On Saturday, November 24, 2018, 10:58:07 AM PST, juan wrote: On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:18:50 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

...

HuffPost: Julian Assange Faces Federal Charges. But Let's Not Forget What We've Learned From WikiLeaks.. BTW, I utterly detest Huffington Post.  But that doesn't prevent me from posting articles from it.   ("A stopped clock is right twice a day").    so assamge helped the socialist corporatist fascist trump to gain power and now he's going to be lynched by his 'ally' - I kinda wonder what was assange thinking....

In one sense, I was in a very similar position to Assange:  I very much wanted Hillary Clinton to lose the election.  That doesn't mean that I wanted Donald Trump to win, but in America's political duopoly, wanting the Democrat to lose means, if that want is provided, the Republican wins.   (How I wish that were not the case!!!) The big difference is that the only thing I did to attempt to cause Hillary Clinton to lose, was to vote for Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate.  (I voted in the American state of Washington, which went 54.3% for Hillary, and so my vote (for Johnson) wouldn't have accomplished anything even if I had voted for Trump.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Washing...  Assange, at least, publicized a lot of negative information that arguably caused Hillary to lose the election.  Which I very much liked, of course.   Even so, Assange didn't cause Hillary or the DNC to be corrupt:  They were corrupt before Assange publicized that fact.  Do you blame Assange for exposing political corruption?   I certainly don't.   Also, I frequently point out that before Trump was even nominated, the news media itself recognized that it had given Trump $2 billion in free publicity.   https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-ad...      Try google-searching for '$2 billion Trump media' to find many other references.    It wasn't 'positive' publicity, of course.  Naturally, the MSM wasn't trying to cause Trump to win the general election:  If they were honest, they would have admitted that they were trying to get Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to lose the nomination.  Which they did.  But they hoped that Trump would lose the general.  Which, due to Hillary's great scandals, he didn't.  So, I'd say that the MSM was primarily responsible for causing Trump to win the nomination.  Which they seemingly admit, or at least admitted, before Trump won the general election.   Arguably, the MSM (and Hillary, etc) was mostly responsible for causing Trump to win the election.  Those RINOs and Deep-State actors should understand that.  I am not aware that Assange did anything illegal, but he certainly did things to cause some powerful American politicians to dislike, even hate him.  Particularly in regard to the 2016 election, as far as I know he merely accepted, and then publicized, information embarrassing to the DNC, John Podesta, and Hillary Clinton.   The news media claims that he accepted hacked emails from Russia:  I think that even if we accept the idea that Russia hacked emails, that does not inherently prove that the emails Assange published necessarily came from Russia, or only from Russia.  And, it also doesn't prove that Assange knew, for certain, that (even if some of those emails came from Russia or Russian citizens) that those emails came from Russia.   As I understand it, Wikileaks had set up an anonymous donation system, designed to guarantee that each donor would maintain anonymity when submitting their leaks.  Which, I think, was great!   Precisely what should have been done.  But that anonymity also provided deniability:  Wikileaks couldn't be assumed to know from where that information came from, or how it had been obtained.  I have read, a few years ago, implications that Assange may have been somehow involved more with Manning's leaks.  Would that lead to criminal liability?  Since this entire subject is vague, it's hard to express an opinion about this.  But the (American) definition of "conspiracy" tends to be, "an agreement by two or more to commit a crime, followed by a single overt act".   Assuming what Manning did was a crime, it was copying State Department information.  I don't see how Assange's willingness to accept that information, even if it was expressed before Manning copied that material, amounted to a "conspiracy".  Assange presumably didn't "agree" to commit a crime.   He probably did not "assist" in any crime.  Manning could have copied that information and sent it to any news organization; maybe they would have published it just as Assange did.    Assange probably did no more than most media outlets would be willing to do everyday.   It likely was that the only thing Assange arguably did was to express a willingness to publicize information.                           Jim Bell ×

On Saturday, November 24, 2018, 3:31:00 PM PST, juan wrote: On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:16:43 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

...

In one sense, I was in a very similar position to Assange:  I very much wanted Hillary Clinton to lose the election.  That doesn't mean that I wanted Donald Trump to win, but in America's political duopoly, wanting the Democrat to lose means, if that want is provided, the Republican wins.   (How I wish that were not the case!!!)

    yeah. good news, the clinton cunt lost. Bad news, trump won.

Don't blame me!   Blame the MSM, the DNC, Hillary Clinton herself, and the corrupt government stooges who supported her.  "I must admit that at first I was dumb enough to think that if the media were saying that trump was horrible then he must be marginally better than clinton. Problem is,  that partisan line of thinking is nonsense and in reality the US has a one party system with both candidates being exactly equally bad." Perhaps you forget that Trump wasn't exactly a "Republican".  Until a few years ago, he was actually on very good terms with the Democrats.  

...

 Assange, at least, publicized a lot of negative information that arguably caused Hillary to lose the election.  Which I very much liked, of course.   Even so, Assange didn't cause Hillary or the DNC to be corrupt:  They were corrupt before Assange publicized that fact.  Do you blame Assange for exposing political corruption?   

    No I don't. But it seems he should have done the same thing for the rethuglicans. I think he said he didn't have anything to publish regarding trump but that sounds not completely credible. 

It's two years later.  If nothing has come out which denounces Trump, even by today, why would anyone think that Assange could have come out with in in, say, October 2016?  >   At any rate, it seems to be a fact that assange favored trump and it is a fact that trump is even worse than obomba and now assange is a direct target of trump's. "assange favored Trump" is misleading.  Assange had, at most, two choices.  If it was his goal to cause Hillary Clinton to lose, I completely welcome his choice.  

...

Also, I frequently point out that before Trump was even nominated, the news media itself recognized that it had given Trump $2 billion in free publicity.   https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-ad...      Try google-searching for '$2 billion Trump media' to find many other references.    It wasn't 'positive' publicity, of course.  Naturally, the MSM wasn't trying to cause Trump to win the general election:

    yeah - or if I switch to 'paranoid mode' then who knows? As mentioned, apparently the media was against trump because trump was so anti 'liberal' anti 'progressive' bla bla, but as a matter of fact the media failed to prevent trump from being elected. So maybe they were inept or maybe they didn't try too hard...

The MSM can't, and didn't, control everything.  Arguably, the revelation about her illegally-used private server (caused by years Republican inquiries into Benghazi) probably swung the election to Trump.  But, the hugely biased U.S. Government tried to swing it back:  Comey and his thugs pretended that Hillary hadn't done anything illegal.  ("extremely careless" v. "gross negligence" on July 5, 2016.).  They didn't want to use the term "gross negligence" because that is the trigger-term which justified prosecution under various statutes.  And, the discovery of about 600,000 copies of emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop (and Anthony Weiner didn't a a security clearance for anything, as I understood it) pretty much destroy their credibility, the whole lot of them.  

...

  If they were honest, they would have admitted that they were trying to get Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to lose the nomination.  Which they did.  But they hoped that Trump would lose the general.  Which, due to Hillary's great scandals, he didn't.  So, I'd say that the MSM was primarily responsible for causing Trump to win the nomination.  Which they seemingly admit, or at least admitted, before Trump won the general election.  

 >   Hm. That's a bit more convoluted. Regardless, elections in the US are completely irrelevant.  That's a position to take.  Someday, you should convince the American public of that.  

   I guess another way to look at it is : had hitlery won assange would have been lynched. And now that the other faction of the one party won, he's being lynched.      That's not as clear.  One of the dangers of any criminal prosecution is that the defendant usually gets the right to access, and release exculpatory material.  Exculpatory to Assange arguably means incriminating to Hillary, Obama, and each of their criminal crews.  

...

Arguably, the MSM (and Hillary, etc) was mostly responsible for causing Trump to win the election.  Those RINOs and Deep-State actors should understand that.  I am not aware that Assange did anything illegal,

    lol - illegal as defined by the american nazi government? 

Do you have any alternative opinions?   Do you believe that Assange did anything illegal by YOUR standards?  He basically acted as a journalist.                      Jim Bell

So maybe I should rephrase to something like : Assange was morally obliged to publish clinton's dirty deals and by doing so he helped trump, who is his enemy. All in all, pretty ironic. He could have published it all at once, or filtered out stories carefully with collaborating media outlets. Either of those approaches would have been educational. Instead, he published them so as to "maximize impact" -- but that impact, which included holding back stuff to publish for the weekend before the election (when nobody would have time to audit the material), and to defend Trump after the Access Hollywood release -- was not an educational one. I've never met a single

On 11/24/18 6:15 PM, juan wrote: person who has actually read, say, Killary's speech to Wall St. or teased out any connections between DNC donors and anyone else. The maximized, uneducational impact was just to get commoners revved up and screaming, like Trump, "I Love WikiLeaks" in a "git your gubment hands off my Medicare" way. Look at the header here - https://twitter.com/suzi3d - the goal of Team WikiLeaks is to maximize instances of Assange's face. This is what cryptobros WikiLeaks has become: 10 PRINT "ASSANGE" 20 GOTO 10 With something like 10-20 years remaining to halt global warming, Team WikiLeaks will be happy to run the above program until the day we all die. They could have done so much by sharing their ample platform with worthy causes, but that would have caused "brand confusion" and god forbid somebody be confused. That's far too much like education.

On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 17:52:19 -0800 Douglas Lucas wrote:

On 11/24/18 6:15 PM, juan wrote:

...

So maybe I should rephrase to something like : Assange was morally obliged to publish clinton's dirty deals and by doing so he helped trump, who is his enemy. All in all, pretty ironic. He could have published it all at once,

yeah that actually is the only right choice, same thing for snowden. we have this New Amazin' Technology called the interwebs. Anybody can publish anything. It's weird that snowden didn't use it...

or filtered out stories carefully with collaborating media outlets.

nah. Journos aka the fourth state are the propaganda department of the enemy. Fuck them.

Either of those approaches would have been educational. Instead, he published them so as to "maximize impact" -- but that impact, which included holding back stuff to publish for the weekend before the election (when nobody would have time to audit the material), and to defend Trump after the Access Hollywood release -- was not an educational one. I've never met a single person who has actually read, say, Killary's speech to Wall St. or teased out any connections between DNC donors and anyone else. The maximized, uneducational impact was just to get commoners revved up and screaming, like Trump, "I Love WikiLeaks" in a "git your gubment hands off my Medicare" way.

Look at the header here - https://twitter.com/suzi3d - the goal of Team WikiLeaks is to maximize instances of Assange's face.

This is what cryptobros WikiLeaks has become:

10 PRINT "ASSANGE" 20 GOTO 10

I'm not sure about that. I would assume assange would happily trade any 'fame' he has for his freedom.

With something like 10-20 years remaining to halt global warming,

except 'global warming' is not real. It's just terrorist propaganda from govcorp to keep the sheep in line, have them worship 'science', justify subsidies from 'green' 'industries' etc. It would actually be great if 'global warming' was real and caused our lovely industrial anti 'civilization' to collapse, because that's pretty much the only way to stop global techno totalitarianism.

Team WikiLeaks will be happy to run the above program until the day we all die. They could have done so much by sharing their ample platform with worthy causes, but that would have caused "brand confusion" and god forbid somebody be confused. That's far too much like education.

On Sunday, November 25, 2018, 7:05:09 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

Sadly, global warming is a complete hoax, to impose a global tax, to fund a global "one worl order" or "new world order".

And there is a likely (at least partial) solution at hand:   https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-glob...       2013 https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603974/harvard-scientists-moving-ahead-on...     2017 https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610007/were-about-to-kill-a-massive-accid...    2018 https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201710/hand-hubris.cfm     2017 https://www.technologyreview.com/video/609390/climate-disruption-technical-a...     2017 (Full disclosure:  I have a Bachelor's degree in Chemistry from MIT, Class of 1980). While I am not sufficently convinced that, quantitatively, "global warming" ("climate change"), or more specifically AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warning) is a genuine problem,  I'd say it would be irresponsible to not prepare for the possibility that this sulfur-injection protocol will be necessary, or at least useful.  It should be quite cheap. Further, there are likely to be various (positive) feedback-loops associated with global warming, such as the thawing of permafrost, whose magnitude aren't well-understood.   I suspect that the main opposition to this idea comes from people who see "climate change" as simply an opportunity to increase government control over the world.  They think that they've found themselves one hell of a problem, but a problem which would be threatened,  like garlic or a silver bullet, or a gold cross, to a vampire.                      Jim Bell

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018, 12:46:40 PM PST, Kurt Buff wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:33 AM jim bell wrote:

...

(Full disclosure:  I have a Bachelor's degree in Chemistry from MIT, Class of 1980).

While I am not sufficently convinced that, quantitatively, "global warming" ("climate change"), or more specifically AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warning) is a genuine problem,  I'd say it would be irresponsible to not prepare for the possibility that this sulfur-injection protocol will be necessary, or at least useful.  It should be quite cheap. Further, there are likely to be various (positive) feedback-loops associated with global warming, such as the thawing of permafrost, whose magnitude aren't well-understood.

I suspect that the main opposition to this idea comes from people who see "climate change" as simply an opportunity to increase government control over the world.  They think that they've found themselves one hell of a problem, but a problem which would be threatened,  like garlic or a silver bullet, or a gold cross, to a vampire.

So, the solution to warming is smog? Really? Perhaps if injected at a high enough altitude it won't affect lungs, but it seems like SO2 isn't something we want to pump into the atmosphere... Kurt

Ironically, that solution will likely be correct.  But to understand why, it helps to know that circulation between the lower-levels of the atmosphere (say, under 10,000 AGL (above ground level)) and the upper levels, say around 60,000 feet AGL is quite slow.  SO2 injected at low levels of the atmosphere will wash out in weeks or months due to rain.   SO2 injected at, say, 60,000  feet AGL will probably last for years.  That SO2 will eventually diffuse downward and be lost due to rain as well, but far less SO2 will need to be added at 60,000 feet than is currently being added from ground-level sources. China's coal-fired power plants currently emit huge amounts of ground-level SO2, which could be scrubbed just like America's plants.  http://www.pnas.org/content/115/27/7004      And, presumably, should be scrubbed.  But only a far smaller amount of SO2, than could be scrubbed from China's coal-fired power plants would need to be released at 60,000 feet AGL, each on a per-year basis, to accomplish the cooling effect required.  I looked it up, maybe a year ago, and I think the comparison was 32 million tons/year v. 1 million tons/year.  I hope I'm remembering it correctly.                        Jim Bell

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:37:02AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:18:19PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018, 12:46:40 PM PST, Kurt Buff wrote:

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:33 AM jim bell wrote:

...

...

(Full disclosure:  I have a Bachelor's degree in Chemistry from MIT, Class of 1980).

While I am not sufficently convinced that, quantitatively, "global warming" ("climate change"), or more specifically AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warning) is a genuine problem,  I'd say it would be irresponsible to not prepare for the possibility that this sulfur-injection protocol will be necessary, or at least useful.  It should be quite cheap. Further, there are likely to be various (positive) feedback-loops associated with global warming, such as the thawing of permafrost, whose magnitude aren't well-understood.

I suspect that the main opposition to this idea comes from people who see "climate change" as simply an opportunity to increase government control over the world.  They think that they've found themselves one hell of a problem, but a problem which would be threatened,  like garlic or a silver bullet, or a gold cross, to a vampire.

...

So, the solution to warming is smog? Really? Perhaps if injected at a high enough altitude it won't affect lungs, but it seems like SO2 isn't something we want to pump into the atmosphere... Kurt

Ironically, that solution will likely be correct.  But to understand why, it helps to know that circulation between the lower-levels of the atmosphere (say, under 10,000 AGL (above ground level)) and the upper levels, say around 60,000 feet AGL is quite slow.  SO2 injected at low levels of the atmosphere will wash out in weeks or months due to rain.   SO2 injected at, say, 60,000  feet AGL will probably last for years.  That SO2 will eventually diffuse downward and be lost due to rain as well, but far less SO2 will need to be added at 60,000 feet than is currently being added from ground-level sources. China's coal-fired power plants currently emit huge amounts of ground-level SO2, which could be scrubbed just like America's plants.  http://www.pnas.org/content/115/27/7004      And, presumably, should be scrubbed.  But only a far smaller amount of SO2, than could be scrubbed from China's coal-fired power plants would need to be released at 60,000 feet AGL, each on a per-year basis, to accomplish the cooling effect required.  I looked it up, maybe a year ago, and I think the comparison was 32 million tons/year v. 1 million tons/year.  I hope I'm remembering it correctly.  

                     Jim Bell

We actually want the earth to be a warm, wet greenhouse. In fact, life demands as much...

The Little Ice Age with Solar Minimum, and the only problem this Earth really has to worry about, right on cue: Martin Armstrong: Global Cooling, Not Warming, Is What We Should Fear Most https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-29/martin-armstrong-global-cooling-no... https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/global-cooling-not-glo... … This is what I keep pointing out that cold is what kills society and creates poverty – not warming. The Year Without Summer: 1816 … Beneath the snow, after weeks of severe cold, the ground was frozen solid to a depth of two feet. Packed ice in the road made the journey very hazardous. … John Adams: “… Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.”

Yes, I do notice from the Wikipedia article on Solar Cycles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle     that we are closely approaching the next sunspot minimum, and importantly, that the amplitude of the sunspot maximum has been dramatically reduced over the last few decades.  Say, 1991, 2002, and 2013.                        Jim Bell × On Friday, January 4, 2019, 11:46:40 AM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote: So, 25 to 31 years of generally cooling temperatures muh grits: Martin Armstrong On The Coming Mini Ice-Age https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-31/martin-armstrong-coming-mini-ice-a... … “HIGH PROBABILITY that [global temperatures] are declining for 31 years from 2015” Time to stock up on thermals and carbon fuels... On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:13:25PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:37:02AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:18:19PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

  On Tuesday, November 27, 2018, 12:46:40 PM PST, Kurt Buff wrote:       On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:33 AM jim bell wrote:

...

...

(Full disclosure:  I have a Bachelor's degree in Chemistry from MIT, Class of 1980).

While I am not sufficently convinced that, quantitatively, "global warming" ("climate change"), or more specifically AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warning) is a genuine problem,  I'd say it would be irresponsible to not prepare for the possibility that this sulfur-injection protocol will be necessary, or at least useful.  It should be quite cheap. Further, there are likely to be various (positive) feedback-loops associated with global warming, such as the thawing of permafrost, whose magnitude aren't well-understood.

I suspect that the main opposition to this idea comes from people who see "climate change" as simply an opportunity to increase government control over the world.  They think that they've found themselves one hell of a problem, but a problem which would be threatened,  like garlic or a silver bullet, or a gold cross, to a vampire.

...

So, the solution to warming is smog? Really? Perhaps if injected at a high enough altitude it won't affect lungs, but it seems like SO2 isn't something we want to pump into the atmosphere... Kurt

Ironically, that solution will likely be correct.  But to understand why, it helps to know that circulation between the lower-levels of the atmosphere (say, under 10,000 AGL (above ground level)) and the upper levels, say around 60,000 feet AGL is quite slow.  SO2 injected at low levels of the atmosphere will wash out in weeks or months due to rain.   SO2 injected at, say, 60,000  feet AGL will probably last for years.  That SO2 will eventually diffuse downward and be lost due to rain as well, but far less SO2 will need to be added at 60,000 feet than is currently being added from ground-level sources. China's coal-fired power plants currently emit huge amounts of ground-level SO2, which could be scrubbed just like America's plants.  http://www.pnas.org/content/115/27/7004      And, presumably, should be scrubbed.  But only a far smaller amount of SO2, than could be scrubbed from China's coal-fired power plants would need to be released at 60,000 feet AGL, each on a per-year basis, to accomplish the cooling effect required.  I looked it up, maybe a year ago, and I think the comparison was 32 million tons/year v. 1 million tons/year.  I hope I'm remembering it correctly.  

                     Jim Bell 

We actually want the earth to be a warm, wet greenhouse. In fact, life demands as much...

The Little Ice Age with Solar Minimum, and the only problem this Earth really has to worry about, right on cue:

Martin Armstrong: Global Cooling, Not Warming, Is What We Should Fear Most https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-29/martin-armstrong-global-cooling-no... https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/global-cooling-not-glo...   … This is what I keep pointing out that cold is what kills society   and creates poverty – not warming.   The Year Without Summer: 1816   … Beneath the snow, after weeks of severe cold, the ground was   frozen solid to a depth of two feet. Packed ice in the road made   the journey very hazardous.   … John Adams: “… Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost   the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will   make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven,   that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.”

Interested in seeing respectful review of both sides of these opinions. Science that ignores the opposing arguments is not science. On Fri, May 15, 2020, 10:06 PM Zig the N.g wrote:

...

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:37:02AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:18:19PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018, 12:46:40 PM PST, Kurt Buff < kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:33 AM jim bell wrote:

...

...

(Full disclosure: I have a Bachelor's degree in Chemistry from MIT, Class of 1980).

While I am not sufficently convinced that, quantitatively, "global warming" ("climate change"), or more specifically AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warning) is a genuine problem, I'd say it would be irresponsible to not prepare for the possibility that this sulfur-injection

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:13:25PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: protocol will be necessary, or at least useful. It should be quite cheap. Further, there are likely to be various (positive) feedback-loops associated with global warming, such as the thawing of permafrost, whose magnitude aren't well-understood.

...

...

...

...

...

I suspect that the main opposition to this idea comes from people

who see "climate change" as simply an opportunity to increase government control over the world. They think that they've found themselves one hell of a problem, but a problem which would be threatened, like garlic or a silver bullet, or a gold cross, to a vampire.

...

So, the solution to warming is smog? Really? Perhaps if injected at a high enough altitude it won't affect lungs, but it seems like SO2 isn't something we want to pump into the atmosphere... Kurt

Ironically, that solution will likely be correct. But to understand why, it helps to know that circulation between the lower-levels of the atmosphere (say, under 10,000 AGL (above ground level)) and the upper levels, say around 60,000 feet AGL is quite slow. SO2 injected at low levels of the atmosphere will wash out in weeks or months due to rain. SO2 injected at, say, 60,000 feet AGL will probably last for years. That SO2 will eventually diffuse downward and be lost due to rain as well, but far less SO2 will need to be added at 60,000 feet than is currently being added from ground-level sources. China's coal-fired power plants currently emit huge amounts of ground-level SO2, which could be scrubbed just like America's plants. http://www.pnas.org/content/115/27/7004 And, presumably, should be scrubbed. But only a far smaller amount of SO2, than could be scrubbed from China's coal-fired power plants would need to be released at 60,000 feet AGL, each on a per-year basis, to accomplish the cooling effect required. I looked it up, maybe a year ago, and I think the comparison was 32 million tons/year v. 1 million tons/year. I hope I'm remembering it correctly.

Jim Bell

We actually want the earth to be a warm, wet greenhouse. In fact, life demands as much...

The Little Ice Age with Solar Minimum, and the only problem this Earth really has to worry about, right on cue:

Martin Armstrong: Global Cooling, Not Warming, Is What We Should Fear Most

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-29/martin-armstrong-global-cooling-no...

...

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/global-cooling-not-glo...

...

… This is what I keep pointing out that cold is what kills society and creates poverty – not warming. The Year Without Summer: 1816 … Beneath the snow, after weeks of severe cold, the ground was frozen solid to a depth of two feet. Packed ice in the road made the journey very hazardous. … John Adams: “… Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.”

You're right Zenaan, global cooling and a new Dalton Minimum might be about to hit us over the next few years - anuddah "mini Ice Age" possible, apparently:

Global Cooling!! Low Solar Activity To Cause Temperatures To Plummet, Say Scientists Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News

https://www.zerohedge.com/health/global-cooling-low-solar-activity-cause-tem...

https://summit.news/2020/05/14/low-solar-activity-to-cause-temperatures-to-p...

`The Sun is entering a period of “solar minimum” that could cause temperatures to plummet by up to 2C over 20 years and trigger a global famine, according to experts.

Solar activity has entered a deep decline with scientists saying there have already been 100 days this year where the sun has displayed zero sunspots.

NASA boffins say this means that the earth could be about to experience a new “Dalton Minimum,” the period between 1790 and 1830 which led to a severe prolonged cold snap and massive volcanic eruptions.

“This means were could be entering one of the deepest period of sunshine recession which could trigger long periods of cold, famine and other issues,” reports the Daily Star.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/scientists-warn-freezing-weather...

The Sun has now recorded two consecutive years of record setting spotlessness, being blank 77% of the time in 2019 and 76% of the time so far this year.

This means a deep solar minimum is coming which will cause temperatures to drop drastically.

This once again serves as a reminder that the Sun is by far the most influential driver of climate and makes the impact of so-called man-made climate change look tame in comparison.

How are institutions of science, academia and media that have fully committed to the notion that anthropogenic global warming will cause environmental devastation going to react when the globe starts rapidly cooling?

Meanwhile, Greta Thunberg has been noticeably quiet on the matter.

PJW on Greta Thunberg and "peak masculinity" ~20MiB https://seed116.bitchute.com/9WF6N0ecQ55u/qpSQuc69R9c.mp4

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 07:32:39PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

On Sunday, November 25, 2018, 7:05:09 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

Sadly, global warming is a complete hoax, to impose a global tax, to fund a global "one worl order" or "new world order".

And there is a likely (at least partial) solution at hand:   https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-glob...       2013

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603974/harvard-scientists-moving-ahead-on...     2017

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610007/were-about-to-kill-a-massive-accid...    2018

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201710/hand-hubris.cfm     2017

https://www.technologyreview.com/video/609390/climate-disruption-technical-a...     2017

(Full disclosure:  I have a Bachelor's degree in Chemistry from MIT, Class of 1980).

While I am not sufficently convinced that, quantitatively, "global warming" ("climate change"), or more specifically AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warning) is a genuine problem,  I'd say it would be irresponsible to not prepare for the possibility that this sulfur-injection protocol will be necessary, or at least useful.

There are alternative views on this sulphur protocol: Luongo: Jumping The Global Warming Shark https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-25/luongo-jumping-global-warming-shar... … dimming the sun by dispersing sulfate particles into the atmosphere to reflect and absorb some of the energy coming from it to slow the rate of global warming. I would hope, at the very least, they are thinking of something thoroughly inert like barium sulfate, but they aren’t. They are talking about injecting SO2 into the atmosphere. Another word for SO2 is SMOG. This is the very compound we have been regulating power plants to not emit. … The biggest impediment to this plan the researchers conclude? It’s not cost, because by their calculations it would be cheaper than any other ‘solution.’ It’s that it wouldn’t be able to be kept secret from the people they were poisoning. I. shit. you. not.

  It should be quite cheap. Further, there are likely to be various (positive) feedback-loops associated with global warming, such as the thawing of permafrost, whose magnitude aren't well-understood.   I suspect that the main opposition to this idea comes from people who see "climate change" as simply an opportunity to increase government control over the world.  They think that they've found themselves one hell of a problem, but a problem which would be threatened,  like garlic or a silver bullet, or a gold cross, to a vampire.                      Jim Bell

On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 03:58:06PM -0300, Juan wrote:

On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:18:50 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

...

HuffPost: Julian Assange Faces Federal Charges. But Let's Not Forget What We've Learned From WikiLeaks..

so assamge helped the socialist corporatist fascist trump to gain power and now he's going to be lynched by his 'ally' - I kinda wonder what was assange thinking....

Hillary "Butcher of Lybia" Clinton and her effective 'I promise you war against Russia' narrative probably cinched that one... Trump could barely have asked for a "better" opponent to run against.