Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Wayoftheflower said:
Every challenge to your faith just reinforces it clearly.
it wasn't a challenge to my faith, i don't have a particular faith. i was highlighting the statement you made applies far more to the greenwash side (and i differentiate the greenwash side from the people that are trying to find answers to questions no matter where they lead) than the fossil fuel funded denier side. by an order of magnitude the last time i looked.I see that is is being reported that Bill Gates is funding a project to re0introduce global dimming.
Bill Gates backs plan to tackle climate change by blocking out the sun
https://news.yahoo.com/bill-gates-backing-plan-to-...
Now there is a case for putting this in the Science thread for feasibility and risk discussions from a scientific perspective and maybe one for opening a Psychiatry thread to discuss the mental state of people who propose and support such ideas.
But more importantly, in my opinion, the Politics of managing such a concept - workable and effective or not scientifically - would surely be more than challenging. And that would be true even if we had one World Government.
"The scientists said last year: ‘Dozens of countries would have both the expertise and the money to launch such a program.
‘Around 50 countries have military budgets greater than $3 billion, with 30 greater than $6 billion.’
The idea of ‘solar geo-engineering’ or solar radiation management (SRM) is controversial, mimicking the world-chilling effects of huge volcanic eruptions."
I can only see this solving the alleged problem by being the catalyst for some sort of global conflict, possibly resulting in widespread nuclear confrontation.
I guess that would be one way of solving the crisis by drastic reduction of human numbers (and therefore consumption) for a "justifiable" purpose.
The masses might go for that idea even though it seems unlikely that it could be 'sold' to the victims as a voluntary elective option if they really, really wanted to 'do something' useful for the cause.
Bill Gates backs plan to tackle climate change by blocking out the sun
https://news.yahoo.com/bill-gates-backing-plan-to-...
Now there is a case for putting this in the Science thread for feasibility and risk discussions from a scientific perspective and maybe one for opening a Psychiatry thread to discuss the mental state of people who propose and support such ideas.
But more importantly, in my opinion, the Politics of managing such a concept - workable and effective or not scientifically - would surely be more than challenging. And that would be true even if we had one World Government.
"The scientists said last year: ‘Dozens of countries would have both the expertise and the money to launch such a program.
‘Around 50 countries have military budgets greater than $3 billion, with 30 greater than $6 billion.’
The idea of ‘solar geo-engineering’ or solar radiation management (SRM) is controversial, mimicking the world-chilling effects of huge volcanic eruptions."
I can only see this solving the alleged problem by being the catalyst for some sort of global conflict, possibly resulting in widespread nuclear confrontation.
I guess that would be one way of solving the crisis by drastic reduction of human numbers (and therefore consumption) for a "justifiable" purpose.
The masses might go for that idea even though it seems unlikely that it could be 'sold' to the victims as a voluntary elective option if they really, really wanted to 'do something' useful for the cause.
wc98 said:
Wayoftheflower said:
Every challenge to your faith just reinforces it clearly.
it wasn't a challenge to my faith, i don't have a particular faith. i was highlighting the statement you made applies far more to the greenwash side (and i differentiate the greenwash side from the people that are trying to find answers to questions no matter where they lead) than the fossil fuel funded denier side. by an order of magnitude the last time i looked.Kawasicki said:
jshell said:
I fear 'geo-engineering' more than almost anything else. If it goes wrong, we're f
ked.
On the other hand it would be interesting to see the climate change quickly, for a change.ked.That comment reminded me of some observations claimed shortly after the 9/11 attacks in the US when all flying was banned for a few days.
The clearer skies meant no con-trials and therefore greater insolation reaching the ground level, or so it was reported. This an apparently measurable and virtually "instant" change of climate over a wide area.
Thus one wonders whether expecting everyone to adopt the Thunberg travel principle (and so stop flying) might result in instantly higher temperatures that more that offset the longer term proposed benefits of reduced 'carbon' output.
Add a few additional geo-engineering "solutions" to the mix (established by virtue signalling fanatics around the globe all doing their own thing - or simply trying to cow and subjugate the people they control) and watch in awe as "mother nature" responds.
Add in a couple of really good volcanic eruptions (unplanned presumably) and things could get extremely interesting. Almost to the point where colonising Mars starts to look like a sensible and logical proposal.
LongQ said:
The clearer skies meant no con-trials and therefore greater insolation reaching the ground level, or so it was reported. This an apparently measurable and virtually "instant" change of climate over a wide area.
SO the obvious answer to get cooling is to subsidise jet fuel with the condition that the airlines must fly faster to get that subsidy; more con-trails, cooler, shorter flight times. Thats got to be a win-win.And probably a lot cheaper than other methods.LongQ said:
I see that is is being reported that Bill Gates is funding a project to re0introduce global dimming.
Bill Gates backs plan to tackle climate change by blocking out the sun
https://news.yahoo.com/bill-gates-backing-plan-to-...
Now there is a case for putting this in the Science thread for feasibility and risk discussions from a scientific perspective and maybe one for opening a Psychiatry thread to discuss the mental state of people who propose and support such ideas.
But more importantly, in my opinion, the Politics of managing such a concept - workable and effective or not scientifically - would surely be more than challenging. And that would be true even if we had one World Government.
"The scientists said last year: ‘Dozens of countries would have both the expertise and the money to launch such a program.
‘Around 50 countries have military budgets greater than $3 billion, with 30 greater than $6 billion.’
The idea of ‘solar geo-engineering’ or solar radiation management (SRM) is controversial, mimicking the world-chilling effects of huge volcanic eruptions."
I can only see this solving the alleged problem by being the catalyst for some sort of global conflict, possibly resulting in widespread nuclear confrontation.
I guess that would be one way of solving the crisis by drastic reduction of human numbers (and therefore consumption) for a "justifiable" purpose.
The masses might go for that idea even though it seems unlikely that it could be 'sold' to the victims as a voluntary elective option if they really, really wanted to 'do something' useful for the cause.
I'm guessing he hasn't seen The Matrix Trilogy or Highlander 2. Bill Gates backs plan to tackle climate change by blocking out the sun
https://news.yahoo.com/bill-gates-backing-plan-to-...
Now there is a case for putting this in the Science thread for feasibility and risk discussions from a scientific perspective and maybe one for opening a Psychiatry thread to discuss the mental state of people who propose and support such ideas.
But more importantly, in my opinion, the Politics of managing such a concept - workable and effective or not scientifically - would surely be more than challenging. And that would be true even if we had one World Government.
"The scientists said last year: ‘Dozens of countries would have both the expertise and the money to launch such a program.
‘Around 50 countries have military budgets greater than $3 billion, with 30 greater than $6 billion.’
The idea of ‘solar geo-engineering’ or solar radiation management (SRM) is controversial, mimicking the world-chilling effects of huge volcanic eruptions."
I can only see this solving the alleged problem by being the catalyst for some sort of global conflict, possibly resulting in widespread nuclear confrontation.
I guess that would be one way of solving the crisis by drastic reduction of human numbers (and therefore consumption) for a "justifiable" purpose.
The masses might go for that idea even though it seems unlikely that it could be 'sold' to the victims as a voluntary elective option if they really, really wanted to 'do something' useful for the cause.
bodhi said:
I'm guessing he hasn't seen The Matrix Trilogy or Highlander 2.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/matrix_revisited.png[Cough] the same applies to highlander.......
Randy Winkman said:
techiedave said:
They ae being very beastly to our Greta
Perhaps they are snowflakes who are easily offended. We were told precisely that by senior climate scientist Dr David Viner of UEA, it must be so. Gospel truth.
Climate fairytales
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff