A Case For And Against Climate Engineering – David Keith
define zoloft generic cost This event was held at clenbuterol canada replace Oxford Martin School on December 2nd, 2013. It was one of several similar events in which David Keith, and others like him such as John Shepherd, were doing the rounds talking to groups of interested people on the pros and cons of climate engineering. We say pros and cons, but actually if you listen carefully it becomes increasingly obvious that the cons are very much belittled and the pros are very much-lauded, albeit with s suspicious amount of carefully chosen doubt about the technology and techniques involved. Essentially the entire event, as with all the other such events, seems completely staged and very carefully stage-managed. Lots of information is presented about the reasons for having to reluctantly resort to climate engineering while also purporting to be concerned about the technology and its effects on our environment, whereas the reality, in our view, is nothing less than blatant subterfuge. David Keith not only knows that climate change is a hoax, he also knows that the proposed solutions to it are totally fictitious and nothing to do with climate control at all. This may seem like quite an extreme accusation to the uninitiated but we have watched and monitored this situations closely since summer 2013 and have become increasingly convinced with each lecture that occurs, that that is what is going on.
nurture https://mail.zizagroup.com/64386-elocon-cream-buy.html Things take an interesting turn very early on when David Keith directly contradicts John Shepherd who, not that long before this talk had stated categorically that once initiated, climate engineering could not be stopped, as it would result in what the complicit scientists like to, rather dramatically, refer to as runaway warming. This is, of course, utter nonsense and obviously a ruse to instil fear into the general public, and ensure that once they have managed to introduce it with little or no public approval, we are too scared to try to challenge it and force them to stop doing it.
why not try this out We have not had the time to analyse the entire talk in detail yet, but we draw your attention to our question during the Q&A towards the end of the event (5:25). We thought if we had to raise only one point that the most damaging and important thing to make people realise is the potential for abuse of this system for nefarious purposes. Though David Keith tried to dilute the point, he was not able to deny that the potential for abuse is very real. This is a crucial thing to make people realise when trying to convince them of the dangers of the current programs. If the seed of doubt is sown, then the questions will follow naturally, so when people see the trails in the sky above the on a daily basis, they will naturally start to ask themselves “how do I know those trails are safe and not harming me”.
atarax costo draw 32.09.2014 Update
This lecture was held in late 2013. We have since realised the significance of the global governance issue that seems now to underlie most discussions about climate engineering. This was very evident during the plenary sessions of the Climate Engineering Conference 2014 in Berlin, where the problems relating to governance were highlighted repeatedly (17 mentions) on the first day alone. We have cone to realise what this means; it seems to be alluding to the fact that some form of global governance is needed to be able to manage the program effectively. Global Governance is an underlying agenda of Climate Engineering. This is very concerning obviously, and a point must would not pick up on. In our naivety back then at this lecture we had no idea of this concept, and our question of potential for abuse may have actually played somewhat into the hands of David Keith, and the potential for abuse could be used as a tool to argue in favour of a system of global governance.
Taboo broken in 2006
If you start you have to do it for ever
Risk of this technology is acidification of the oceans (point made no sense?)
1000 year footprint from CO2 in relation to ocean acidification ?