AGW, IPCC are not braking any laws...

[bxs]

As far as I can tell, they don't seem to be braking any laws. Below is a link to the Environmental Modification Convention resolution of 1978. Please review it before commenting, and keep in mind the legal language, as it can be twisted to do whatever the hell, as long as everyone agrees....

fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH700.txt

excerpt:

<sup>ARTICLEIII

1. The provisions of this Convention shall not hinder the use of
environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes and shall be
without prejudice to the generally recognized principles and applicable
rules of international law concerning such use.

2. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have
the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific
and technological information on the use of environmental modification
techniques for peaceful purposes. States Parties in a position to do so
shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international
organizations, to international economic and scientific co-operation in the
preservation, improvement and peaceful utilization of the environment, with
due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.</sup>


Also consider the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment

www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=97&ArticleID=1503&l=en

<sup>Principle 21

States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

Principle 24

International matters concerning the protection and improvement of the environment should be handled in a cooperative spirit by all countries, big and small, on an equal footing.

Cooperation through multilateral or bilateral arrangements or other appropriate means is essential to effectively control, prevent, reduce and eliminate adverse environmental effects resulting from activities conducted in all spheres, in such a way that due account is taken of the sovereignty and interests of all States.

Principle 25

States shall ensure that international organizations play a coordinated, efficient and dynamic role for the protection and improvement of the environment.</sup>

Seems like they not only have the right to do what they did, but are also encouraged.

what do you all think?

[bxs]

As I said, read the agreements... Its starting...

A Search for Rules Before Climate-Changing Experiments Begin
Responding to renewed interest in geoengineering schemes to combat global warming, scientists and policymakers are beginning several efforts that could set new ground rules for research, including large-scale field experiments.

www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/01/18/18climatewire-a-search-for-rules-before-climate-changing-e-40048.html

Climate scientists convene global geo-engineering summit
Meeting in California in March will discuss possible field trials of schemes that would tackle climate change by reflecting sunlight or fertilising the ocean with iron

www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2256051/climate-scientists-convene

[nautonnier]

If there is funding there - someone will offer to do it regardless of risk, morality or global effects.

[bxs]

Jan 18, 2010 14:34:20 GMT nautonnier said:

If there is funding there - someone will offer to do it regardless of risk, morality or global effects.

This whole thing, reminds me of the "Internet Decency Act of 1996", they pushed some ridiculous idea to fine people $10k and 2 years in prison for cursing in an e-mail, just so it could fail, but a compromise was reached to put in a word/phrase scanner into every ISP so it could flag e-mails that might contain threats to national security.

So now they push this cockamamie GW bull, knowing it will burn, but as a compromise, light weather control will be legal. Gotta give em credit for effort.

[Pooh]

Based on the track record of IPCC models, hockey sticks and Al Gore's predictions in his SciFi film, we should insist that any scheme to suppress "Global Warming" come equipped with an "UnDo" button.

[stranger]

That's all we need, a still colder planet with even less available energy. Not to mention the upcoming shortage of affordable energy.

I suppose one way to get rid of the common herd is to freeze us to death.

Stranger

[scpg02]

Jan 18, 2010 16:36:52 GMT bxs said:

So now they push this cockamamie GW bull, knowing it will burn, but as a compromise, light weather control will be legal. Gotta give em credit for effort.

What they are after is control of the energy markets. Controlled shortages drive up prices and profits.

[stranger]

Actually, SCPG, the way I read the signs, most of the warmers are more interested in reducing global population to their estimation of the carrying capacity of the planet than in making a buck.

England's Prince Charles says that is 250 million people, or a 93% reduction in population. A few would be satisfied with a global population as large as two billion, about what it was when I was born. Most want to cut total population to a half billion or less. We MIGHT manage to maintain a technological society with a billion people, so most seem to want to go back to tipi's and a hunter/gatherer lifestyle.

And judging by their statements they are not very particular about how they achieve this population reduction. Famine and cold? Ok. Nuclear war? That's fine too, as long as they can ride it out in their shelters. Ovens a la Belsen? Whatever works.

Stranger

[sentient]

In 1999 Kofi Annan announced that according to the best mathematics we can apply, we had just crossed the 6 billion mark in human population. In that same year the UN published a report which stated that we would need another 7 earth style planets to keep all 6 billion of us in what I shall call “American Plush”. So if we are on this planet, and we need another 7, then that would be 8 divided into 6 billion, meaning that “sustainable in American Plush” on just this one planet is about 750 million.

[scpg02]

Jan 19, 2010 2:19:26 GMT sentient said:

In 1999 Kofi Annan announced that according to the best mathematics we can apply, we had just crossed the 6 billion mark in human population. In that same year the UN published a report which stated that we would need another 7 earth style planets to keep all 6 billion of us in what I shall call “American Plush”. So if we are on this planet, and we need another 7, then that would be 8 divided into 6 billion, meaning that “sustainable in American Plush” on just this one planet is about 750 million.

And some people believe H1N1 is an accident.

[scpg02]

Jan 19, 2010 2:08:15 GMT stranger said:

Actually, SCPG, the way I read the signs, most of the warmers are more interested in reducing global population to their estimation of the carrying capacity of the planet than in making a buck.

They are after both. But you are correct, the eugenics programs are alive and well.

[bxs]

Jan 19, 2010 2:08:15 GMT stranger said:

A few would be satisfied with a global population as large as two billion, about what it was when I was born.
Stranger

The influenza commonly called "Spanish flu" killed more people than the guns of World War I. Estimates put the worldwide death toll at 21,642,274. Some one billion people were affected by the disease -- half of the total human population. It came at a time when 19 nations were at war and the disruption, stress, and privation of war certainly aided the flu's transmission. It killed people on every continent except Antarctica, with the most lives lost in Asia and the highest percentage of population killed in India. From August 1918, when cases of the flu started looking abnormally high, until the following July when they returned to about normal.

Mind you, Estimates, at that time who can really say how many died in china and india and south america...
Then WWII rolled around, aside from all the other wars that were out there. 62,394,200 to 78,339,200, 3.17% to 4.00% of total world pop at the time. Plus slap on about 15-20 mil onto those numbers thanks to Stalin.

Jan 19, 2010 2:08:15 GMT stranger said:

And judging by their statements they are not very particular about how they achieve this population reduction. Famine and cold? Ok. Nuclear war? That's fine too, as long as they can ride it out in their shelters.

They aren't that immune, Sharon Tate, The Johnson girl. And don't forget, no matter how great or technologically advanced an empire was, in the end the barbarians always won. Romans, ruined by Germanic tribes. Nazi Germany(probably were the most technologically advanced at that time), The Russians threw so many bodies at them, they finally caved(not saying they were solely responsible, but 14% of total population... 23 mil).

Recently, scientists were able to "resurrect" the Spanish Flu virus from a well-preserved corpse buried in the permafrost of Alaska.

somewhere i read or heard, that supposedly H1N1 is just a modified version of the Influenza. And supposedly all cold and flu viruses originate in China or its vicinities.
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=that-flu-you-caught-it-ca
That's money being well spent.

I think we can go to 20 billion people, but I also think it will not be wise.

[Col 'NDX]

They might not be breaking any laws, but they don't exactly tell the truth either, do they?
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8468358.stm

[Col 'NDX]

The IPCC ;D

[trbixler]

www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

Any questions?