Geoengineering debate shifts to UN environment assembly

Posted by  $  nickursis 2 months, 2 weeks ago to Science
89 comments | Share | Flag

Another "conspiracy theory" is revealed and goes mainstream. For years now, people have said there was "chem trails" being laid in the skies, with particular emphasis on the use of Aluminium dioxide, and possible negative health effects. For years people said "No, thats just conspiracy theory", and yet, now, they are at the UN deciding how to best contaminate the atmosphere to protect us from a non existent "global climate change"....nice when you find out it was always there....
SOURCE URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00717-6


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Stormi 2 months, 1 week ago
    This is just another stupid idea by the UN, whose goal is to turn the US into a third world member of a world government. They want prorpty rights gone, cars, guns, capitalism, red meet and freedom, to name only a few. This latest sound really bad, as we need CO2 to grow crops, so gues they want us to starve as well. They need to be kicked out of the US completely, cinluding their twisted gun statue, and temple to Gaiia!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
      All you list seem to reflect what we have been told the deep state's goals are...hmmm...connection maybe?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Stormi 2 months, 1 week ago
        Absolutely, and for too long. Hillary was for population density, using Green programs to control. Obama promised them he would get gun bans for them. He failed, but he left in power his "shadow government", as he called them. They have been scared to death of people asking about HAArP. When Jess Ventura went into the Congressional offices, they ran from him and closed the door.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    Check out "Biomass, another green fraud", further down the page...it ain't about carbon otherwise they wouldn't be advocating for creating power with this...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    Well, the climate will change...just Not in the direction they claim...we know man made global warming is bunk.
    Question is, what is their real agenda, most of us suspect what that is; but let's say they are truly ignorant...what they are doing not only harms life on the planet but will likely make the coming natural changes even worse that they will be normally.

    I have posted the entire series of what we can expect in the future, Could Aluminum possibly mitigate the solar and cosmic radiation? Seems to me that the HOT dust and plasma would heat up the proposed aluminum in our atmosphere and really make things worse.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 2 months, 1 week ago
    As long as the USA doesn't pay for whatever BS cloud seeding scheme they come up with, this collection of tin-pot dictators and hucksters will never do anything more than make noise. We need to exit the US and evict them from the UN building.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
    We should propose a rule with the UN that Geoengineering by this body can not be begun without a consensus vote, since whatever is done affects everyone.

    That ought to ensure nothing ever happens.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnJMulhall 2 months, 1 week ago
    These stupids need a good volcanic eruption like Krackatoa (sp?) to freeze their butts off. Volcanoes throw 2-1/2 CUBIC MILES of dirt into the air annually.
    If that isn't enough to reflect heat back into space, maybe we need to go primitive and sacrifice important people to Pele (like the UN and their lemmings)....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
      Now there is a good idea...may not have to wait too long, most solar minimums result in a few popping off, and a Grand Solar Minimum sees the big boys wake up. I have heard it is a result of the change in solar flux and basically heating the core, which is also what causes the overall increase in activity and earthquakes.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 1 week ago
    For three years people on this board have totally denied Chemtrails and said it was just different fuel and so forth. Contrails don’t last and linger for hours. Wonder what other so called conspiracy theories are soon to be revealed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 1 week ago
    A frequent commentator (again) asserts that this matter is outside my area.
    Rather than withholding judgment, more comments are made proving the assertion.

    My opinion: Global warming alarmism is a political movement supported by fraudulent data.

    Facts:
    -No experimental evidence exists that CO2 in the atmosphere causes increases in surface temperature.
    -The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is (primarily) due to the take up and emission from oceans - see Henry's Law which defines CO2 solubility in water.

    There being no problem, action taken as a supposed solution can only be harmful.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
      Lucky, your opinion is probably closer to the reality, than some of the others here, if only because you are fitting the facts to a proposed motive. Since we have seen numerous other stories, lies, made up requirements, and all to steal money from the taxpayers and citizens, this just fits the mold. Keeping in mind, all the glorious "save the world" efforts seem to be attached to new and novel ways to gouge us, and NEVER seem to provide the details of just how much they would steal, and what it would go for, except "to stop climate change". Therefore, you have a good chance of being correct.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 2 months, 1 week ago
    The UN shouldn't meddling in a soveriegn countries affairs. They should be doing their geo-engineering over China, India and other third world countires. Of course their planes would be shot down!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
      Well, they would have a hard time with black helicopters only, can't fake contrails. They haven't any black planes I have heard of, so they would need to use other countries and they have stirred up so much hate with their politics, ...nope, not happening...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 2 months, 1 week ago
    Yes, let's all of us globalists in the UN's Environmental Assembly fly on big fat jet airplanes to Nairobi to discuss pulling carbon dioxide out of the air so crops can't breathe.
    Then to further discuss this with huge meets and tasty eats, let's next all fly to Singapore, then to Tokyo, then to Geneva, then to Bora Bora and then to even Timbuktu.
    Anyone else got a bucket list for places for us all to fly to before the world comes to an end?
    Let's hurry now. AOC, the new darling socialist goddess of AC during her oft-traveled jet flight, pontificates that~oh, woe!~we only have 12 years to go!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mcsandberg 2 months, 1 week ago
    The chemtrail types will be going even crazier. The world’s highest bypass ratio engine’s exhaust will be colder than any other engine. Therefor it will leave more contrails than ever seen before https://pwgtf.com .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
      Yes, I do understand that, however, there have been several aeronautical engineers who have pointed out the differences and the environmental conditions needed to sustain a contrail over a long duration, and then brought up cases where that was not the case. There are several websites detailing HOW to "theoretically" geoengineer the atmosphere to reduce heat and CO2. For instance, look at the WW2 air battles, Battle of Britain and Bombing missions, very heavy contrails lasting a long time, due to the large water vapor content of exhausts.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    In my opinion we should be pursuing geoengineering to deal with global warming. The problem with global warming is not there was one perfect state of the environment that "mother nature" intended. It's that it destroys value. It also creates value, but it's a net cost so far. We should work on technologies that could drive the ecosystem in such a way to create value.

    The enormity of the problem compared to the benefit of slightly reducing carbon emissions is what terrifies people and causes people more prone to irrationality to deny reality altogether or make up conspiracy theories. We need to find more powerful tools to deal with climate change and use them very wisely.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 2 weeks ago
      And if your Geoengineering crap kills or injures a significant part of the population? That is one of the problems, their current method (that they have never admitted to in 20 years) uses aluminum oxide and there are thousands of samples that have been take and tested. Aluminum is toxic in the body, and is easily absorbed in the powdered form they use. Yet anyone who has claimed this in the last 20 years was labeled a "conspiracy theorist" and dismissed DESPITE hard evidence and data. The fact you would endorse such a position is telling, as you are saying you believe the state, and their claims of climate change being man made and controllable, which has never been proven, and data manipulation has also been proven.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 months, 1 week ago
      Re: “We need to find more powerful tools to deal with climate change and use them very wisely.”
      A few questions come to mind:

      1) Who are “we”?
      2) Who should determine the specifications for these “more powerful tools”?
      3) Who should be in charge of developing these “more powerful tools”?
      4) Who should pay for developing these “more powerful tools”?
      5) Should such payment be voluntary or coerced?
      6) Who, specifically, should determine when, where and how to use these “more powerful tools”?
      7) By what criteria should “we” decide the best way to use these “more powerful tools” “very wisely”?
      8) Who should pay for any damage caused by these “more powerful tools”?
      9) Who should be held responsible if these “more powerful tools” are not used “very wisely”?

      Looking forward to your answers.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
        "4) Who should pay for developing these “more powerful tools”? [And #5]"
        Using the metaphor of the lake from my other reply, it's the people who deploy the fertilizers causing the algae growth. If they had to pay for the lost value of their neighbors' property, they might find an alternative fertilizer, choose not to fertilize, or find some anti-algae treatment that counteracts the fertilizer that rolls off their property. In all cases, the property owners pays, either by more expensive fertilizer, an unfertilized lawn or garden, or by paying for the anti-algae. It's the owner's choice, whatever maximizes value for her.

        [#8 and #9]
        If the anti-algae treatment has unforeseen costs, the person who deployed it has to pay for the value he accidentally destroyed.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
          And you would force this to happen how? You cannot get anyone to pay for anything in the current corrupt legal system they have built.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 4 weeks ago
            "You cannot get anyone to pay for anything in the current corrupt legal system they have built."
            Our legal system is better than most in human history. There are still many improvements to make. We're still far from perfection.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 month, 4 weeks ago
              You, sir, have obviously never been in a lawsuit in our corrupt system, but trust me, you can get hammered and still never pay a dime, and no one can force you too. Businesses are worse. Then to top it all off, all damages received are treated as taxable income, so if you receive 100K in damages, prepare to give 48% to your state and Feds.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 months ago
          A metaphor is not an answer, it is a means of avoiding the real answer. I'm guessing that your real answers to questions 2 and 3 are "the government", to questions 4, 8 and 9 are "the taxpayers", and to question 5 is "coerced". Correct me if I'm wrong.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  2 months ago
            Sounds pretty accurate. I posted a video from the Climate Change Conference that directly ties into this, and is exactly what is being discussed. They control the public narrative, and offer no rational facts and data to support their position, so they just skipped that step, and moved to a fiction called "consensus science" and the guy uses a casual study done that says UFO sightings are directly related to the rise of temperature in the oceans, by their logic, to reduce the temp of oceans, we now have to eliminate UFOs. Which may be cheaper in the long run than Cap and Trade and other ponzi schemes the liberals are trying to impose on us.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 4 weeks ago
            "I'm guessing that your real answers"
            All your suggested answers are incorrect, i.e. not what I am saying, except for #5. I do believe in gov't force to protect property. So you correctly characterize #5 but not the others.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
        Thanks for the questions. I'll answer one at time.
        "1) Who are “we”?"
        That's the rub. It's like having many land owners around a lake using various fertilizers that contribute to algae growth. Imagine the algae growth impedes various uses of the lake more than others. Somehow, they (the "we") have to figure out exactly how much net destruction of value there is who contributed how much of it. (I say net value b/c there may be some benefits to increased algae.) It's so easy to say this sounds like collectivism, so I'd rather pretend that the lake is big enough that activities on the surround land really don't have an impact. Obviously pretending is wrong b/c reality is what it is regardless of whether its consequences are problematic or helpful.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 months, 1 week ago
          In an Objectivist context the analogy doesn't hold. The lake would either be privately owned or would be equivalent to a homeowners association "common area" owned jointly by the surrounding land owners. Either way, rules for use of the lake would be set by the individual or joint owners. No "pretending" necessary.

          So the question remains, who exactly are the "we" that "need to find more powerful tools to deal with climate change and use them very wisely”?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
        [Answering 2, 3, 6, 7 together]
        This is a question we should be working through right now. I do not have the answer. My inclination is for prudence: "when in doubt, don't" The only lever we have that the evidence points to being reliable is reducing carbon emissions. Maybe there are other low-impact approaches, like increasing the albedo of human structure. I suspect these will be a drop in the bucket, so I don't rule out categorically stronger interventions.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 months, 1 week ago
          Again, a "we should" answer that is not really helpful. Do "we" have a duty to "work through" this question? If "we" don't want to, and don't consider it to be a serious issue, should "we" be forced to? Should "we" give the government carte blanche to enforce whatever "stronger interventions" it deems appropriate?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
            "We", when used in terms encompassing a mythical group, such a the socialists like to do, always seems to encompass the genius ruling elite, who so wisely can see what we peasants cannot, and impose the draconian fixes necessary, by force or theft, or corruption, as needed. All for the cause. For the People!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 4 weeks ago
            "Do "we" have a duty to "work through" this question?"
            Yes. We have a responsibility not to trash other's stuff and to make them whole for accidental damages. Yes we need courts or other institutions empowered to use force to protect people's stuff. "Carte blanche" sounds like giving the power to people rather than the law, which is obviously bad.

            People who say property owners are a mythical group lording socialism over victims are engaging in pure straw-man fallacy.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
      The problem is that no one knows what the problem is. It is quite clearly not CO2 action directly, and every geoscientist knows it. You should too.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
        Of course, the problem has several possibilities, the most logical, and data driven is the solar cycle and the Grand Solar Minimum, some other possibilities I have heard are axial tilt, the pole shifting, as well as a possibility of a relation to acidification of the oceans due to pollutants and sunlight reactions. All I know is that "manmade" is a BS notion, especially when they have been caught cherry picking data on several occasions and NOT owning up to it.If they were serious, why do they insist on using private jets and big vehicles? Why is their contribution of no consequence but mine is so great I need to be taxed at every level of production to fix it? Hmmm... maybe because there is a huge pile of money to be scammed and no way to account for it? Oregon and Washington are pushing hard to encase a carbon tax into the price of gas (15 cents a gallon in Washington) and all they say is "to combat climate change". Never a specific, never a program, just vague notions and the money will disappear...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
        "The problem is that no one knows what the problem is.It is quite clearly not CO2 action directly, and every geoscientist knows it. "
        It's outside my area, but my understanding is there's a direct line from CO2 emissions to global warming.

        I see the problem being that no one knows the solution. I am not clear that reducing emissions moves the needle, unless it somehow leads to a breakthrough in an energy source and storage vehicle that don't cause global warming. So the idea CO2 causes global warming, so lets reduce CO2 might be simplistic.

        I find the notion of denying the reality of the problem to be pure wishful thinking. Science is open to new evidence, and there are breakthrough where we discover happy surprises, like butter being more healthful than margarine. It's wishful thinking to cling to the hope that new evidence will uncover we were wrong and things are exactly as we wished they were.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 4 weeks ago
          Your understanding is wrong ... again. Repeatedly you have been shown links to studies that refute your conclusions as rubbish but you continue to believe the false narrative propaganda propagated by the media and statist politicians. If you want to be taken seriously stop repeating lies.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
          No, this is incorrect. There is no direct line from CO2 and warming, particularly from a greenhouse effect. It is possible to calculate the effect of all atmospheric constituents on the heat absorbed/retransmitted and thus the steady-state temperature of the planet from these effects. CO2 is wholly incapable of having the effect Al Gore described. This is quite clearly NOT the problem.

          It is possible that CO2 causes something else, and the something else (water vapor, cloud cover, etc) is the cause, but it is well know (among climate experts) that the direct effect of CO2 is NOT the issue.

          Isn’t it interesting that this isn’t well publicized? It is possible to find information on this, but it is so suppresssed it should be scary to anyone wondering if there is an alterior motive. Of course their is, “power”.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
            Old Ugly Carl has posted some links to Ssuspicious Observers that indicate the changes in the sun, and cosmic rays able to penetrate due to the reduced and altered magnetosphere, could be a cuase, causing cloud nucleation, that has altered established patterns. This has the effect of causing new dry areas, hotter areas, and colder ones. Ask the people in the Midwest how cold it is. Diamond at Oppenheimer Ranch also goes into some very detailed explanations of how this works, and continually throws out data that is usually not in MSM, proving we are getting colder, not warmer.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 4 weeks ago
            "There is no direct line from CO2 and warming, particularly from a greenhouse effect."
            This is contrary to what the evidence shows. It almost sounds like a political thing.
            " the effect Al Gore described"
            Oh... you are talking about politics.

            This is all wishful thinking. Reality goes on without regard for our wishes.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month, 4 weeks ago
              We have had this discussion before, and I have presented evidence. You are quite correct that reality will go on without regard for our wishes. However, you are completely wrong about who is wishing and who has a grasp of reality.

              If you simply look at the simple model described in the paper (linked below). You can see on p77 the attention to the effect of water vapor. In all present models, the dominant greenhouse gas (direct effect) is water vapor. The effect of water vapor is clear physics. The cause of a change in water vapor is variously assumed.
              p84 notes "Suffice to say that clouds are the main source of uncertainty in climate modeling, from the toy system (this papers example) and the GCM (global climate model)."

              https://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id...

              You can also note the various areas of other uncertainty described, such as vegetation.

              CO2 is quite clearly NOT the dominant greenhouse gas. All the experts know it, and avoid educating the common person because it erodes funding and power transfer.

              The cognitive dissonance is yours, not mine. You have admitted you don't understand this but accept the positions of experts before. Do not belittle me with statements like wishful thinking, when I do the work to understand, and you simply rely on the word of experts enjoying increased funding from funded.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 4 weeks ago
                "We have had this discussion before, and I have presented evidence."
                You're presenting it to the wrong person. If you're a scientist, go out and revolutionize climatology by presenting research to other scientists. What a thrilling discovery it would be if human activities did not contribute significantly to global warming. It would be even better if the research might lead to ways to modulate the climate to human needs.

                I think we're talking about something that's not happening because you are most likely are not an expert in this field. But unlike some other arcane area of research equally outside both our areas, this one you and most other people really wish to get one answer. Despite all the increased funding for the desired answer, we don't rely on the worlds of experts getting funding. The scientific process tries to get at reality despite human foibles.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                  Ok, so for me to convince you, I must first convince the world. Which I didn't really need to do, since the experts already know what I offered.

                  I suppose this invalidates your card to argue this subject here, and expect continued silence from you on this subject.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                    You're not going to convince me to ignore science. I guess I should feel glad I don't have a bunch of people outside my field saying this whole notion spatial multiplexing is just a conspiracy to sell ICs. Now that I think about it, it would be weird at first to see them read through some transaction papers and assert they've found out the conspiracy, but it would get tiresome quickly.

                    Science delivers the goods. Carbon emissions are already decreasing, and if irrational restrictions on nuclear energy were lifted and some breakthroughs in energy storage happened, the problem could conceivably go away. Unscientific people will move on to something else, not fear of GMOs, homeopathy, fear of vaccines, or conspiracy theories about every human event, but rather something I can't even imagine right now.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                      If I just listened to experts, I'd have a mechanical heat valve and take Coumadin every day. Instead I did my own research and picked the right surgery. Almost 20 years later no issues, no drugs and play soccer three times a week.

                      The examples you give each stand on their own. GMO, homeopathy, vaccines, etc. I agree with you on each of these. There is a key difference in every one of these examples and the CO2 discussion. None of them require economic freedom and power to be significantly redistributed. This is the reason to be additionally skeptical of the CO2 issue.

                      The simple fact that no additional funding has been applied to nuclear power, the only practical solution to the CO2 "issue", is clear evidence the people pressing the issue do not want a solution, they want power, very much like Al Sharpton. If racism couldn't be highlighted, he'd have to eat TV dinners.

                      You are welcome to believe whatever you want, but you should not disparage people who are skeptical and look deeper simply because they are not members of the closed climate science society.
                      I learned a long time ago that if someone can not explain something to me clearly such that I understand it, the issue is theirs (as an expert), not mine (as a learner). The fundamentals of this subject are not difficult: energy balance, radiative hear transfer, albedo, black body constants, etc. The higher-order effects are complex (and almost invariably less significant). It is quite clear from the fundamentals, as I have shown, that CO2 is not the issue as a first order greenhouse gas, very clear. All the climate scientists know this, and with pressing will admit it (sometimes it takes a lot). These last two statements should be troubling to anyone, particularly you.

                      Go check with one of you climate expert associates/friends. You will find out that it is true..."...but...CO2 is still the root cause...". Then you will no longer be able to follow the discussion, because it is no longer physics. It becomes various system behavioral hypotheses that are unverified.

                      Why would one avoid this simple question? You believe what you want, and I'll continue to study what I want and need to, and enjoy my heart, against the direct advice of the Chief of Cardiac Surgery at Yale.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                        "I'd have a mechanical heat valve"
                        My father had a similar experience. They recommended stints for his heart problem, although I think his problem wasn't inadequate profusion of blood to the heart. He had had colleagues who apparently did have coronary insufficiency who said stints were great. He was opening for a similar effect. The stint didn't help. Then he got another intervention that did treat his problem, and he amazingly bounced back to good health. I think delaying the drugs that solved the problem in favor of an expensive and invasive procedure put him at unnecessarily risk. If I ever have such a problem, I will really investigate.

                        "None of them require economic freedom and power to be significantly redistributed. This is the reason to be additionally skeptical of the CO2 issue."
                        Global warming doesn't require usurping economic freedom but I agree people definitely use it as a reason to undermine freedom and promote socialism.
                        The facts, of course, don't care even if the final consequences are that this changes everything and successfully sells people on socialism. That would be a horrible consequence. Consequences have no bearing on reality though.

                        "no additional funding has been applied to nuclear power, the only practical solution to the CO2 "issue",
                        It's such a shame. I don't want to apply gov't funding to nuclear power, but I think if we got rid of fear-based regulation and instead charged people the costs to others of burning stuff and the costs of maintaining nuclear reactors and managing the waste, nuclear would be a clear winner for profitable energy in the free market. Nuclear energy is scary to many people, making gov't interfere with it. At the same time, we're pulling fossil fuels out of the ground in a way that would not be profitable if people had to pay for the costs the global warming it causes.

                        Global warming is such a costly issue that the need to reduce gov't restrictions on nuclear power is bordering on an emergency. Energy drives human achievement, so this is huge. We should never have gotten scared of nuclear power in the 70s and 80s.

                        "The fundamentals of this subject are not difficult"
                        If that's right, they have me fooled. Like anything it seems easy if you do it all day. But I would not be able to read journal articles in that field (or any field other than electronic signal processing), and then put what they did into MATLAB, and device a way to test it. That's true for all areas of science. I find it laughable when people outside a field read some abstracts and think they've discovered something that would overturn the current paradigm. If this were true, and the supposed dilettante could actually revolutionize the field, she's in the wrong field. She should go out and do it. The answer usually is, "but there's a conspiracy". It's the same pattern for people who've discovered a perpetual motion machines and alternative medicine.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                          Let's just get this straight:
                          - You admit you don't understand this subject technically.
                          - I have attempted to provide first order math to illustrate my point, that I do understand. (not "abstracts")
                          - I have offered that you verify my assertion with experts.

                          However, you choose not to evaluate my argument, and rather attempt to reduce my position to that of an amateur conspiracy theorist. This is inappropriate and offensive. I am a well-established engineer, not a perpetual-motion crackpot.

                          There is no difference between this position you are taking and that of attributing "rightness" to religious experts/leaders. Using the word "science" in this context sounds objective, but it does not mean "knowledge" as it does in the Latin from which the word came. Rather, it is a cover for "belief".

                          If you don't have anything to add to the technical discussion, stop arguing what you don't understand.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                            "I have attempted to provide first order math to illustrate my point, that I do understand. (not "abstracts")"
                            I haven't even read the abstracts. If you're a scientist with a contrarian view, I wish you luck in upending the field. That's what science is all about. If you discover that there's much less or even zero cost to releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere, that would be a wonderful discovery.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
                      CG, you keep resorting to the irrational: " I guess I should feel glad I don't have a bunch of people outside my field saying this whole notion spatial multiplexing is just a conspiracy to sell ICs. ". I, nor any political entity, are asking millions of others to PAY for your "spatial multiplexing". You are defending the right of the state and a political party to imposes huge burdens on people and saying because the world is ending, and have no scientific proof to back it up. Have you ever heard of the term "scam"? Maybe "looters"? That is all this is, and it was made popular by one of the biggest liar charlatans in the last 100 years: "Al Gore. Think logically. He has NEVER changed his behavhior, he rides around in private jest, huge vehicles, and creates more carbon than 10 families. If it was a crisis, he would be walking and driving a battery operated car.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                        "I, nor any political entity, are asking millions of others to PAY for your "spatial multiplexing"."
                        If they did, it would not change the way the universe works.

                        "You are defending the right of the state and a political party to imposes huge burdens on people and saying because the world is ending, and have no scientific proof to back it up. "
                        No, to all three: not defending imposition burdens, not saying the world is ending, and not accepting fringe science.

                        "That is all this is, and it was made popular by one of the biggest liar charlatans in the last 100 years: "Al Gore"
                        Neither popularizers of science nor politicizers of science have have no impact on reality. If you want to see some hardcore politicization of science, read Naomi Klein. I only got through about 15% of one of her books.

                        "He has NEVER changed his behavhior, he rides around in private jest, huge vehicles, and creates more carbon than 10 families."
                        This also has no impact on reality, beyond the bit of global warming caused by the emissions.

                        I understand the urge to give up energy consuming activities, but I don't think that's the solution. If we live like paupers to avoid emissions, we've defeated the purpose of protecting the environment.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
                          " If we live like paupers to avoid emissions, we've defeated the purpose of protecting the environment." Which seems to be exactly your position.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                            " If we live like paupers to avoid emissions, we've defeated the purpose of protecting the environment." Which seems to be exactly your position."
                            No. You may be confusing me with someone else, which is easy to do because there are so many radicals on the Internet.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 4 weeks ago
              Show us some scientific evidence to support your theory from a credible source that has not been refuted as irrational rubbish. This is a site where we require evidence for our conclusions- in this case rational scientific evidence. You keep on repeating conclusions that have been proven false. Thoritsu and nickursis have shown you (again) that your data is faulty. You continue to ignore the factual evidence that there is no danger to climate from CO2 generated by humans. If you have any new study to support your views then produce it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 4 weeks ago
                "there is no danger to climate from CO2 generated by humans. "
                This is just ignorant, contrary to what we know.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                  Obviously not what you know, just what you assert.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
                    Thoritsu, I must compliment you on your effort to educate the opinionated. CG is an example though, of people who have been so absorbed into the system, that rational though is foreign to them, and they will do as they are told. Sad, I didn't know the disease could progress....Great effort at trying to illuminate a dark cave....
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                  Post the scientific data that supports the imminent danger created by anthropomorphic CO2. Others have posted links to refute that conclusion. Repeating your opinion without scientific data to support it is not objective or convincing. "We" don't "know" what you feel to be true. In fact, your opinion is contrary to the scientific data linked here. Calling us ignorant without presenting the scientific data to support your opinion is just an insult, not a rational argument.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                    "Post the scientific data that supports the imminent danger created by anthropomorphic CO2"
                    It's like asking me to post the answer of why in a multipath environment, such as an office, you can get higher data throughput by transmitting multiple streams of slower data instead of one stream. I actually know that answer and do not know the details of why releasing carbon --> global warming --> costly impact on property.

                    It's like talking to someone with a medical diagnosis, grasping for some way that it's all a lie or conspiracy. IF I can't explain to them the pathophysiology of the illness, because I am not a doctor, they think maybe the truth is just what they wish it were.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                      So you don't know, but you are willing to castigate the rest of us for not BELIEVING.

                      How can you be so certain that the story is right? Have you noticed that the temperature is not rising in proportion to the CO2? Have you noticed that the only unequivocal result of extra CO2 is that the planet has significantly more plant coverage because plants need CO2.

                      If it's getting warmer, why does no one talk about the benefits? Warmer is better than cooler. cold kills thousands every winter, even more with higher energy costs which cause people to keep their thermometer's down. Persistent cold causes 90% of all temperature related deaths.

                      So, if you are going to be the major advocate for AGW on the site, perhaps you should actually do some research like the rest of us?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                        "How can you be so certain that the story is right?"
                        I don't have a story. I just accept what the science shows so far. I won't be surprised if there's some major breakthrough in understanding in my life. I don't mean a breakthrough in that someone outside the field reading the abstracts finds a conspiracy, but real new information.

                        "Have you noticed that the temperature is not rising in proportion to the CO2? "
                        You're asking about the function relating CO2 levels to global temperatures. I do not know it. I suspect it's complicated because temperatures are a function of so many things. But it may be different at the poles vs. equator. This is way outside my area.

                        "Have you noticed that the only unequivocal result of extra CO2 is that the planet has significantly more plant coverage because plants need CO2."
                        I know the basics, about plants taking in CO2 + energy in the form of sunlight, and realasing O2 and storing the energy in chemcial bonds. The energy comes out when an animal eats it or it burns. I have a chemistry 201 level of understanding.

                        "why does no one talk about the benefits? "
                        "Research like the rest of us"?? Even my very basic reading of science articles on this topic has covered some of this. Some places are getting longer growing seasons. I am wondering if you have not even read the basics on this.

                        "Warmer is better than cooler."
                        If the temperature increases enough where it's noticeable, i.e. so much that the lakes don't freeze in WI, it would be hugely costly. This likely will not happen. In any case, it's very simplistic to say I like the climate of Tennessee better than WI's, so it's actually good if temperatures rise worse than the worst predictions. What's the worse thing that happen?

                        "if you are going to be the major advocate for AGW on the site"
                        I am not. I simply accept reality, whether I like it or not. Maybe this should become the site of denying reality in favor of conspiracy theories. It's exactly the opposite of what I took away from the three Rand books I read. In my reading, they're about what greatness humankind can achieve through work, reason, and liberty. Appeal to personal incredulity and appeal final consequences are obviously contrary to reason, but what bothers me the most is the fatalism, the idea that global warming is a disaster that will end the world or that statists are bound to exploit it. If you look at the unbelievable plenty that reason and human ingenuity have provided and the unbelievable liberty we have, all of it in ways that would be hard to explain to someone three hundred years ago, and you celebrate the achievement, the fatalistic view is that you're somehow undermining that achievement. So you must be lamenting how god-awful things are, like some bizarre parody of Ayn Rand with severe depression. I do not even understand this point of view, so count is a major advocate for reality.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
                          " I simply accept reality, whether I like it or not." BS. Reality is data, and there has been a boatload of data presented showing you that your claims are erroneous, incorrect, and not founded on clear scientific principles. If you believe this nonsense, you clearly are not rationally considering the data.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
                  "This is just ignorant, contrary to what we know. " CG I try, I really do, to be calm and debate, but you are definitely completely off the reservation. We have presented hard data showing that all your religious zealot, government funded climate "scientists" have lied to you, and you still fail to see it. Next thing is you will show saying Trump DID collude with Russia, and Hillary did not commit treason....Issac Newton could not sold you gravity...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
          So, why do you insist on doing that? You ignore little details like: https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/...

          https://www.accuweather.com/en/weathe...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 4 weeks ago
            "why do you insist on doing that?"
            What's the antecedent of "that"? Is it wishful thinking about global warming? If reality cared about my wishes, human activities wouldn't be costly. This would not only save money but also remove one bogus way to promote socialism.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 month, 4 weeks ago
              "I find the notion of denying the reality of the problem to be pure wishful thinking. Science is open to new evidence, and there are breakthrough where we discover happy surprises, like butter being more healthful than margarine. It's wishful thinking to cling to the hope that new evidence will uncover we were wrong and things are exactly as we wished they were. "

              This (above). You seem to insist the global warming gang is correct, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I have given you evidence of an overwhelminga amount that NOTHING IS WRONG, it is normal climate change, standard earth variation, and is driven by the sun, primarily.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 4 weeks ago
                "to insist the global warming gang is correct"
                Out of context I would not be able to tell if you're parodying people unsophisticated about science and reason. If we're making up reality, I would make up one where global warming isn't a problem, not only to increase value in the world but also to take away one argument from the Naomi Klein's of the world who will use any problem as a way to get to socialism.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  1 month, 3 weeks ago
                  You are helping the global march to socialism, by not paying attention to facts and adata and believing in the deep state mantra. THEY want you to "believe" in global warming, so they can use it to tell you everything you can own, eat, use, see, and design, AND also take every penny you own,"for the state". Congratulations Comrade!
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                    "believing in the deep state mantra. "
                    [Sarcasm]Only the chosen few can see through the conspiracy and how they're behind all the facts and risks we don't like in the world.[/Sarcasm]

                    "THEY want you to "believe" in global warming, so they can use it to tell you everything you can own, eat, use, see, and design, AND also take every penny you own,"for the state". "
                    Setting aside all the ridiculous anti-scientific, anti-reason conspiracy theory nonsense, this one statement is true. There really is a significant population who won't let a crisis go to waste, who also thinks central planning is more efficient, and that seeking happiness for everyone but yourself is a virtue.

                    Reality doesn't care about these people and their activities. We have to address with the threat of socialism with reason, facing reality squarely.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo