Peter O'Donnell wrote:DAC, you could not be more wrong -- skeptics are well aware of the potential for human interference to upset the climatic balance. Our position all along has been that the MAGNITUDE of the postulated AGW effect is too small to merit the political and economic dislocation of the Kyoto process. We do not deny that there is a small impact on climate, this is more the province of politically motivated people who have latched onto the scientific skeptics and taken "small modification" to mean "no modification." Of course, there is a small difference. But the AGW lobby virtually asked for this response by over-dramatizing their claims in the first place.
Meanwhile, nobody in the scientific skeptic community doubts the possible large impacts of some of the engineering schemes being proposed. Deflection of sunlight away from the earth is the very heart of the Milankovitch theory (it happens on long time scales for natural reasons) and so we are very concerned about any suggestions to monkey around with the delicate global climate machine, it would basically be like pouring oil into the gas tank.
Nobody needs to educate us about the risks of these crazy schemes, but the political argument comes first -- we need to be clear about the real risks of the crazy economic schemes that are already well underway. These future engineering plans, we can worry about if they actually get onto the drawing boards and into the planning stages.
At some point, it may be necessary for a group of concerned citizens in all countries to form a political association that would seek to restore sanity to public governance, because organized science has clearly lost its marbles and threatens daily in dozens of different crazy neo-Marxist schemes to put an end to western civilization. We can assume that the Islamic world and other competitors will shrug this off and take over the ruins of our countries when our scientists achieve their deranged goals for our future.
I wish I could say that I was using some sort of dramatic license here, but I honestly believe that our academic establishment has collectively lost its mind and needs to be "put away" for the survival of our western nations. Otherwise, there are so many different crazy schemes on the table, any of them alone could be our demise; three or four of them taken together will just speed up the destruction.
DA_Champion wrote:North wrote:Sometimes, it seems, people are just too smart for their own good. I've already got several of these scrubbers in my back yard - they're called Trees.
Not to mention that most of these ideas do little for the other CO2 problem - that of ocean acidification.
Removing CO2 from the air takes care of that problem automatically. Naturally it will take a few decades.Gerald Warner wrote:At last, man-made climate change is a threat - engineered by the global-warming fanatics themselves
From the perspective of the anti-AGW camp, it is impossible as a matter of principle for humans to affect the environment, thus they are hypocritical for worrying of these geoengineering schemes.styky wrote:Nutz
That's how people often respond when they see something new.
The fact is we've been engaging in geoengineering for hundreds of years, pumping gases into the atmosphere, dumping our garbage and waste everywhere, conducting nuclear waste, et cetera. We have two choices:
1) We can ignore these problems, and then eventually collapse as a civlization.
2) We can change our behavior.
3) We can try and compensate for our bad behavior using some of these schemes.
It's not all that different in principle from forcing logging companies to plant trees. Does that government regulation bother you?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests