Michael,
Your deconstruction of CBD Decision X/33 8(w) doesn’t make sense:
1. The decision is clearly aimed at deliberate geoengineering activities
designed to mitigate climate change *not* climate change caused by
emissions from activities such as power generation.
2.
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
Andrew,
Sloppy sentence. Yes, I have to plead guilty.
Cheers, 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)
Stephen
You make confident claims about the fate and flow of droplets emitted from
your ships. I am unclear on several aspects :
How are droplets which have fallen onto the sea surface supposed to get off
again?
How windy will it need to be before breakers extinguish low or contacted
droplets
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
Jim,
What are you attempting to imply by sending out something under the heading:
Bill Gates and world's top Geoengineers collaborate on
patentshttp://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=searete
: *Hurricane Protection for Cash*! 1. Is your implication that Bill Gates
sees geoengineering as an easy
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
Jim,
You left a comment on the video which states: ***The Convention for
Biological Diversity bans geoengineering. *I'm fairly confident that the
CBD has issued no such ban. If you can copy/paste/post the exact CBD
language which establishes a 'ban on GE', I would be grateful for the
I believe Jim is referring to the following invitation to consider
guidance from COP 10 (2010), frequently misinterpreted as a ban.
http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=12299
COP 10 Decision X/33
X/33.Biodiversity and climate change
The Conference of the Parties,
...
8.*Invites*
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 C**olbert Nation**?), transparent and
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
