Sweeping Climate Change Under a Rug (sponsored by Bill Gates)

Tpcl20

Bill Gates is planning on blocking the sun with a plume of chalk dust.

This may wreak havoc with natural weather patterns and cause worldwide disasters.

How is it allowed to happen, please can somebody explain this to me?





(not)

suicide_circus

Seems like something that could produce unintended consequences

Tpcl20

Absolutely.

So why are Sweden allowing him to do it?

Pa ElGrande

Tpcl20 wrote: »

Absolutely.

So why are Sweden allowing him to do it?

Gates is a man with a not very transparent tax efficient foundation, he is not a medical doctor, he is not a scientist on climate, and he never wrote the program DOS that made Microsoft - he bought it for peanuts.

He is not the person intending to spread lime over the forest in Sweden, some people still use that stuff in this country to whitewash their houses. Have you read his book? It's a case of the left hand doing one thing while the right hand does another. When the billionaires are aligned it is not to their disadvantage, this is nothing more than a massive wealth redistribution scheme from poor to rich, they have discovered that margin is locked in their investments (i.e. they think they can't lose) when governments create the rules underwritten by captive populations. Follow the money, Irish farmers may want to keep an eye out, for sock puppet organisations calling for meat to be banned when their sponsors investments coincide with just such an outcome.

kildare lad

suicide_circus wrote: »

Seems like something that could produce unintended consequences

Could it be any worse than what we're already doing with over fishing , deforestation , fracking , overpopulation , fossil fuels etc

silverharp

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Gates is a man with a not very transparent tax efficient foundation, he is not a medical doctor, he is not a scientist on climate, and he never wrote the program DOS that made Microsoft - he bought it for peanuts.

He is not the person intending to spread lime over the forest in Sweden, some people still use that stuff in this country to whitewash their houses. Have you read his book? It's a case of the left hand doing one thing while the right hand does another. When the billionaires are aligned it is not to their disadvantage, this is nothing more than a massive wealth redistribution scheme from poor to rich, they have discovered that margin is locked in their investments (i.e. they think they can't lose) when governments create the rules underwritten by captive populations. Follow the money, Irish farmers may want to keep an eye out, for sock puppet organisations calling for meat to be banned when their sponsors investments coincide with just such an outcome.

generally I'd say dont bet against Gates, if he decides to do a deep dive on a particular medical issue, very quickly he would be more informed than your local GP
that being said I dont like his anti meat position but he has a decent position on new nuclear tech (gen 4) which eventually should calm the tits of the doomer crowd.

Pa ElGrande

silverharp wrote: »

generally I'd say dont bet against Gates, if he decides to do a deep dive on a particular medical issue, very quickly he would be more informed than your local GP
that being said I dont like his anti meat position but he has a decent position on new nuclear tech (gen 4) which eventually should calm the tits of the doomer crowd.

Your local GP often gets their updates from the drug company sales reps so quite probably he can get the best advice money can buy, that does not mean he understands the technical aspects of the situation. I think his knowledge is more that of a CEO, where he gets to pick from a menu of different options laid out in front of him.

I've no objection to them putting their money where their mouth is. My objection is financial risk of their decisions is underwritten by taxpayers and consumers using laws that are mandated by ministers using their government office at the behest of lobby groups and NGOs that have been financed by the same billionaires.

These various schemes are driving prices higher, perhaps realising the problems caused by random energy, the EU considers labelling gas as sustainable in investor rule book, and with lots of snouts in the trough, cui bono?

The political forces looking to spend the climate trillions and the academia segment supplying the fear want to scrub the climate debate of anything but the scariest scenarios. They want an unwavering allegiance to vigorous spending on climate policy, no matter its effectiveness.

They insist on treating this issue as a moral binary choice instead of a realistic balancing of costs and effectiveness which would allow for our many other challenges to be heard as well.

source

LessOutragePlz

This video is well worth a watch if you want to find out about the harm that Bill Gates is doing to ordinary people. I hate the fact that an unelected person can wield so much power and influence. Such are the times I suppose with many companies being bigger than the economies of some small countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNM833K22LM

LessOutragePlz

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

This video is well worth a watch if you want to find out about the harm that Bill Gates is doing to ordinary people. I hate the fact that an unelected person can wield so much power and influence. Such are the times I suppose with many companies being bigger than the economies of some small countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNM833K22LM

10,000 farmers killed themselves last year due to this!!! TEN THOUSAND!!
You don't read about that again because these guys have the press.

shtpEdthePlum

Any time I bring up the evil stuff Bill Gates is doing with family or friends they're all completely brainwashed by that documentary about how smart and great he is, and how he's trying to bring toilets and sanitation to developing world countries.

If he's so great and smart and rich, why hasn't he managed it? Also it's not like anyone that wealthy would ever just hire a PR team to make him look really magnanimous and benevolent.

LessOutragePlz

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

Any time I bring up the evil stuff Bill Gates is doing with family or friends they're all completely brainwashed by that documentary about how smart and great he is, and how he's trying to bring toilets and sanitation to developing world countries.

If he's so great and smart and rich, why hasn't he managed it? Also it's not like anyone that wealthy would ever just hire a PR team to make him look really magnanimous and benevolent.

Unfortunately it's all too easy these days to label truth as a conspiracy theory and kill the legitimate discussion about a person or a topic.

Apoapsis Rex

We are going to have to build more coal factories to offset the loss in solar energy from this.

Pa ElGrande

Apoapsis Rex wrote: »

We are going to have to build more coal factories to offset the loss in solar energy from this.

No worries. The coal will be used for the wonderful hydrogen economy, one problem is the di-hydrogen monoxide it emits when it burns.

shtpEdthePlum

rusty cole wrote: »

10,000 farmers killed themselves last year due to this!!! TEN THOUSAND!!
You don't read about that again because these guys have the press.

More room for Gates' "Impossible" foods.

I have nothing against lab grown meat but I really don't want farmers to be competely replaced by the likes of Monsanto and those dickheads.

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

No worries. The coal will be used for the wonderful hydrogen economy, one problem is the di-hydrogen monoxide it emits when it burns.

While gasification removes impurities from the coal and creates a cleaner-burning fuel, that process consumes power as well. IGCC plants with carbon capture capabilities consume 20-30% more coal to make a kilowatt hour of electricity than traditional coal plants.

Also we can do this without blocking out the sun.

TheValeyard

Ah right. This seems like the prequel to Snowpiercer

shtpEdthePlum

He wants to depopulate the world, kind of understandably, given the extent of human overpopulation.

Step 1
Sow fear and hysteria about climate change

Step 2
Populations will push governments to act, regardless of effectiveness/consequences

Step 3
Public acceptance of risky geoengineering and governments absolve dodgy funders of blame (CITA)

Step 4
Eject chalk in front of the sun

Step 5
Planet is uninhabitable

Population decrease achieved.

Pa ElGrande

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Gates is a man with a not very transparent tax efficient foundation, he is not a medical doctor, he is not a scientist on climate, and he never wrote the program DOS that made Microsoft - he bought it for peanuts.

He is not the person intending to spread lime over the forest in Sweden, some people still use that stuff in this country to whitewash their houses. Have you read his book? It's a case of the left hand doing one thing while the right hand does another. When the billionaires are aligned it is not to their disadvantage, this is nothing more than a massive wealth redistribution scheme from poor to rich, they have discovered that margin is locked in their investments (i.e. they think they can't lose) when governments create the rules underwritten by captive populations. Follow the money, Irish farmers may want to keep an eye out, for sock puppet organisations calling for meat to be banned when their sponsors investments coincide with just such an outcome.

I have read his book. Most of it is saner than that rant.

shtpEdthePlum

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

He wants to depopulate the world, kind of understandably, given the extent of human overpopulation.

No he doesn’t.

Step 1
Sow fear and hysteria about climate change

Gates isn’t a climate scientist. He’s just aware of the facts.

Step 2
Populations will push governments to act, regardless of effectiveness/consequences

You’d hope the public would urge governments to act. But not without regard to consequences.

Step 3
Public acceptance of risky geoengineering and governments absolve dodgy funders of blame (CITA)

Step 4
Eject chalk in front of the sun

The public has hardly accepted this yet.

Step 5
Planet is uninhabitable

Population decrease achieved.

That’s quite the leap. I have no idea if this would work but if it reduces the world temperature by 1c then it gives us time.

micosoft

This thread has more strawmen than the wickerman. Might be helpful to have a discussion on what Gates has actually said rather than disingenious Youtube/Facebook conspiracy theories.

shtpEdthePlum

I just found this article when I was looking for the potential consequences of the chalkening.

The public's sense of urgency about climate change, Holdren said, is growing rapidly as climate-related weather events multiply. Demographics show that young voters "are particularly alarmed and are shifting political reality in a way elected officials can't long ignore."

What he called the "gross inadequacy" of CO2 reduction efforts will trigger what he predicted is a "frantic reach for additional measures."

"When some reach for geoengineering, as they almost certainly will," he predicted, "we'd better be ready with insights

That's basically exactly what I said except framed as though it's somehow positive, and justification for this dangerous experiment.

form of insurance originally designed to protect farmers against crop losses could be modified to create financial "risk pools" that give smaller nations some compensation for damage from uneven results of such tests, if they do occur

Not if CITA passes. Which it has in most countries already.

there has been relatively little formal research — and even less financial support — on the subject because it's "taboo," Keith said. He added that he believes the international focus should be on cleaning up the climate "mess" created by CO2 emissions since the industrial age. He said that solar engineering might be a helpful and perhaps vital supplement if efforts fall short of global targets on emissions.

It really feels like "cleaning up the climate mess" is just a polite way of saying "eradicating humans".

Maybe Gates is a robot and this is the ducking Matrix.

Elon Musk is definitely a robot and he seems to think we live in a simulation, while getting paid by governments to start blasting heaps of satellite litter into our stratosphere.

KyussB

Beware climate change threads focused on a person rather than on climate change.

It's a tactic used to take a divisive public figure, in order to manufacture a justification for dividing the climate change discussion in two predictable halves.

shtpEdthePlum

Alright so change the title of the thread.

I still don't want the sun getting blocked out just to see what happens on the off chance it might maybe do something about global warming.

I want a reduction in fossil fuel consumption and the relevant corporations to be held to account for what they refuse to stop doing to the planet.

Pa ElGrande

I have not read anything by Gates since "The Road Ahead". At one time Gates and Microsoft were seen as the good guys against the evil IBM. The guy is an opportunist who likes to embrace and extend, and here is another viewpoint for an ex-IBM person. (Starts 13 minutes in interviewing Edward Andrus, interviewer is Croatian)

Edward Andrus: I do remember very well, actually. Bill Gates at the time at the beginning of our relationship with them was living on pizza and Pepsi Cola in Albuquerque, New Mexico. And his mother happened to be on the United Way board with our chairman and asked our chairman to help him. And you know, when the chairman comes in and tells you to go help this kid, nine hundred people get on the plane Monday morning and they all go down to try to help Bill Gates.

<snip>

[EA] So I don’t see Bill Gates as this great, creative person. I see him
as an opportunist. And, in fact, in those days there was a lot of
sharing of software code. People gave it away in Silicon Valley; they
would share everything. He came in and he tried to control everything
and put a price on it.

source (youtube.com)

There is a review of his bookby Tilak Doshi published in Forbes

The first parts of the book give readers an idea of Gates’ intellectual journey. He cites the Cambridge physicist David Mackay who showed the link between per capita income and per capita energy use. This historical correlation between energy use and standards of living led Gates “to think about how the world could make energy affordable and reliable for the poor.” The work of economist Vaclav Smil on the essential role of fossil fuels in the evolution of human civilization is also commended by Gates.

source

Gates seemingly has a seeming blind sport in his crusade and outlined in the article.

For readers already convinced of the “climate crisis” and the imperative to go to “net zero” by 2050, this book holds no surprises. For those more skeptical of popular discussions of climate change, what is most striking is that Gates – among the world’s most celebrated and successful data scientists — is so curiously unaware or indifferent to data that challenge many of the presumptions contained in the book.

source

and the final paragraph summing it up as the path to hell paved with good intentions which does I think sum up the thread starters concerns beyond the sensationalist headline "what exactly are you enabling, Mr. Gates?"

Alas, following the science’ is neither straightforward nor consensual. The diversity of scientific views on every aspect of climate change which one would have expected Bill Gates to be conversant with are not to be found in this book. Indeed, he dismisses contrarian arguments as products of “small and politically powerful groups not persuaded by the science.” In the meantime, as affordable fossil fuels become the target of “policy corrections” it will become harder for the vast majority of people in the world (let alone those still living in the dark) to merely get on with the business of living. My fear is that Bill Gates’ proposed environmental salvation – forced by policy elites and activist businessmen in “an unnaturally speedy transition” — will turn out to be a road to hell paved with good intentions.

source

Another contradiction is that Mr.Gates undoubtedly uses a great deal of energy to support his lifestyle, and the only Gulfstreams he is concerned with are G650s, and not ocean currents.

Energy prices could double or triple and he would barely notice. For him personally a 20% increase would be utterly insignificant. On the other hand, for most normal families living on a normal income (let alone the old retired people living on a fixed pension) energy is a major and unavoidable expense that devours a significant portion of their income, For normal people a 20% increase in energy cost means having to go without something else like food, clothes or shoes.

biko

Between this and depopulation of the planet it's pretty clear he is a supervillain.

Pa ElGrande

biko wrote: »

Between this and depopulation of the planet it's pretty clear he is a supervillain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUZNg0ZY0no

Sweden axes Bill Gates-funded Harvard experiment aiming to DIM THE SUN to fight climate change amid outcry from activists