Co-existence between honey production and GM soybeans is not possible, the judge ruled.”
Thus perversions of science are corrected thru peer review, and this has been the case for several hundred years. Another good example is the way that the IARC, with 18 experts from 11 nations, ruled Monsanto’s glyphosate a “likely carcinogenic.” This shows how your blanket rejection of science is unwarranted.
I am not superior and that is why with a skeptical mind but rejecting your cynical denunciations, I turn to scientists in subjects in which I am not an expert.
You do not say what your scientific background is to condemn the world’s scientists, I note. I find you defense of anti-science based on ignorance, and if you have anything to support it, now is the time to put up or shut up.
Quoting a government agency, along with the “scientists” they pay to write reports, involved in the program is ignorant. Maybe climate change believers should volunteer to pay the heavy tax and the deniers can find a place where THEY DON’T SPRAY THE FUCK OUT OF OUR SKIES.
Volcanoes emit NO CH4. Ever.
Methane gas? Really? Tell me you’ve sampled all of the volcanoes on the planet. How do you know?
At the temperatures of a volcano and in the presence of oxygen methane cannot exist for more than a fraction of a second, AND there are no organic processes to create it in the first place. Magma is very carbon-poor. But I can see why climate deniers think the way they do. So tell me, is ignorance really bliss?
Sure is. Man made climate change is about as blissful as it gets. Like ants making it rain at a picnic. I don’t deny climate change, just stupid people thinking they cause it.
“he burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 34 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.”nn skeptical science
Where did get your ph;d in climate science to call all climate scientists “stupid.” Arrogance plus ignorance produces the most lethal gases!
your full of shit.
Did you mean ‘you’re’, Mr. Scholar?
No. He means you’re full of shit!
My full of shit? Another scholar bites the big one.
Me thinks you protest too much.
“You thinks” is an exagerration if there ever was one.
Great one-liner. Very pithy. Your IQ is up to “trainable”.
Pith on you.
Ok,I forgot, where did you get your ph.d in climate science?
Don’t confuse mockery with protest.
I asked where he studied climate science and he said at the University of Full of
Shit. At last, an honest answer!
Where is the University of your (sic) full of shit, Robby?
Let me explain some metabolic facts to you, sonny. Urine idiot.
Yeah. You’re right. I tend to object when people try to piss on me and then tell me it’s raining.
It ain’t raining, guaranteed. Pull your head out of your ass and take a look.
I guarantee it’s not raining. Pull your head out and take a look.
Government troll, pay no mind. He doesn’t believe what his eyes see.
I troll for no one. Who is paying YOU to call out independent and evidence-based comment?
Factually incorrect.
Human activity has NO effect on climate. The sun is the only driver.
From worldenergy . org :
Solar energy is the most abundant permanent energy resource on earth and it is available for use in its direct solar radiation….
The sun emits energy at a rate of 3.8×1023 kW per second.
About 60% of this amount or 1.08×1014 reaches the surface of the earth. The rest is reflected back into space and absorbed by the atmosphere. Even if only 0.1% of this energy could be converted at an efficiency of only 10% it would be four times the world’s total generating capacity of about 3 000 GW. Looking at it another way, the total annual solar radiation falling on the earth is more than 7 500 times the world’s total annual primary energy consumption of 450 EJ.
The solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface in just one year, approximately 3 400 000 EJ, is an order of magnitude greater than all the estimated (discovered and undiscovered) non-renewable energy resources, including fossil fuels and nuclear.
.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9cb9621062c91d270301dd01bd330d55d09959f52c063ae2efd144429751f79e.png
Where did you study climate science to refute the findings of the world;s climate scientists from 180 nations; There are many potential drivers of coimate incuding solar, volcanic, and burning of fossil fuels and large scale release of methane in fracking and meat production and as part of the feedback loop of melting glaciers and icecaps, according to scientists who devote their lives to studiying climate.
The skeptical science analysis of pro and con concludes: “To put things into perspective, the ACRIM vs PMOD debate is essentially arguing over whether the sun is showing a slight upwards trend or a slight downwards trend or if there’s even a trend at all. This only underscores the sharp breakdown in correlation between sun and climate since temperatures started rising in the mid 1970’s.”
The sun’s known activity cannot explain the unprecedented and sudden rise in termperature no matter which side of that debate you take.
seeker.com reports on a study that finds the error (peer review always corrects the errors of scientists) that claimed increased solar activity:
“. The solar explanation for global warming is refuted by a new study just presented at the International Astronomical Union’s annual assembly in Hawaii, which fixes a discrepancy among historical records of sunspots.
The apparent upward trend of solar activity between the 18th century and the late 20th century has now been identified as a major calibration error in the Group Sunspot Number, one of the two systems for counting sunspot activity historically. (The other is the Wolf Sunspot Number.)
But now that the error has been fixed, scientists say that solar activity actually has remained relatively stable since the 1700s. That means that although fluctuations in solar weather can influence climate over shorter periods, the long-term trend is being caused by something else.”
So with the sun and volcanic activity unable to explain the sudden increase in temperature, that leaves the only logical cause to be the burning of fossil fuels and the methane increased by fracking, meat production, and the feedback loop of melting ice.
WHEN will you start using your own brain, fearful child ?
.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2216dc70818ebe87fb11a33d0cd0ed5dc5beafa72a91945f2190cc64e4c48938.jpg
At 76, with a world class education, and author of over 300 articles this year with half a million readers, I find your resort to childish insults amusing. Now take the opportunity to insult me for my age, dear friend. Thanks for the chuckles. I suspect you will have a new round of insults….as a substitute for rational and civil discourse. Very funny, thank you.
Then it’s too late for your brain to correct itself, dear friend !
.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ae8f48361ef19f967b02f1331f16962a9f16d90630a3701c9f1b2cff4659a82f.jpg
worldenergy, a part of the UN agency that promotes sustainable energy like solar and wind says no such thing but rather that all our energy, from fossil fuels to solar to wind comes from the sun.
So if the sun declines in solar activity, but we extract more ad more preserved energy in the form of fossil fuels, we can heat up the earth….using “frozen” energy….you have completely misunderstood, which is puzzling with your vast education in climate science. We are heating the earth today not directly from the sun but from burning preserved solar energy in the form of coal and oil and gas. You really need to study the science: a little knowledge (when it assumes it knows better than those with much) is a dangerous and foolish thing, my friend..
Solar energy is not the same as solar activity. Wake up! The sun has been relatively quiet while the earth heats up due to using energy preserved in fossils and as gas. Worldenergy works to transition the human tribe to sustainable energy just for that reason. You are an uneducated repeater of internet pseudo-science. I suggest you read the reports of worldenergy and take a class in cliimite science so you will finally understand that the earth is heating up despite a quiet sun and volcanic activity due to 8 billion people and 1 billion vehicles and hundreds of millions of livestock emitting unprecedented greenhouse gases. There is indeed enough solar energy in just the Western US to fuel th entire world, without the dirty and destructive burning of fossil fuels: that is the message of the UN
World Energy Counsel.
Although climate change is BS and we all know it, it has its uses. If I get you to argue about climate change/global warming, you will ignore that the real rat in the wood pile is control of the internet. With the US capitulation to ICANN of control of the internet, the globalists can take control of the only information source we have that disputes their doctored data. Forget climate change it will only cost you money in carbon taxes if implemented. Control of the internet will strangle our access to information and communication of truths that dispute the twaddle-pushers. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtail.
The Great and Wonderful Oz.
So you, who has had zero classes in climate science, are able to dismiss the work of over 10,000 actul researchers from 180 countries. Arrogance plus ignorance is behind most disasters.
I stand pat.
You stand an epic fail.
Here’s a question. What do you think is more troubling?
The unintended consequence of accumulated global pollution w.r.t. weather related disasters and related problems?
or
The consequences (both unintended and intended) of deliberate attempts to directly and immediately impact atmosphere in order to combat a phenomenon whose fallout we are still being continuously surprised by?
I say pick the low hanging fruit first. In this case the one where we are mucking about with forces we do not understand but come with enormous human cost. THEN we can move on to addressing reducing our carbon output which is both a more complex problem and a simpler one. More complex because of lack of understanding and simpler because there are numerous small scale effective actions that can be taken but haven’t because they were intended to reduce our human footprint and not become cash cows for corrupt politicians. We absolutely need to change our behavior to protect our planet but pseudo environmentalism is one of the greatest sins in recent times and has set back real environmentalism activism by decades. Pseudo environmentalism is not only ineffective, a waste of time, costly, and a distraction it also sabotages real solutions by clogging up the pipelines with their hocus pocus when something concrete could have been materialized.
Finally, a voice of sanity. I’ll do any environmental activity that doesn’t line someones pocket or empower incompetents.
So you will continue to subsidize dirty energy oligarchs because “science is bullshit?”
I say deal with all known causes of pollution, including C02 and methane emissions now.
Climate science and policy to reduce the disruptions of increased fossil fuel and methane emissions are hardly pseudo-science. I will answer your question when you tell me where you studied climate science to find it was bogus? I suspect you will not answer because clearly you have not had ONE class in climate science…..and are repeating the propaganda of the profit-driven dirty energy oligarchs who have funded the anti-science campaign you have swallowed.
By denouncing climate scientists, we permit the fossil fuel and meat industries to continue to profit by shifting real costs of the damage caused to us, the victims.
The World Bank study estimates the public subsidy worldwide of fossil fuels is 5 trillion a year: the victims of dirty energy pay for the privilege of having their health and environment destroyed…….wake up, friend.
Well I’m sorry to inform you but I have taken a few climate science courses and I still stand behind my earlier statements. Sure I would love to be able to address pollution, conservation, sustainability, renewable energy, new technology, alternative sources of energy, even that idiotic thing called biofuels. If I could acquire all of them then why the hell not? Unfortunately that’s not how the real world works and I can only devote a limited amount of energy and time pursuing specific strategies. As a result I am not take kindly to profiteering and cronyism that has beset the environmental movement. I’ll bet you are one of those environmentalist that consider nuclear power to be “green energy” because its not oil. Its quacks like the nuclear industry, FAA, Sierra Club, and Al Gore that have ruined what should have been a united effort to address the single greatest threat to our species. Your people deliberately hijacked authentic cause drove out its original members and labeled them domestic terrorists then sabotaged all open actions in order to redirect all energy into “fundraising” and lobbying on the behalf of corporate polluters. You push through scam after scams like Cap and Trade or blended fuel or NextGen ignore criticism and proudly declare it to be a success. Fuck pseudo environmentalists and “green” fakery. Climate change should have been a undeniable and a serious wake up call but because of your shennanigans and greed look what has happened. Delay after delay wasting money on the absolutely stupidest ideas despite the fact that this nonsense based on fake data is why more people question the seriousness of this problem – just so a few disingenuous fucks can line their pockets with cash. Unbelievable! I abhor fake environmentalists even more so than corporate polluters because in the end they are far more damage than anyone else. Why don’t you go hit up James Conca over at Forbes and maybe you can come up with another envionrmentally friendly scheme at the expense the human race.
are these the ‘weather related’ scientists, who are under the gag order, so that they can speak only ‘certain things’…??? How much of what they now say, is true, at all, assuming that gag order?
Even if I were to make a HUGE leap and ASSUME that benefits from geoengineering are real and a specific method has been identified that reliably achieves these results. You still would require pulling off the operation flawlessly because the numerous complex ongoing interactions involved mean that the slightest deviation could yield dramatically differing results. We as a species can barely manage to work with the technology we’ve got. Do you really think it is wise to toy with something as explosively volatile as geoengineering? If anything the only one surety w.r.t. geoengineering is that we WILL fail. There will be consequences of that failure. There can be no doubt about that.
Yes, the ‘elite and lieberals have found their antidote to resistance to their tyrannical rule using global warming as an excuse to get their feet in your door.
DO NOT fall for this tactic.
Not only is it phony, they don’t even support the idea themselves. If it so urgent then why does their lead Emperor Al Gore not turn off his lights at his mansion, keeps his SUV running so he can enter a cold car after giving a speech, flies in a private jet spewing tons of carbon all over the world.
No, this is about something else and that something else is putting a BOOT on your neck and stomping on it. These are violent SEDITIOUS people. Always want to overthrow something and that something is YOU!
This is political theater of the first order. Discuss the possibility of geoengineering? Any fool who can look up at the sky knows the reality has been in place for decades. I guess the powers-that-should-not-be figure it’s time to reveal to us peons all the secret “good” they’ve been doing for us and the planet. Or maybe they’re just thumbing their noses at us since they figure we’re now too brainwashed and pathetically weak to do anything about it.
All of this reminds me of an old episode of Outer Limits where aliens were trying to change earth, (terraform was the word used) to make the planet more suitable for their species.
Sometimes I get the feeling that a lot of these ideas that are being made into experiments are cheap derivatives plucked straight from various pulp science fiction novels. The sad part is that our reality is turning out to be worse than the deep creative imagination of angry depressed alcoholic bankrupt science fiction authors’ idea of what a post apocalyptic future might be. I find that to be very very very depressing.
One of my favorite examples of this is one of the earlier episodes of Batman the Animated Series before Robin and Superman and other superfluous characters were added into the mix. In the this episode Joker poisons the water causing all fish that are caught to bear his sickening grin. He then goes to the patent office and demands payment for royalties since they all bear his likeness. The patent guy meekly tells him (I’m paraphrasing here), “We can’t copyright life” which leads to Joker making ultimatums and slowly killing his way to the top. That one sentence “We can’t copyright life” stuck with me for 2 decades to today’s reality where one patent for a bacteria that helps decompose a petroleum byproduct (or sludge I think) opens the floodgates to Good God I don’t even know what to call the insanity that we have going on in agriculture, genetics, chemical and bioengineering. Monsanto making seedless monocrops then extorting payment from the farms they contaminate, Monsanto again making weedkiller and pesticide that decimate everything except for ones they designed to be unaffected, labs experimenting with human animal hybrids, people talking about customizing your baby, accident prone genetically engineering salmon that if 60 are released in to the wild would mean the decimation and extinction of hundreds of varieties of this ancient species that has been carefully diversified over thousands of years, suicidal mosquitoes carrying a pathogen that would make females infertile according to their questionable data, people talking about a future with designer genes – Eyebrows from Ralph Lauren. This is insanity. Even Joker wasn’t that crazy. He probably couldn’t even begin to imagine the sort of crazy these yahoos are messing about with. We are talking about super hero cartoon level villainy degree of crazy and yet reality just blew Joker out of the water.
Hey AP. Why do you delete comments that impugn corporations that fund research
at universities? The bias in the academic community created by this money bears directly on the dialogue you pretend to support. Are you secretly supported by agencies who have a dog in this fight?
They are lying to us all at every turn.
The Earth is flat.
Research flat earth, the truth will set you free.
Another way to tax the commoner.
Research Flat Earth.
$500 USD to anyone that can prove the curve.
One of the main reasons to doubt anthropogenic climate change is that the same people who are trying to convince us of it are also promoting the immigration of the third world into first world (white) countries. And that is the very worst thing that could possibly happen if you actually believe that man is creating climate changes. The absolute worst! So, either they don’t believe it themselves, or they don’t give a crap what the future holds. So they’re liars or they’re evil. Well, they’re both.