I stand by the heading for the following reasons: 1. The title is loosely based on this title from TechDirt: Bill Gates' New Career? Patent Troll For Nathan Myhrvold?<http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=searete> and this on from The Guardian: The man who would stop hurricanes with car tyres<http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/nov/04/stephen-salter-tyre-hurricane-sandy> "*British scientist Stephen Salter and Bill Gates patent scheme to prevent huge storms" * 2. Geoengineer refers to those who study and/or advocate geoengineering SRM (I have little concern for biochar, sequestration, oif, etc). I too hate the term, what should I refer to men of your craft as? 3. Protection for Cash refers to these lines from United States Patent Application 20090177569<http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0177569.html>:
15. A method of ecological alteration, comprising: *receiving money* from > at least one government entity; and funding at least one of purchase, > operation, or maintenance of ecological alteration equipment at least > partially through the *money collected* from the at least one government > entity, wherein the ecological alteration equipment includes wave driven > water property alteration equipment. > 22. The method of claim 15, further comprising: creating different risk or > reward zones based on a known placement of the ecological alteration > equipment; and developing different *payment amounts based on > location*relative to the risk zones. > 23. The method of claim 15, further comprising: developing different *payment > amounts* based on at least one of potential property risk or potential > change in property valuation. > 24. The method of claim 15, further comprising: developing different *payment > amounts* based on location. > In yet another aspect, a method of managing risk includes operating > ecological alteration equipment. The method also includes *receiving at > least one payment* from at least one interested party. Further, the > method includes receiving a request from the interested party to provide > ecological alteration. Further still, the method includes causing changes > in the operation of ecological alteration equipment in an attempt to cause > ecological alteration. > > In still yet another aspect, a method of managing risk includes operating > storm suppression equipment in response to a request to attempt to alter at > least one storm. The method also includes alerting at least one interested > party as to the potential for storm damage. Further, the method includes > providing information to the at least one interested party of the cost and > likelihood of reducing damage for the at least one interested party. > Further still, the method includes *receiving at least one payment* from > the at least one interested party and receiving a request from the > interested party to provide storm protection. > > In yet still another aspect, a method of managing risk includes selling an > interest regarding areas to be protected by ecological alteration equipment > to a group of members. The method also includes funding at least one of > purchase, operation, or maintenance if the ecological alteration equipment > at least partially through payments collected from the selling. Further, > the method includes determining the amount of ecological alteration in a > predefined situation. Further still, the method includes *paying the > members of the group* an amount dependent on the amount of ecological > alteration. > This returns us to Mr. Gordon's statement above for a moment: "*local climate modification not weather control*" In the above quoted patent, IT is referred to as "ecological alteration" which I must say is catchy. So which is it? - geoengineering - weather modification - weather control - climate modification - ecological alteration - climate engineering These are terms that are loosely defined<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y2aazcmk2E&list=PLF928FDE0FD764621>, and from a public awareness<http://climateviewer.com/public-relations-fear-mind-control.html>standpoint, are synonymous if not ethereal. In my daily discussions with the average Joe, I say "Did you know they can make it rain, and have been altering the skies for over fifty years?" 95% of the time they refuse to believe it is possible, even after I show them my website full of documented facts. Therefore you gentlemen operate in a vacuum, as the entire weather modification industry has for years. I wouldn't doubt that many of the failings of Senator Hutchinson's weather modification bills were due to other Senators not believing a word she was saying -- that can't be real. My intention of the title is to tell it like it is, no fluff. Let me clarify my position: 1. I believe that cloud-seeding can be a good thing: like the Moscow/Chernobyl rainmaking<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549366/How-we-made-the-Chernobyl-rain.html>, Rocky Mountain snowpack augmentation<http://youtu.be/MpCk7yHj0Qw?t=3m43s>. Hopefully cloud-seeding was deployed after Fukushima. 2. I think that Mr. Latham's boat will be more effective than silver iodide in creating clouds and subsequent rainfall. I also think it is safer. =) 3. I believe our climate is in a bad state, and I too do not see polluting corporations changing without stiff regulation, which will not come as they control the puppets in Congress. 4. I believe the technologies you gentlemen are creating will probably be necessary given the current state of methane release<http://climateviewer.com/pollution-map.html#methane-release> . 5. I believe there is a long history<http://climateviewer.com/weather-control.html>of men altering the skies, bad things happen, and nobody wants to take responsibility. 6. I fear military interests<http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada539515>in creating cloud cover<http://rezn8d.net/2013/03/31/us-army-test-technology-symposium-weather-modification-1997/>to defend against surveillance and space-based directed-energy weapons<http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada539515>(mostly lasers) coincides with your goals to create cloud cover to reflect sunlight. 7. I think that much like Frankenstein and the Ford factory lines, sometimes we create things that become uncontrollable. I think this is exemplified by all the "Playing God" title references. 8. I do not think any of the "geoengineers" are nefarious In my imagination, the group listed on the patent met at one of Myhrvold's parties similar to the one mentioned in the TechDirt article. Based on the date of the first application, I assume it was a New Years Day party. I also assume that after the first filings, some careful nudging occurred to prompt the Department of Homeland Security to just into the steering hurricane business. Next came the discussions at the AMS Weather Modification Conference, appropriately titled: *New Unconventional Concepts and Legal Ramifications. *Then came more revisions to the patent app, a Congressional hearing, NOAA tells DHS they're crazy, and DHS plows ahead with HAMP. Of course I don't state that on my website, that's speculation. However, inquiring minds want to know... 1. What is the origin and intent of the patent 2. Is the DHS currently using/deploying any of this technology? 3. Is/has any other entity (Intellectual Ventures, Atmocean) deploying/testing this technology on active storms? Thanks to Mr. Salter and Mr. Latham for being so helpful, respectful, and forthright with their research. I appreciate what you do Ken, as well as your colleagues. I find this topic fascinating, frightening, and promising all at once. I hope I was able to clarify my position, and hope you will clarify this hurricane mitigation patent technology's current status. ~ Jim Lee http://climateviewer.com/ On Sunday, August 11, 2013 4:56:58 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote: > > 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 > -- 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.
