Climate Change

Climate Intervention Finally Discussed in Latest National Global Change Research Plan Update

Way past time to experiment with geoengineering as an emergency backup plan to cool the planet

|

EarthAtmosphereStiggdriverDreamstime
Stiggdriver/Dreamstime

Most environmental activist groups are resolutely opposed to allowing experiments that aim to test and develop various geoengineering ideas as an emergency backup cooling plan for the earth. For example, the Friends of the Earth want a global moratorium on any such experiments. Why? Geoengineering conflicts with sustainable and just solutions to the climate crisis," declares FOE. "Real climate justice requires dealing with root causes of climate change, not launching risky, unproven and unjust schemes."

One of the more intriguing ideas is to reflect sunlight back into space as way to cool the planet. In one proposal the stratosphere is seeded with reflective sulfur dioxide particles. The eruption of the Mt. Pinatubo volcano that injected millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere in 1992 functioned as a natural experiment that lowered global average temperature by around 0.7 degree Celsius for several months. Another proposal is to have specially designed ships spray seawater into the air so that salt particles functioning as cloud nuclei can whiten, and thus make more reflective, low-level maritime clouds.

At the Marrakech United Nations climate change conference in November, Cambridge University researchers Hugh Hunt and Peter Wadhams expressed their frustration with environmentalist obstructionism with regard to geoengineering experiments to test the feasibility of cooling the climate. Neither is in favor of geoengineering as the first resort, but that humanity should have some idea if it would work should global average temperature rise faster and produce worse consequences than currently projected. They discussed one possible experiment in which maritime clould whitening might be tried at a relatively small scale at the edge of the Arctic sea ice to see if it could reverse the recent steep decline in Arctic summer sea ice.

Protests from Green activists in 2011 managed to derail the SPICE experiment (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Enginieering) in which researchers would hoist a hose using balloons a kilometer into the air to spray water vapor. The goal was merely to see if such a pipeline would work. Amusingly, some activists have scheduled a Global March Against Geoengineering (and Chemtrails) for April 23 this year.

Cowed by activists and beholden to the misbegotten precautionary principle, the U.S. government has not sanctioned research on an emergency backup cooling system. That may change. As President Obama is departing, U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) has just issued it National Global Change Research Plan 2012–2021: A Triennial Update that opens the door a tiny crack to such research. The USGCRP is not endorsing experiments but does note:

While climate intervention cannot substitute for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the changes in climate that occur, some types of deliberative climate intervention may someday be one of a portfolio of tools used in managing climate change. The need to understand the possibilities, limitations, and potential side effects of climate intervention becomes all the more apparent with the recognition that other countries or the private sector may decide to conduct intervention experiments independently from the U.S. Government.

An immediate next step for USGCRP is defining the scale and scope of observations and modeling capabilities necessary to detect the signal of any future field experiments above baseline conditions and natural variability, and to evaluate their consequences. Such research would also define the smallest scale of intervention experiments that would yield meaningful scientific understanding. USGCRP will use its scientific understanding of natural processes, such as natural carbon sequestration or dynamics of atmospheric particulates, to inform potential pathways for carbon removal and albedo modification. Approaches would include evaluating the capabilities of current models to represent any proposed climate intervention measure and to evaluate its implications over time, using natural events as intervention analogs (such as volcanic eruptions that inject large particulate loads into the atmosphere), and laboratory experiments.

One such small scale intervention experiment might include Arctic maritime cloud whitening to see if reduces sea ice melting in the summer. At the Marrakech climate conference, researcher Hugh Hunt analogized a future period of especially rapid warming to World War II noting that "the urgency of winning the war against Hitler was such that things were done, like the Normandy landing, without thinking too much whether people agreed. Sometimes the urgency is such that we need to do the research, and fast." Hunt added, "I'm not pro-geoengineering at all — I'm pro-research." Perhaps this new report indicates that the federal government will ignore anti-geoengineering activists and also now become pro-research. At the very least, the government should get out of the way of private groups like Intellectual Ventures that want to test geo-engineering technologies.

NEXT: Porn, Abortion, Muslims, and Hillary Clinton: Jeff Sessions Confirmation Hearings Begin

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No mention of Russ George’s dumping iron sulfide over 15,000 miles of the Pacific Ocean? It’s one of the greatest intentional attempts at large-scale geoengineering. Despite the UN and environmentalists’ ire, the results appear to show it was a success. Algae blooms were plentiful and the salmon run was significantly larger that year.

    1. Let the strong wind of iron sulfide seeding blow across the oceans.

    2. I’ve thought about that experiment for a while. While not really a “success” at what they’d hoped to accomplish, it may actually be a valuable tool to fight another problem that is far less political or debatable: mercurification of sea life, especially of species at the top of the food chain (such as tuna).

      As you mentioned, it indirectly increases fish populations, and since the mercury bioaccumulates, it would mean more fish and a resulting reduction in the amount of mercury accumulated in each individual fish. An argument could be made that it might result in die-offs of other top predators after a boom in their populations if we stopped doing it, so it’s not something we should experiment with lightly.

      1. it might result in die-offs of other top predators after a boom in their populations if we stopped doing it

        Nature is full of boom and bust cycles. In fact, they are probably very useful to the evolutionary process. This doesn’t concern me.

        1. The scientific community barley has a grasp on climate and how everything is interrelated. Somehow I think letting these same scientists fuck around with geoengineering is a bad idea.

          *stops to ponder screen name… nihil…*

          We should begin geoengineering today! Why haven’t we done more?

  2. They increasingly remind me of the Nazis. Despite the utter lack of any evidence of Jewish perfidy dangerous warming, they want to take action, and if they need a totalitarian state to save people from themselves, they will embrace one, because the failure of the people to recognize the damage Jews CO2 is doing to society can only be the product of a conspiracy of the Jews fossil fuel interests to keep the people in chains.

    1. I was going to say social engineering – works a treat every time politicians and their social sciences advisors get involved, why not unleash these people on our only functional planet while were at it. What could possibly go wrong.

      1. I have my doubts that mankind can kill the Earth without a purposeful species-wide mandate to do so. Can we do worse to the planet than smacking a comet into it so hard that it creates a crater bigger than Texas? No? Then fuck off, Earth laughs at your feeble efforts to destroy it.

        No matter what we do, up to and including complete and widespread nuclear war, life will continue even if we do not. So who really gives a shit? Stupid people. Stupid people and children. That is all.

    2. if they need a totalitarian state to save people from themselves, they will embrace one,

      What this shows is even if they don’t need a totalitarian state, they will embrace one. The totalitarian state isn’t their means. It’s the end they’re after.

      1. ^^^^THIS^^^^

        This is a “solution” for which the left has been search of a problem that would scare people into accepting something they otherwise simply would never do. Wrap it in the veneer of a crisis, and many will do anything they are told.

    3. Well, of course, the CAGW alarmists argue for Nuremberg trials for fossil fuel interests, as well as conservatives and libertarians who were enthusiastic enough about ending CO2 emissions. The CAGW crowd won’t be satisfied until their opponents are frog-marched into carbon-neutral re-education camps and forced to cease their own personal production of CO2.

      However, unlike the Nazis, the CAGW alarmists don’t promise any future benefits to the volk (other than the unspoken benefits to cronies like Al Gore and Elon Musk, of course.) Instead, they preach that we all must suffer to atone for our sins against Gaia.

  3. “Geoengineering conflicts with sustainable and just solutions to the climate crisis,” declares FOE. “Real climate justice requires dealing with root causes of climate change, not launching risky, unproven and unjust schemes.”

    So, aesthetically, it’s really not to their tastes?

    1. Real climate justice requires dealing with root causes of climate change, not launching risky, unproven and unjust schemes

      First, show me a way to deal with the root cause that isn’t a risky, unproven, and unjust scheme.

      Query: what’s “unust” about geo-engineering, again?

      1. “First, show me a way to deal with the root cause that isn’t a risky, unproven, and unjust scheme.
        Query: what’s “unust” about geo-engineering, again?”

        Exactly.
        That was a red herring since they’d rather not admit to worshipping at chapel of “natural”.
        Their regard for science lasts exactly as long as they can wrap themselves in it allowing them to bludgeon non-bleevers.

        1. If one plots the percent of humanity living in abject poverty on the y-axis against atmospheric CO2 since 1850 on the x-axis, one can readily observe that higher atmospheric CO2 is highly correlated with an enormous reduction in poverty. The slope of the line is steeply negative, and the r2 is 0.96.

          Very few correlations in the social sciences obtain an r2 of 0.96.

          So, why should I think that a reduction in CO2 emissions will help the poor? And, if reducing CO2 emissions actually hurts the poorest of the poor as the hard data from 1850-2010 actually demonstrate, WTF does “climate justice” even mean?

      2. First show me there is a persistent upward trend in global average temperatures, with little chance of natural variation to the opposite direction and magnitude.

        1. Well, it would not be surprising if there is a naturally occurring upward trend in global average temperatures. We are technically still in the fifth ice age (in an interglacial period) so therefor our current average temperatures are below the normal average for the planet and we should expect a regression to the mean at some point.

      3. The extra stupid thing is that, no matter what we do, it’s “geo-engineering”. They just get mad when if we talk about even thinking about it as an actual engineering problem instead of a social justice problem. But then again, that’s kind of the whole point. They want to sacrifice some people to the volcano. They need a volcano God to justify it. If we figure out how to control the volcano, that fucks up their whole plan.

        1. Well, if you could control volcanoes enough to stop them erupting and putting trillions of tons of CO2 in the air we could go a long way towards saving Gaia.

  4. I’m not pro-geoengineering at all ? I’m pro-research.

    It’s shitty that when they say ‘geoengineering’, what they really mean is top-down geoengineering. Geoengineering is going to happen and, if he’s pro-research, he’s pro-geoengineering.

  5. Ron,

    You rightfully understand the absurdity of governments managing the economy and the inevitable dangers that come with the unintended and unforseeable second order effects of such management. Yet, you endorse governments trying to manage the climate. Can’t you see the inherent contradiction of those two positions? We know exponentially less about the climate and the earth’s atmosphere than we do about how economies work. And the consequences of screwing up the climate may not be reversible, unlike bad economic policies that can always be undone allowing markets to recover.

    Have you lost your mind? This is without doubt one of the most dangerously stupid ideas in existence today.

    1. Hey, what’s the worst that could happen?

      1. What’s left of us end up on a train lorded over by Ed Harris?

        1. Spoiler alert, man.

        2. And weren’t the orphans amazing? I wish mine were so dedicated.

      2. “Oooo! We didn’t get the cataclysmic warming that the eco-loons screeched about for years? Everything turned out OK after all? Just a momentary data spike, geological speaking? We instead impoverished and oppressed billions of people who would have otherwise prospered, without our poorly designed, totalitarian eco-policies?”

        “Never mind…”

      3. Progs freeze to death and we eat them.

      4. Hey, what’s the worst that could happen?

        Snowball Earth.

    2. Hear, hear!

      Even the IPCC admits that Global Warming isn’t dangeous in the next century. See table 12.4 here.

      For those who want to understand the significance, this blog post covering a talk by the leader for that working group discussing that table may be found here:

      A Report from the Royal

      1. The money quote:

        What? Yes that’s right. The real story may not be in the IPCC rowback on temperature ranges, or its cack-handed “explanations” for the stalling temperatures. It may in fact all be in this table. Be sure to look for yourself. Every single catastrophic scenario bar one has a rating of “Very unlikely” or “Exceptionally unlikely” and/or has “low confidence”. The only disaster scenario that the IPCC consider at all likely in the possible lifetimes of many of us alive now is “Disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice”, which itself has a ‘likely’ rating and liable to occur by mid century with medium confidence. As the litany of climate disasters go, that’s it.

        This prompted me to put a question to him, which was the first I’d been able to raise via the chair all day (I’d tried in several talks). I said to Matt:

        “What the IPCC says, and what the media says it says are poles apart. Your talk is a perfect example of this. Low liklihood and low confidence for almost every nightmare scenario. Yet this isn’t reflected at all in the media. Many people here have expressed concern at the influence of climate sceptics. Wouldn’t climate scientists’ time be better spent reining in those in the media producing irresponsible, hysterical, screaming headlines?”

        Tumbleweed followed for several seconds. Then Matt said:

        “Not my responsibility”.

    3. Need to run the policy through the Reason technofetishist bias system:

      1. Does it contain the word cyber, techno, or robotic? If yes, it’s good. If no…
      2. Does it plan to centrally manage or control a complex system of behaviours, phenomena and/or human beings, but do it in a way that seems futuristic? If yes, it’s good. If no, standard libertarian principles apply.

      1. Top Men still in development.

    4. John, the greenies hate geoengineering because they are afraid it will work and people will continue with their evil consumerist lifestyles. They want there to be huge hurricanes, tornadoes, heatwaves, etc., so we will be forced to agree with them and accept their plans for us to live in 80 sq ft apartments in huge cities with only bicycles and electric busses to get around. I say give it a try-its doubtful anything will work at a large enough scale to have much impact, but if it does, that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing (and the Chinese are already doing it).

      1. and the Chinese are already doing it

        Heh. I hear the Russians have already hacked the climate and intend to use it to keep Trump in power for the next 8 yrs.!

      2. They want there to be huge hurricanes, tornadoes, heatwaves, etc

        That is just it, I do too. Those things serve a purpose. And if somehow you had the power to prevent them, you would be stupid to do so, because it would likely produce all kinds of horrible second order effects that you had not considered.

        1. I don’t think these things would go away with geoengineering-nature is too powerful a force. You could argue that we have already been conducting geoengineering experiments with car/factory emissions, damming rivers, and clearing forests. Who’s to say what the climate would be like now if people didn’t do any of these?

          1. You could say that and the results have been very unpredictable and mixed. And to the extent they haven’t been bad, it has been because they have not been significant. i see geoengineering as either a giant waste of time that will accomplish nothing or something that will work and work havoc on our climate in ways that we might not be able to fix.

    5. What John said, Bailey. I think you should print it out and put it on your fridge as a warning. Coz, listen, see, everyone always thinks of solid, sensible plans enacted by solid, sensible people, but then what happens is Maduro gets a hold of the idea. Let that stew around in the old brainpan for a while and ask if Top Men screwing with the climate is really such a fantastic idea.

      1. Well, Top Men did fix health care…

    6. John is right. Watch out John, the next 3 Ron Bailey articles will now involve automated vehicles.

      1. And nano bots.

      2. Bailey is trying to kill me by driving my blood pressure up.

    7. And John nails it.

      Anyone who endorses this idea should be gibbeted. Let ’em get a taste of ‘climate’.

    8. Yes, Bailey has jumped the tracks, again…

    9. Inducing the next ice age seems like a big downside.

  6. Way past time to experiment with geoengineering as an emergency backup plan to cool the planet

    **Or** maybe we don’t try to intentionally fuck with the climate. Or maybe the inhabitants of the planet could benefit from the warm trend of the natural cycle that is “climate change”.

    1. Don’t you see, everything must me made to stay the same forever because any difference from the status quo is catastrophe! How will we know what will happen? We can’t, thereofre we must stop it!

      /proglogic.

    2. But, unless you’re cool with people dying in floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. geoengineering is going to occur.

      The question isn’t whether geoengineering is going to occur. It’s a question of whether it’s going to occur off the remote coasts of Nunavut without anyone’s life hanging in the balance or whether we continue to wait until people are huddled in the Superdome and dying of dehydration again.

      1. Seriously, if the ‘hose on a rope’ were even remotely successful at cooling “the globe” imagine the potential for pushing Hurricane classes down.

      2. But, unless you’re cool with people dying in floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. geoengineering is going to occur.

        Since those things are going to happen in any conceivable version of Earth’s climate, the notion that people will inevitably turn to geoengineering to prevent them seems quite the nonsequitur.

        Especially when mitigation is so much cheaper and safer.

        1. Especially when mitigation is so much cheaper and safer.

          This is my point. Mitigation (depending on your embodiment of it) is just geoengineering on the micro scale. Everyone is using the term geoengineering as though it’s inevitably synonymous with terraforming.

          Emissions regulations are much more, geoengineering than the ‘hose on a rope’ experiment.

          1. Don’t live on the fucking eastern seaboard and problem solved, for one thing. Since people seem to like the view over their lives, I say let them and fuck ’em when the inevitable happens. If nothing else it seems like a net benefit evolution-wise for the rest of the species to let the fuckwits concentrate themselves into natural disaster areas.

    3. Or maybe the inhabitants of the planet could benefit from the warm trend of the natural cycle that is “climate change”.

      Feh! Things were better when the glaciers crushed everything in their path! We were starving and freezing, but we had community!

    4. Or maybe the inhabitants of the planet could benefit from the warm trend of the natural cycle that is “climate change”.
      If that were to happen these cultists would be even more adamant on stopping the process. It’s prosperity and happiness they’re opposed to.

    5. There is no warm trend aside from the natural one and I am not convinced even of that.

  7. Geoengineering conflicts with sustainable and just solutions to the climate crisis!

    1. We can Tesla our way out of this mess!

      1. They’re going to have to Tesla the shit out of this.

        1. Elon Approves! (and awaits your tasty, tasty tax-based tribute)

  8. I suppose these assholes probably are also against vaccines and all medical interventions too, because we will first need to cut the world’s population in half to stop/slow climate change. How about a nice big fat nuke delivered to any country that attempts geoengineering? (just think how much a nuclear winter would slow climate change).

    1. Half? No, of the 7 billion upright monkeys currently wandering around this planet, about 5-6 billion need to go to obtain a sustainable, just, green utopia.

      1. Who else tried to create a sustainable, green utopia?

        1. Ralph Nader?

        2. Howard Dean?

        3. Pol Pot?

        4. The Na’avi?

        5. Pot growers everywhere?

        6. Ron Bailey?

        7. The Guardians of Oa?

  9. Geoengineering will always end up on the sidelines in mainstream environmentalism because it doesn’t fit into the quasi-Christian theology of the environmentalist movement. Mankind eats from the tree of knowledge, gains knowledge, develops technology from it, rapes Gaia and now we must be punished for our original sin. Geoengineering is a cheat, it’s using knowledge to dodge our ‘just punishment’. There’s certainly some scientists who will argue in favour of it and some research will take place, but it will never be accepted by greater environmentalism because it’s fundamentally a rejection of the philosophical slave morality that infests it.

    1. ^This^. See also the war against vaping-proggies aren’t really interested in solutions to problems because it will take the attention away from them. They are a lot like my 3 year old who throws a tantrum almost every morning because he doesn’t like the clothes/food that were picked out for him, and keeps screaming that he doesn’t like any of the other options we give him either.

      1. They are a lot like my 3 year old who throws a tantrum almost every morning because he doesn’t like the clothes/food that were picked out for him, and keeps screaming that he doesn’t like any of the other options we give him either.

        Opens Dad playbook, finds references to uncomfortable comparisons to peers, redirection, and reverse psychology.

        “I heard Donald Trump doesn’t believe in AGW to the point that he would refuse to allow geoengineering experiments even if they would save lives! He’d rather build a wall than save the planet.”

    2. Geoengineering is a cheat, it’s using knowledge to dodge our ‘just punishment’.

      See GMOs

      There are a lot of environmentalists out there who are really upset that we aren’t all starving.

      Problems have solutions. Humans are very good at coming up with those solutions, a concept that prognosticators always leave out of their calculations.

  10. At least it’s not politically convenient to scream drought in Northern California as of late.

    1. Has the storm killed off that obnoxious bait fish for us?

      1. You mean Gov. Moonbeam?

    2. “At least it’s not politically convenient to scream drought in Northern California as of late.”

      The paper had some hand-wringer this morning whinging on about ‘the drought’s not over!’ So the concern still concerns.

      1. So the concern still concerns.

        As it should, since one wet winter does not end several years of drought.

  11. Most environemental activist groups are resolutely opposed to allowing experiments that aim to test and develop various geoengineering ideas as an emergency backup cooling plan for the earth.

    That’s because most environmental activist groups have no concept of the scientific method and seek to control the earths economy rather than its atmosphere.

    1. Terse and superb. I’ve gotta use this one.

    1. Ever since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun. I shall do the next best thing…

      1. Ahh, back when The Simpsons was good TV.

    2. Create tedious and dull documentaries that get dragged out and flogged for the ever-more-frequent begathons?

  12. Does spontaneous plant growth and plant respiration count as engineering ???????

    1. No, but it does get you a visit from the SWAT team at 3 AM.

  13. Most environemental [sic] activist groups are resolutely opposed to allowing experiments that aim to test and develop various geoengineering ideas as an emergency backup cooling plan for the earth. For example, the Friends of the Earth want a global moratorium on any such experiments. Why? Geoengineering conflicts with sustainable and just solutions to the climate crisis,” declares FOE.

    In reality, it’s likely because they fear that a well-executed plan may just work and completely undercut their ambitions at greater world-government control through creeping socialism. They hate capitalism and if capitalism produces any solution that reduces CO2 to the point where they’ve lost their greatest political bargaining chip, then they’ll rail against it with all the force they can muster.

  14. At the Marrakech United Nations climate change conference in November,

    Let me guess: they all flew there on private planes and the meeting generated a larger carbon footprint than the rest of the nation of Morocco did for that week.

    And these people want to be taken seriously when they say they care about the environment.

    1. You got that mostly right, except that the carbon footprint they generated was larger than the rest of Morocco for the year.

  15. I’m genuinely creeped out by the obsession with their insistence on using the word “justice” to describe their ends. It’s exactly the attitude of totalitarian shitheels striving towards a perfect world.

    1. On the plus side, you get to yell “Avenge me, boys! Avenge meeeeeee….!” from behind the locally-sourced bamboo camp fence.

    2. Worse, they mean SOCIAL justice, which is the opposite of actual justice.

      1. And of course the same is true of ‘social engineering’.

  16. “Humanity should have some idea if it would work should global average temperature rise faster and produce worse consequences than currently projected.”

    This seems so obvious.

    One of the things I hear a lot from climate change deniers is that they’re not willing to spend a penny to protect themselves from climate change until someone proves that it’s actually occurring, which is absurd.

    Buying fire insurance regardless of whether your house is actually on fire is not irrational. Buying auto insurance before, rather than after, you get into a car accident isn’t irrational.

    Rational risk management is about uncertainty and cost. You look at the worst case scenario, the costs of that, the likelihood of it happening, and determine the least expensive way to account for that risk. Even if home and auto lenders didn’t require you to buy insurance to protect their investment in the case of foreclosure or repossession, buying fire and auto insurance would still make sense depending on the cost of premiums.

    If the climate change alarmists don’t want us to use rational risk management on the question of climate change, they’re being completely irrational–unscientific even. There should be a name for them, “risk management deniers” or something like that.

    1. Someone here analogized repealing Obamacare to Cortez burning his ships after reaching the new world. I think environmentalists have the same mentality: any effort to mitigate climate change is per force an effort to undermine their effort to sanction carbon emissions, and as such must be opposed.

      1. “Someone here analogized repealing Obamacare to Cortez burning his ships after reaching the new world.”

        That was me.

        It’s hard to herd cats forward so long as they think they can stay where they are or go back to where they were.

        I think you’re right in that many climate change alarmists don’t want people to think that anything but sacrifice can solve the problem.

        These are the people who don’t want nuclear.

        These are the people who don’t want us to upgrade the power generation equipment in our government owned and operated dams–because someday, they hope to dismantle the dams.

        These are the people who oppose fracking despite the resulting natural gas bringing down the rate of CO2 emissions.

        The believe forced sacrifice is the only solution without negative consequences for the environment, and they believe that getting people to accept forced sacrifice is the only way forward. Anything or anybody that suggests there’s another way is their enemy because of that.

    2. Spending large amounts of money on trying to mitigate climate change is irrational because:

      1. We don’t know how much to spend to ameliorate the potential damages, unlike insurance
      2. We don’t know what the potential damages could be, unlike insurance
      3. We don’t know if our efforts to mitigate the climate may cause other adverse effects, unlike insurance
      4. We don’t know what the climate should be set too, providing no baseline, unlike insurance

      If you can provide, within a decent amount of confidence, what the global average temperature should be, what the consequences would be if we don’t keep the temperature at that setting, what the costs of those consequences would be, and that the methods we have to keep the climate within that range cost less than simply paying the damages, you may have a case for risk management in a sensible, actuarial sense.

      Until you can provide such answers, I would suggest urging people to try find them, rather than trying to ignore that other people have rational and good faith reasons for having a different view on this issue than you.

      1. “Spending large amounts of money . . .

        What about small amounts of money?

        Risk analysis typically uses a standard deviation in the face of absolute uncertainty, but we can probably do better than that.

        Regardless, uncertainty is the natural state. Because we’re uncertain about the likelihood of something bad occurring in the future is an insufficient reason to do nothing to avoid it.

        I don’t know what the likelihood is of the North Koreans or Iranians launching a nuclear weapon at us in the future, but maintaining a nuclear deterrent is a perfectly rational response to that threat anyway–assuming the costs are low enough.

      2. We do know some things for certain. Average temperatures and CO2 have been higher in the past. Higher temperature climates go hand in hand with greater precipitation. People and animals die of cold related injuries far more often than from heat. Higher temperatures will bring down energy usage and allow people to spend that money on other life enhancing things. Higher temperatures mean longer growing seasons across greater swaths of land which will produce more crops. Where is the downside of being warmer?

        1. Where is the downside of being warmer?

          … all the things you mentioned before you asked the question.

          1. They are certainly negative for people who think high standards of living for a growing human population is a bad thing.

        2. Higher temperatures will bring down energy usage

          Not around my house they don’t.

          1. Heating and cooking is a differential thing, indoor and outdoor differences being greatest in the winter for the majority of the world, bring temps up in the winter and it costs less to get those indoor temps up. Don’t worry, the progs want to ban air conditioning so we won’t have to worry about the summer.

    3. “One of the things I hear a lot from climate change deniers is that they’re not willing to spend a penny to protect themselves from climate change until someone proves that it’s actually occurring, which is absurd.

      Buying fire insurance regardless of whether your house is actually on fire is not irrational. Buying auto insurance before, rather than after, you get into a car accident isn’t irrational.”

      Houses catching on fire and cars getting into accidents are things that have actually happened and do happen with regularity It is unambiguous that these things occur.

      It is not at all analogous to the unproven claim that (1) man is changing the environment and (2) the magnitude of that change will be personally detrimental to those being asked to bear the cost of “insuring” against it.

      1. Yeah, I wouldn’t spend too much money to protect the underside of my bed from the boogeyman–since he isn’t real–but I don’t think the case for AGW is quite boogeyman nonsense level.

        I know there are still areas of dispute as to what we’re seeing happening and why, but we are talking about natural forces and physical laws. Certainly, the greenhouse effect of greenhouse gases is real. Our atmosphere exists in the state it does because of that.

        So, in the risk analysis function that translates uncertainty and the cost of disaster into how much we should spend to mitigate for risk, the likelihood of AGW being a real threat may be lower than the risk of a fire or a car accident–but I wouldn’t say the risk level is zero like it is with something unreal like the boogeyman.

        In other words, we can argue about where the line is on spending more than necessary, but there probably is some cost level that is rational. Exploring effective emergency measures to counter the worst case scenario is probably rational, and it’s fairly low cost–certainly compared to the sacrifices the alarmists want us to make.

        1. I don’t think the case for AGW is quite boogeyman nonsense level.

          Perhaps not quite, but its close.

        2. Let me posit that deploying the right data and equally ‘justifiable’ models, I could simultaneously demonstrate that we are currently EQUALLY at risk of Anthropogenic Global Cooling, and that there’s reasonable evidence that eliminating decade-cycles of heating and cooling, that there’s a century-period wave that is trending us downwards.

          Which model do you trust (they could both be right). What is that ‘mitigation technology’ going to address? The short term trend, because its risk is proximal, or the long term trend, because while being distal, it’s a far more sever trend?

          This is why just ‘doing something’ is not a good idea. If we don’t understand something (and in the case of ‘severe’ AGW, the ‘proof’ is very thin), our PRIMARY concern should be to solidify that potential risk into a quantifiable risk, with confidence levels, because until you can quantify it, you can’t even design a mechanism for mitigating it.

          Unless you propose to let a (large?) number of competing solutions with differing objectives to be developed – which sounds awfully like our current mitigation methodology.

          1. Are you asserting that the risk of cooling is the same as the risk of heating?

            1. Over a sufficiently long cycle, yes.

              Depending on where we are in our current intraglacial, we might be nearing the high, or on our way into the decline. There’s plenty of geological evidence that the earth has experienced huge variation in climate before we ever got here.

              Pleistocene/Holocene – I think we’ve had 4 or 5 ice ages in the last 80,000 years, with intraglacial periods where land on the same latitude as Greenland have been fertile and ice free.

              1. Whoops. 800,000 years. It’s a long time since I did this stuff.

              2. We are not at the high for the current interracial. The HCO was several thousand years ago. And as interracial go this one has been rather cool. Humans can live just fine in a tropical environment (not that it would even come close to that). We can’t live under a mile of ice. The downside risk to cooling, which is the natural bias now anyway, is much greater than the downside risk of a modestly warmer planet which broader temperate regions and slightly less polar ice.

                1. Fucking autocorrect. Interglacial not interracial.

                  1. Cross-culturing is hawt!

                2. The point being that climate is cyclic in nature, with a number of periodicities, overlaid with perturbations caused by acknowledged factors such as axial plane, precession, planetary albedo, volcanic and meteoritic events, solar wind etc, ABSENT any effects from mankind (or life in general).

                  The evidence that demonstrates this is imprecise and incomplete, but a lot has been collected, and if it were processed honestly without being fucked about with, I suspect we’d have a reasonably useful historical record of global temperatures in a variety of locales, but the sampling *rate* would be of the order of hundreds of years at best, so inferring just how much of the last 250 years of that record is due to human activity is inevitably going to be difficult unless the impact is large enough to have CLEARLY perturbed the trend.

                  Which is why the MOST valuable thing these people who ‘fucking live science’ should be doing is collecting reliable data and not screwing around with it to fit their narrative.

                  1. Agreed. My biggest beef with global warming is that we aren’t outside natural variation. Not even close. Those that assert that just because co2 is a long wave absorber we must (must!) have runaway warming don’t even understand their own grossly oversimplified science and sure as hell don’t understand the real, comprehensive physics that dictate the climate.

    4. Yes, ‘Prevent Risk, At All Cost’!

  17. Most environemental activist groups are resolutely opposed to allowing experiments that aim to test and develop various geoengineering ideas as an emergency backup cooling plan for the earth.

    Because if geoengineering is successful, then their attempts to acquire more power would be thwarted.

  18. I’m conflicted.

    On one hand, I look at the history. Initially we had folks that flat-out denied that climate change was happening. That camp has slowly been depopulating as the evidence becomes harder and harder to deny, but folks haven’t slid over into “climate change is mankind’s fault”, they’ve invented “climate change is happening, but it’s not our fault and we shouldn’t do anything about it”. I suspect that they will try out “climate change is happening, but it’s not our fault, but I guess we should do something about it” before they move onto to “climate change is happening, it’s our fault, we should fix this.”

    But the intermediate camp “it’s not our fault but I guess we should fix it” won’t be likely to go along with “fixes” that are merely changes in behavior. What’s the point in curbing carbon emissions if you deny that carbon emissions are part of the problem, after all? And so-on down the line.

    So until enough of the deniers move into the final camp, large-scale change to behavior probably won’t happen. But Geo-engineering solutions might.

    So there’s the quandary. Geo-engineering solutions have a significant potential to become a “tragedy of the commons” problem. But due to politics, they’re also the only solutions that we’re likely to have a chance to implement before it’s too late.

    1. EE: Actually, geoengineering is proposed as a way to deal with some of the worst effects of the the purportedly already existing atmospheric tragedy of the commons. The point of the experiments is to try to identify unintended consequences of using geoengineering before it needs (if ever) to be deployed.

      1. Right Ron – stop Climate Change now, hooray for Climate Stasis…

      2. Right Ron – stop Climate Change now, hooray for Climate Stasis…

    2. Talk of moving deniers into final camps is distracting.

    3. You assume a progression based upon “depopulation” rather than based upon evidence. The satellite record shows slight warming. It’s not what was foretold and based upon the carbon-sensitive models’ failure to predict the temperature trend that has actually occurred so far, it’s not for the reasons that were foretold, either.

      It would be helpful to start with making sound predictions before declaring you know what the solutions must be.

      1. Why, when there is easy money to be had from the suckers…

    4. Thankfully we have true believers like yourself to reveal our sins.

  19. I confess I’m not wild about geoengineering the climate. Aside from the risks posed by humanity’s feeble understanding of climate, I just can’t see how you’d keep the politicians out of it. And if the politicians are in it something seriously fucked-up is going to happen. I don’t think the scenario central to the movie Serenity is all that far-fetched: the pols use science to try to “make people better” and it ends in disaster.

    Naturally that’s not the reason the Greenies are opposed. I think they’d cheerfully embrace the G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate. But not before they meet their goal of imposing socialism in the name of Saving The Planet.

    1. You can’t have it both ways. Either we understand climate enough to predict what is going to happen 100 years into the future, or we don’t. We can’t know it enough to say we are f*cked, but then suddenly become ignorant when solutions are proposed.

      1. Science is an investigation of the natural world, engineering is a discipline of solving problems within constraints. They are two distinct fields of human thought and neither adheres to your rigid and fantastical world view.

      2. Either we understand climate enough to predict what is going to happen 100 years into the future, or we don’t.

        We don’t. That’s one major reason why I’m not enthusiastic about geoengineering the climate.

        We can’t know it enough to say we are f*cked, but then suddenly become ignorant when solutions are proposed.

        Why not? Throughout human history, we’ve acquired knowledge in fits and starts. Realizing that you have a problem doesn’t mean that you instantly know how to fix it.

  20. A nuclear winter should fix the problem.

  21. I read that Friends of Earth quote as, ‘We don’t like it because it doesn’t require confiscatory taxation, doesn’t allow us to punish our enemies, and definitely doesn’t allow us to shout down dissenting heretics.’

    As to the merits of geoengineering, while some of it is pretty cool to think about, in our current construct this sort of thing requires direct government intervention, which rarely ends well.

  22. The question of why progressives are so obsessed with forced sacrifice probably has something to do with the observation that when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

    Being a progressive is all about using the coercive power of government to force people to make sacrifices for the common good.

    That’s all they have. If they give up that hammer of forced sacrifice, they aren’t progressives anymore. If you can’t force people to make sacrifices, it isn’t just that there’s no point in being a progressive anymore. Forced sacrifice is what it means to be a progressive like people being free to make choices for themselves is what it means to be a libertarian.

  23. J: Calm down. As I have explained numerous times, there are three ways to handle open access commons problems (1) privatize (2) regulate, and (3) ignore. Obviously privatization is the best option when transactions costs permit. However, the global atmosphere is a huge open access commons and the transactions costs between individuals are, to say the least, very high. Consequently, if man-made global warming is a big problem, then regulation may be the best that can be done to address the problem. Ignoring the addition of GHGs to atmospheric open access commons has some appeal (after all, government action may well turn out to be worse than climate change).

    Since screwing up the climate, as you say, may not be reversible (at least on time scales relevant to near-term generations), it makes a whole lot of sense to conduct experiments to see if geoengineering might obviate some of the worse consequences of any such “screw up.”

    1. Just to understand, the IPCC says it will take centuries for harmful things to happen, if at all.

      So do you mean by “near generations” people born between 100 and 500 years from now?

      1. Bailey’s desperately hoping the human lifespan triples in the next decade or so, so yes?

          1. I’m so looking foreword to having a T1000 body and a 90 year old senile mind.

            1. They’ve been making great strides at treating senility in recent years.

          2. It’d be nice, but I’m not transparently terrified of my own morality, like some science journalists.

            1. *Mortality, I am apparently terrified of proofreading however.

            2. Science journalist offices would give Sodom and Gomorrah a run for their money.

      2. t: No. Just taking into account the possibility that the upper end of the IPCC temperature projections to 2100 might occur.

        1. Do yourself a favor, Ron, go buy a Ouija board.

          The answers you get will be every bit as reliable as that IPCC projection.

        2. Except that those higher ranges are unacheivable, and if you pay any attention to the observational record, you should know it. The model assumptions that justify those higher predictions are utterly unrealistic.

          The summary for policy makers is written by politicians. It consistently overstates the dangers of warming and obscures the empirical evidence that what impact C02 has on climate is not dangerous. And they keep their confidence intervals wide, because it’s the only way they can keep observations within the band on the low end.

          It’s the equivalent of trusting documents put out by ONDCP summarizing the scientific literature on marijuana use when it proclaims that the scientific consensus is that the reefer has a good chance of causing kids ti murder their parents and white women to breed half-breeds with negro jazz musicians, thereby weakening the genetic health of America.

          1. Isn’t there a case to be made that even if the alarmists worst prediction were rock solid, accounting for ways to address that as a backup option would be perfectly rational?

            If we assume the alarmists’ worst case scenario for the sake of argument and address that, then aren’t the lesser alarmists’ arguments covered, too?

            1. That would depend on the scalability of the project. Sometimes, it’s simply impossible to validate a methodology in miniature, and you have to go the whole hog.

              We had to build a fully functioning space program in order to see what was on the surface of the dark side of the moon.

              There MIGHT be a case for the development of a small-scale project to address the nebulous, unsubstantiated claims of the alarmists, but a realistic suggestion FROM THEM that doesn’t involve a lot of totalitarian posturing, might be nice.

            2. That’s definitely a valid approach to tackling a problem. For example, if I’m designing a car’s seatbelts, I may design them to handle a 600 lb person in a crash going 75mph as a way of ensuring that they will work in most accidents.

              But… it becomes a futile exercise when the high end is unrealistic. Because you can always come up with crazy scenarios. The car is going 300 mph! The seat belt is restraining a man with an unobtanium skeleton weighing 3,000 lbs!

              And in any reasonably likely scenario, geoengineering is not needed. Because we are well in the regime where warming is beneficial. The justifications for these experiments are frankly unhinged from reality.

              I could get behind efforts to explore how to sabotage the next ice age (we still don’t know how they are triggered and how rapidly the flip to the cooler attractor occurs). I doubt that they are willing to consider that question.

        3. Just taking into account the possibility that the upper end of the IPCC temperature projections to 2100 might occur.

          Haven’t most of their models missed the low end of projections so far? Why would anyone think we’re going to hit the high end of projections?

          1. To date, the only climate models which curve fitted anywhere NEAR to observable climate have relied on gerrymandered base (calibration) data with researchers’ own data (which may or may not have been cherry picked).

            That base data is typically either NASA or UEA data, or is itself derived from that data.

            To my knowledge, none of the publically released models have been very good at matching observable historical trends. It may be that there are other, currently unreleased models which are better at fitting historical data (and hence, may have predictive value) but I haven’t seen them. Maybe these latter models are good, but they don’t demonstrate what the AGW alarmists would like them to demonstrate.

        4. While Number.6 employs the sardonic, it is still with merit. Further, it underscores the absurdity of ceteris paribus in viewing technology, research and life over the next 83 years, not to mention the laughably infinitesimal sample sizes under the pop culture, Weather Channel-like evidence….
          What predictor variables shall remain static over the next decade let alone century? How shall adaptation under changing conditions provoke market solutions that render current perspectives obsolete and, therefore, demolish the present observations, assumptions and behavioral dynamics (as well as hysteria)? What is the exponential rate of technological progress and associated lifestyle adaptation? (Progress over the past 83 years was light speed vs. the 83 years prior, and shall be a snail’s pace compared to the year 2100.)
          This does not undermine your provocative and thoughtful considerations on geoenginering, but merely emphasizes that the proximate risk should warrant no more mankind, self-loathing and blame than it did when a hurricane hit a hundred years ago. The blue planet shall be quite hospitable for eons, notwithstanding alien extermination or meteors.

    2. As I have explained numerous times, there are three ways to handle open access commons problems (1) privatize (2) regulate, and (3) ignore.

      Ron, you consistently posit this triumvirate that’s constructed to simultaneously rationalize your position and validate whatever statist rabbit you, or anyone else, pulls out of the hat.

      If we were headed for catastrophe, imposed all manner of regulation that didn’t solve the problem and moved to fracking and CNG to solve the problem, did we privatize, regulate, or ignore?

      More abstractly and/or pointedly; what if we all voluntarily form up a communist collective based around a religious artifact, exchange no funds, and solve the problem incidentally, did we privatize, regulate, or ignore?

      It’s a belief system based around a logic fallacy and you shouldn’t be surprised that people discard it out of hand.

    3. … it makes a whole lot of sense to conduct experiments to see if geoengineering might obviate some of the worse consequences of any such “screw up.”

      Unfortunately, there are no laboratories where such experimentation can occur. The only way to experiment with any geoengineering scheme (aimed at climate change) is to actually deploy it and see what happens.

      However, there is no way to contain the effects to a single, uninhabited island, and if it fucks things up worse, well, you can’t unring a bell.

  24. Geoengineering conflicts with sustainable and just solutions to the climate crisis,” declares FOE.

    I want to be clear about one thing: I am not in favor of geoengineering solutions for a problem that is not even well-defined (unless someone can point to the climate rate of change, the equation that describes the phenomenon). I think it is absurd to consider geoengineering as a way to mitigate the effects of so-called “climate change” when not even insurance companies are taking it into account. The Market has spoken on that issue.

    What I do want to point out to is the fallacy behind the notion that environmental groups are interested AT ALL in solutions that will help keep the increasing human standards of living, because Enviros do not want people to live happier and more prosperous lives – they want SOCIALISM, which long ago eschewed its pretensions of offering a greater material abundance. You can’t sell a religion if you do not first convince people that they were born sinners and must therefore expiate their sins in order to reach Heaven, Nirvana or The Cleanest Planet evah.

    So don’t think that people like FOE are making valid points out of health skepticism regarding “engineering” solutions proposed by arrogant assholes. They simply DON’T want solutions – they’re in the religion business, not the solution business.

    1. If the FoE really wanted solutions, they’d be as outraged as everyone else who understands just how horribly and maliciously gerrymandered all the climate research data has been to date.

      When people ask whether I believe that AGW is happening, they get upset when I tell them that not only do I not know – NOBODY KNOWS – because the data just isn’t there. Or rather, there’s plenty of data there but none of it is meaningful. The calibration series are compromised thanks to UEA and NASA among others, so you can’t *even* apply a precautionary principle, because nobody knows what the thermal trend direction is, nobody knows what the target should be, and nobody knows what the trajectory of the warming curve is.

      The problem isn’t even amenable to modelling at present, and even if it was, the data that you would feed into it (no matter how carefully collected, and how careful the collectors’ methodologies are) does you no good because none of the base data is clean.

      So it’s a bit early to even think about what geoengineering solutions should be developed to address a problem that hasn’t been quantified, which has parameters nobody understands.

    2. : I am not in favor of geoengineering solutions for a problem that is not even well-defined (unless someone can point to the climate rate of change, the equation that describes the phenomenon). I think it is absurd to consider geoengineering as a way to mitigate the effects of so-called “climate change” when not even insurance companies are taking it into account.

      Agreed.

      My criticism (below) is that they still have no business preventing other people from engaging in “geoengineering” boondoggles just because it detracts from their own “regulatory-redistributive” boondoggle.

      Both are stupid; but they’re irrationally demanding that they be the only game in town.

  25. “Real climate justice requires dealing with root causes of climate change, not launching risky, unproven and unjust schemes.”

    Only ‘real climate justice’ as they alone define it matters.

    It’s not about ‘saving’ the planet now is it, right? For if it were, they’d be open to all possibilities but they’re not.

    1. Yep-that’s what they want-others to suffer while they smirk. No cars, no meat, no air conditioning, you must pay the price for fouling Gaia-we, her saviors, are exempt.

  26. “Geo”-engineering will eventually happen. But, you know where it needs to happen first? On moons and planets other than earth.

  27. I was watching the new “Planet Earth” this week and it is refreshingly light on the evil humans dooming all this magnificent wildlife canard. It is awfully difficult to avoid political bias in this arena.

  28. “Geoengineering conflicts with sustainable and just solutions to the climate crisis,” declares FOE. “Real climate justice requires dealing with root causes of climate change, not launching risky, unproven and unjust schemes.”

    And this alone should stand as all the proof anyone would need that this cult isn’t out to improve life or “save the planet”. The only thing they want is to deny people happiness. To borrow a line from Atlas Shrugged, “They don’t want to live. They want you to die.”.

  29. 9/11 produced an inadvertent though interesting experiment with civil air traffic being stopped essentially for a week.

    Temps recorded that week were a couple standard deviations below the average – a remarkable swing, and a ‘problem’ for Carbontology, which has taken contrails and given them a tiny collective static forcing value in their videogame models, one they haven’t updated since 1998 despite air traffic at least doubling since then, and increasing from essentially zero flights in 1998 to hundreds of flights a day bisecting the arctic circle.

    The Church, if anything, does not want more experiments like that given their narrative.

    1. 9/11 produced an inadvertent though interesting experiment with civil air traffic being stopped essentially for a week.

      Temps recorded that week were a couple standard deviations below the average – a remarkable swing,

      *Just to be specific, temps over CONUS that week.

    2. Thats . . . odd. Got a link?

      1. Link to the Dr. David Travis 2002 paper in Nature which brought all this up.

        Nature 418, 601 (8 August 2002)

        Climatology: Contrails reduce daily temperature range. (From the linked abstract):

        The potential of condensation trails (contrails) from jet aircraft to affect regional-scale surface temperatures has been debated for years, but was difficult to verify until an opportunity arose as a result of the three-day grounding of all commercial aircraft in the United States in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. Here we show that there was an anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature range (that is, the difference between the daytime maximum and night-time minimum temperatures) for the period 11?14 September 2001. Because persisting contrails can reduce the transfer of both incoming solar and outgoing infrared radiation, and so reduce the daily temperature range, we attribute at least a portion of this anomaly to the absence of contrails over this period.

        1. Temps recorded that week were a couple standard deviations below the average

          I think you meant “above”. Maybe.

          Here we show that there was an anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature range (that is, the difference between the daytime maximum and night-time minimum temperatures)

          What you posted shows an increase in the day-to-night temperature swings. They seem to be positing that contrails reduce daytime temps and increase nighttime temps.

          Either way, it looks like yet another variable that I don’t think the warmists are taking into account.

  30. Why? Geoengineering conflicts with sustainable and just solutions to the climate crisis,

    IOW, if people can solve their problems through science, they won’t find in those problems a reason to turn to the benevolent hand of Godv.

  31. Geoengineering conflicts with sustainable and just solutions to the climate crisis,”

    Translation =

    “If engineers you find a practical, implementable solution to this ginned-up “problem”, we can’t use it as a perpetual-wealth-redistribution machine. Ergo = ban-problem-solvers”

    1. Seriously though, does anyone ever just ask these people to straight up “DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY “JUST” so everyone is crystal clear on the fact that they’re just communists-in-‘scientific’-clothing?

      1. “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean ? neither more nor less.’

        ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

        ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master ? that’s all.”

      2. To the extent any of them aren’t communists, then what is “just” is defined by their hatred of petroleum (and, lately, natural gas) as well as their alliance with the anti-nuclear nuts. They say they want to reduce carbon emissions*, but they reject nuclear which is the most obvious solution. Thus it is only reasonable to conclude their intentions are driven by animus for certain forms of energy production and not carbon emissions

        * = Getting them to admit that carbon emissions aren’t the problem is a whole other beast

        1. They are so predictable though. When natural gas became a viable motor fuel and stations starting being built, they immediately created the term “fugitive emissions” to them say that cleaner burning nat gas presented a dire threat as vast amounts of methane were then being leaked into the atmosphere via more robust supply chains. If they could defeat petrol and nat gas, then they would say that the sun is too hot and the wind farms are too dangerous for birds. The bottom line is that their Marxists idiocies will always shine through. I just wish Americans weren’t so dumb as tot ever give them a mouthpiece in the first place. They will never stop the ridiculousness because they are taught this nonsense in American schools. For profit business is the only thing they care about stopping.

      3. DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY “JUST”

        A call for solutions that benefit more than just a few with financial interest in them. That don’t create yet more forms of pollution and do nothing to address the source of the problem. Given these terms, a just climate solution would be less toxic more efficient batteries, for example.

        1. A call for solutions that benefit more than just a few with financial interest in them.

          So much for solar and wind, then.

          1. “So much for solar and wind, then.”

            Problem is any schlub is free to exploit the sunlight and wind. Worse, said shlub is not kicking on a rent to giant energy concerns. But that can change. Don’t be so quick to dismiss the ingenuity of man.

    2. G, the problem the climate activists are trying to solve isn’t global warming. Its their lack of power.

    3. “we can’t use it as a perpetual-wealth-redistribution machine.”

      I’m sure they could. Why do it in the first place?

  32. “Real climate justice” translation, this is not about saving the planet it’s about pushing socialism….

    1. Of course.

      As all marxists start out; they go camping in college and see some litter, a tear, then a psychotic, irrational hatred for industry bubbles up. They start hanging out with a douche with a huge brown sweater and the guy is off and running. Armed with an ill-recommended book cursing corporate greed, he then retreats from the normal world into a den of failure and frustration.

      They don’t even know they are marxists until they have worked for the government for about 15 years at which point, they naturally start spouting the tell-tail bitter comments about rich people, dirty factories, and exploited workers. Then they get elected president.

      1. “As all marxists start out; they go camping in college…”

        At least they returned from their camping trips and hit those pinko books, go to Hollywood, and become successful fags, writers and publicists. You are still out in the woods.

  33. Shouldn’t we first prove that the planet is too hot?

  34. As each prediction of Man-Bear-Pig continues to not happen, will there ever be a day when we will stop worrying about a bullshit scam foisted upon the world by politicians and government funded bureaucrats/scientists?

    1. Great guffaw on the Al Gore reference. Just swap the South Park species’ nouns around a bit, and that will be the next, impending doomsday, and we’ll be billed and taxed accordingly. It doesn’t end.
      It’s a shame that it’s all gotten to this state (no pun intended). In a twisted irony the libertarian is the “enemy of the people” while the socialist mob is Ibsen’s Dr. Stockmann.

  35. These are all perfectly reasonable solutions if it was the sun that was the source of the problem. ie too much of it. But they don’t address the real source, increasing carbon emissions, which most scienstists who’ve studied the matter will tell you is something which can’t be ignored. If you believed these scientists, you’d send these geo – engineers back to the drawing board, and if you didn’t, ie you are a ‘climate denialist’, no offense, then geo-engineering can be nothing but quackery on stilts.

    1. It would be real nice of those scientists to make a model with some actual predictive power to back up their claims.

      1. “It would be real nice of those scientists…”

        Don’t hold your breathe. And don’t let the lack of these models stop you from taking actions you deem fit. Let scientists do their job: observing measuring experimenting theorizing. Don’t demand they they waste their time constructing computer models. That’s a job better suited to computer engineers.

        1. If they are going to claim the models are accurate, then they’re responsible for the predictions those models make, whether they actually wrote the code or not. You can’t go around saying “catastrophic warming is coming due to carbon emissions and here are the models to prove it” then say “well I’m not responsible for the models or their failure to predict temperatures with any accuracy”.

          I’m more than happy to let scientists practice science. The problem is that trying to cling to an invalidated hypothesis is not science.

          1. “the models to prove it”

            Even the most accurate model proves nothing. That’s because it’s only a model, a simulation.You’re barking up the wrong tree here. Science is about observing and measuring real phenomena. Models are just mathematical constructs. And I agree that mother nature would have been a lot nicer to us if she had made the atmosphere less chaotic and more easily predictable. You want a scientist to tell you what the weather will be like some 50 years hence? Are you serious?

            “The problem is that trying to cling to an invalidated hypothesis is not science.”

            I don’t understand how using less than satisfactory models adds up to clinging to an invalidated hypothesis.

            1. It doesn’t bother me that they can’t make very good predictions. It bothers me that they pretend they can.

              1. They follow the greenhouse gas theory, first put forward at the time of Darwin, and is about as established science as you can get. Fossil fuel burning leads to increased CO2 levels leads to more heat in the atmosphere. The theory predicts this and scientists have observed this and measured it, however tentatively. I don’t know if you are going to get any better confirmation than that. I’d be wary of putting too much faith in any current or near future computer model, and the good thing is that scientists don’t and won’t have to judge how ‘good’ their predictions are. That’s a political decision and you and I have some small part to play in it.

  36. “some types of deliberative climate intervention may someday be one of a portfolio of tools used in managing climate change”

    This is lunacy. We can’t even satisfactorily measure climate change or predict it. Yet this guy thinks he can ‘manage’ it. And it’ll set back the tax payers 10s of millions of dollars that could have gone into something useful like more efficient batteries.

  37. “At the very least, the government should get out of the way of private groups like Intellectual Ventures that want to test geo-engineering technologies.”

    Private groups, are you sure? Show me where is the demand in the market for more volcanoes. Next you’re going to tell me about all the jobs a volcano brings.

    Only the government would sink money into a scheme like this.

  38. “The eruption of the Mt. Pinatubo volcano that injected millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere in 1992 functioned as a natural experiment that lowered global average temperature by around 0.7 degree Celsius for several months”

    Of course, if I were a climatologist I would note that the world is going to freeze and we’ll all be dead in ten years due to man-made changes to the environment.

    *checks prior science reports*

    Oh, you mean that’s already happened? Shit. Is that why it’s ‘climate change’ and not ‘global warming’ or ‘global cooling’ even though the satellite record clearly indicates it’s still warming while the scientific consensus says that even cooling is because of the warming?

    Man, did I ever screw up when I didn’t get my degree in Climatology. You’re right even when you’re wrong.

  39. Everyone talks about the weather, but no one ever does anything about it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.