Jim, What are you attempting to imply by sending out something under the heading: Bill Gates and world's top Geoengineers collaborate on patents<http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=searete> : *Hurricane Protection for Cash*! 1. Is your implication that Bill Gates sees geoengineering as an easy way to pick up a little extra cash, and that he is acting out of self interest? Do you really believe this?
2. A headline like this implicitly questions motivations. Is there a chance that Bill Gates is consistent in trying to explore ways to reduce suffering and improve well-being, especially among the poorest in the world and that this might be a primary motivation for his work in this area? 3. Exactly who are you referring to as "world's top Geoengineers"? As far as I know it, nobody in the world is engaged in geoengineering. Would you say "the worlds top tennis players" if nobody ever played tennis? There could still be tennis researchers, but a tennis researcher is a far cry from a tennis player. 4. When you send out a post with a headline like this, what are your motivations? I see two main possibilities: (i) Your intent is to give people false impressions, so as to advance a political position you hold; (ii) Your intent is to give people accurate impressions; you actually believe that the headline gives an accurate impression of both Bill Gates's motivations and the character of the people he has worked with, and that the false impression given is thus a consequence of your false beliefs. So the question is: Are misleading intentionally, or are you misleading inadvertently? Best, Ken On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 11:35 PM, John Latham < john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > Jim, > > There is much that I agree with you about, and I find it frustrating that > what could perhaps be construed by some as shrillness on your part > produces an alienation which prohibits your receiving the support > that you deserve. > > You say, for example:- > > Technology" and control the direction of cloud systems. Whether their > claims are > true or not, the claim alone should be enough to turn some heads, yet few > believe their > is a credible interaction between electromagnetic energy and weather. > > I agree. In my opinion it is probably nonsense, and you are right to draw > attention to this. > > But you also seem to condemn studies of the possible weakening of > hurricanes via marine > cloud brightening (MCB), by cooling the associated oceanic surface waters > and thereby reducing > the strength of hurricanes developing in those regions? > > Would it be a bad mistake to examine the possibility of cooling oceanic > surface waters in such > regions via the downwelling idea, or via MCB? > > Or preventing the bleaching of coral reefs? > > The geo-engineers [terrible word] that I know ask only to be able to test > possibly helpful ideas, > that hopefully would never have to be considered for deployment. > > In my perverted view, there is little virtue in doing nothing and dying – > with many others – > with a clear conscience. We have been engaging in geo-engineering for over > 200 years now, > albeit inadvertently. The possible consequences are terrible. Isn’t it > acceptable to try to > remedy, as far as possible, the damage that we have caused? > > Best Wishes, John. > > > > John Latham > Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 > Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk > Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 > or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 > http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham > ________________________________________ > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] > on behalf of Jim Lee [rez...@gmail.com] > Sent: 11 August 2013 00:10 > To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Cc: rez...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics & Politics > of Geoengineering > > If the intention is to reduce global temperature, why do you refer to it > as local climate? > Do you consider reduced rainfall as a result of geoengineering SRM weather > control or an unintended side-effect< > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/geoengineering/ipdLpbnXHeU/tAXDtadrNR0J > >? > Do you consider creation of artificial clouds< > http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada539515> weather control or > climate modification? > Those are just words< > http://climateviewer.com/public-relations-fear-mind-control.html>. > > Geoengineering SRM and weather modification are interchangeable: > > Bill Gates and world's top Geoengineers collaborate on patents< > http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=searete>: Hurricane Protection for > Cash! > > * January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090173386< > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0173386.html> • Water alteration > structure applications and methods > * January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090173404< > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0173404.html> • Water alteration > structure and system > * January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090175685< > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0175685.html> • Water alteration > structure movement method and system > * January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090177569< > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0177569.html> • Water alteration > structure risk management or ecological alteration management systems and > methods > * January 30, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090173801< > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0173801.html> • Water alteration > structure and system having below surface valves or wave reflectors > * February 6-7, 2008 • Department of Homeland Security's Hurricane > Modification Workshop< > http://rezn8d.net/2013/04/16/cloud-seeding-from-pluviculture-to-hurricane-hacking/ > > > * April 21, 2008 • Weather Modification Association Conference “New > Unconventional Concepts and Legal Ramifications< > https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/session_21926.htm>” > * Atmospheric heating as a research tool< > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylTQj2qX1ZM> > * On Engineering Hurricanes - William Cotton< > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIIFvTdqcA4> > * Reducing hurricane intensity using upwelling pumps< > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlnR_GMNIGA> > * May 29, 2009 • US Patent Application 20100300560< > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2010/0300560.html> • Water alteration > structure and system having heat transfer conduit > * May 29, 2009 • United States Patent 8348550< > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8348550.html> • Water alteration > structure and system having heat transfer conduit > [Bill Gates - Hurricane steering and protection patent]< > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0177569.html> > * Assigned to: The Invention Science Fund I, LLC< > http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/nathan-myhrvold-net-worth/ > > > * Bowers, Jeffrey A. (Kirkland, WA, US) > * Caldeira, Kenneth G.< > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/geoengineering/authorname$3A%22Ken$20Caldeira%22> > (Campbell, CA, US) > * Chan, Alistair K. (Stillwater, MN, US) > * Gates III, William H.<http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html> > (Redmond, WA, US) > * Hyde, Roderick A. (Redmond, WA, US) > * Ishikawa, Muriel Y. (Livermore, CA, US) > * Kare, Jordin T. (Seattle, WA, US) > * Latham, John< > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/geoengineering/authorname$3A%22John$20Latham%22> > (Boulder, CO, US) > * Myhrvold, Nathan P.< > http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/nathan-myhrvold-net-worth/> > (Medina, WA, US) > * Salter, Stephen H.< > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/geoengineering/authorname$3A%22Stephen$20Salter%22> > (Edinburgh, GB) > * Tegreene, Clarence T. (Bellevue, WA, US) > * Wattenburg, Willard H. (Walnut Creek, CA, US) > * Wood Jr., Lowell L. (Bellevue, WA, US) > * Wood, Victoria Y. H. (Livermore, CA, US) > * July 28, 2009 • US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and > Transportation hearing “Weathering the Storm: The Need for a National > Hurricane Initiative< > http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg54496/pdf/CHRG-111shrg54496.pdf>” > * July 29, 2009 • NOAA Says No to DHS Hurricane Modification< > http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/08/noaa_officially_rebuffs_dhs_hu.html> > • NOAA Letter< > http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/noaa_letter_dhs_hurricane_modification.pdf > > > * May 10, 2010 • Weather Modification Association Conference > “Hurricane Aerosol and Microphysics Program (HAMP)< > https://ams.confex.com/ams/29Hurricanes/techprogram/session_24276.htm>” > > Learn more on ClimateViewer's Weather Control Timeline< > http://climateviewer.com/weather-control.html> > > Also see: Weakening of hurricanes via marine cloud brightening (MCB) – > Silver Lining Project< > http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Hurricanes/Hurricane%20reduction%20by%20cloud.pdf > > > > I suppose a dual purpose sea-spraying sun-blocking hurricane-mitigating > boat really blurs the lines between geoengineering and weather > modification, wouldn't you say? > > ~ Jim Lee > http://climateviewer.com/ > > > On Saturday, August 10, 2013 10:18:02 AM UTC-4, Gene wrote: > The goal is not weather modification or anything to do with weather but to > alter/control slightly the average, local, long term temperature i.e. local > climate modification not weather control. Hence your comments on > controlling weather offer no insight into a totally different issue. > Limited control of solar transmission through the local atmosphere may be > an adequate objective and may be viable on a local basis. In particular > local governance replaces a universal solution and minimizes the politics. > > ________________________________ > From: "Jim Lee" <rez...@gmail.com> > To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com > Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 10:21:27 PM > Subject: [geo] Re: Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics & Politics of > Geoengineering > > As you could clearly see, my video comment was in response to a "low > information voter" and I agree with Mick's response. > > Geoengineering seeks to do globally what cloud seeders claim to do > locally: control the weather. We lack the knowledge/ability to control > rain after 60 years of cloud seeding, no scientific body recognizes cloud > seeding as solid science, and the geoengineering SRM gang seems to think > that in a relatively short time they can master their art and deploy. I > can't see how. > > Currently, many different countries are modifying their skies, and there > is little accountability or transparency. > > When Meteo Systems Weathertec claimed to create rain in the Abu Dhabi > desert using ion generators< > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1343470/Have-scientists-discovered-create-downpours-desert.html>, > the WMO's expert team on weather modification< > http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WMR_documents.final_27_April_1.FINAL.pdf> > had a meeting and issued the following condemnation: > > > > “It should be realised that the energy involved in weather systems is so > large that it is impossible to create cloud systems that rain, alter wind > patterns to bring water vapour into a region, or completely eliminate > severe weather phenomena. Weather Modification technologies that claim to > achieve such large scale or dramatic effects do not have a sound scientific > basis (e.g. hail canons, ionization methods) and should be treated with > suspicion. > > Purposeful augmentation of precipitation, reduction of hail damage, > dispersion of fog and other types of cloud and storm modifications by cloud > seeding are developing technologies which are still striving to achieve a > sound scientific foundation.” > > The same is true for geoengineering SRM. Too large, too many variables: > treat with suspicion. > > Nonetheless, weather modification using ionization methods continue: > > > [X]< > http://r3zn8d.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/aquiess-sciblue-april-july-2012-cloud-ionizers-end-texas-drought.png > > > > Aquiess and Sciblue are claiming to move tropospheric rivers using > "Weather Resonance Technology" and control the direction of cloud systems. > Whether their claims are true or not, the claim alone should be enough to > turn some heads, yet few believe their is a credible interaction between > electromagnetic energy and weather. > > How many other companies/countries have their hand in the cookie jar? > > My stance: > > ClimateViewer Position Statement, aka the “Clarity Clause” > > We intend to push for greater transparency in the world of climate > engineering. > > [Terraforming Incorporated, How do you like your weather?] > > 1. Create a “multilateral registry of cloud seeding, geoengineering, > and atmospheric experimentation events with information and data collection > on key characteristics” [1]< > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/10011310.htm > >. > 2. Create a publicly available multilateral registry website, with > hourly updates on atmospheric activities. > 3. Require nations/states/persons to notify the multilateral registry > (at least) 24 hours prior to initiation of atmospheric > experimentation/modification to ensure public notice, and liability should > said experimentation/modification cause monetary, environmental, or > physical losses. > > Jim Lee<http://www.facebook.com/rezn8d> > > > ~ Jim > http://climateviewer.com/ > > > On Friday, August 9, 2013 5:12:21 PM UTC-4, Michael Hayes wrote: > Thanks Mick, > > Yes, the "Ban" thing is becoming something of an urban legend. Here is how > I would deconstruct the key thinking: "in the absence of science based > (science would not be absent), global (global what? Political, science, > media talking heads, The Colbert Nation?), transparent and effective > control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering (We currently have > 'reasonable knowability' of the combined human affect on our large climate > systems and BD. The AGU just confirmed this view. Thus, we are currently, > actively and knowingly geoengineering the planet. Once 'reasonable > knowability' is established, the word 'intentional' becomes legally, > morally and ethically moot...That truly is an "inconvenient truth"!), and > in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the > Convention (This is contradictory to Article 15 of the Rio Declaration< > http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-7.html>), that no climate-related > geo-engineering activities 76< > http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=12299#cop-10-dec-33-fn76> > that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate > scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate > consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity > and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of > small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a > controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only > if they are justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and > are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the > environment;" Article 15 must take priority. Or, the mindless adherance to > Article 14 becomes a suicide pact. No person, orginization or species > should be subjected to such logic. > > Any thoughts? > > Michael > > On Friday, August 9, 2013 8:31:44 AM UTC-7, Jim Lee wrote: > Now on YouTube: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT6YgF_Sams > > Enjoy =) > <3 u Clive > > Jim Lee > http://climateviewer.com/geoengineering-weather-control.html > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
