Scientific American Asks : Should We Do Some Really Stupid Expensive Things In An Effort To Save Ourselves From An Imaginary Problem?

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Scientific American Asks : Should We Do Some Really Stupid Expensive Things In An Effort To Save Ourselves From An Imaginary Problem?

  1. We’ve got plenty of oil, natural gas, and coal within the borders of the United States. Let’s use it.

  2. pwl says:

    Terrorforming the Earth is never the solution.

    CO2 is a valuable life generating resource, let’s use it to grow more plants and food in the process.

  3. TinyCO2 says:

    So after failing to pass the test of accurately prediciting the global temperature they want to move on to level II where they start fiddling with the climate controls?

    What’s level III? Whoops we accidentally started a new ice age but we’re really sure that more messing with the climate will be right this time.

    And level IV. Gee, this climate thingy is really hard, can we rest the game to level I?

    • sidewinder says:

      your argument means you are well aware of the danger of fiddling with the climate without being able to predict it with any accuracy. Yet that’s what we are doing.

      It always amuses me that some skeptics of manmade global warming simultaneously dismiss rising CO2 as a problem because our understanding of climate is *too uncertain*. But as soon as they hear about some scientists investigating geo-engineering they shout about how dangerous it is because how can they be thinking of doing such a thing when our understanding of climate is *too uncertain*?

      • TinyCO2 says:

        And it amuses me that warmists jump to conclusions all the time.

        1) Not all sceptics think alike. I don’t start from the opinion that CO2 doesn’t affect climate, I’m just unconvinced the scientists know how much effect it has. Heck, it could even be ‘worse than they thought’ but you wouldn’t know it from crappy climate science.

        2) By ‘fiddling with climate’ I presume you mean emitting CO2 trivially? This hardly ever happens and most people would consider their CO2 emissions important. To get an honest balance about emitting CO2 versus potential risk one has to recognise how much carbon fuels have done and will continue to do for us. Carbon hypocrites seem unable to stop proselytising long enough to try reducing their own CO2. Why would I bother listening to anyone with a greater CO2 footprint than my own?

        3) Being unable to make accurate predictions about climate under current conditions means they haven’t understood the relationships between the variables. Over compensating for CO2 could lead to a new ice age that would make global warming look like a walk in the park. I can survive even the worst predicted case of global warming in my lifetime, but even a modest ice age would destroy everything I’ve got.

  4. Jeff K says:

    The hubris is astounding; these people actually think they are gods. I doubt they could even get a tomato plant to grow.

  5. bubbagyro says:

    If you click on my little icon (gravatar), you can see displayed my favorite geoengineering idea of all time. Dr. Seuss had nothing on these Klowns!

  6. Ralph says:

    We can’t accurately predict the weather how can we predict what will happen if we start screwing with the Earth’s environment?

    • bubbagyro says:

      Trust them. They know what they are doing.

    • There was supposed to be snow at low elevations in the San Francisco area today. It was a buzz on tv and radio here for days. But none here. I kinda wanted to see it.

      So they were wrong with a forecast, again. But we’re supposed to believe when they tell us what will happen 50 years from now.

  7. nofreewind says:

    Steve, I follow this closely but never saw the Greenhouse Gases graph from Climate4You, from NASA, clearly showing the atmospheric water vapor is decreaseing, not increasing as modeled in AGW theory.

  8. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    Boycott National Geographic, like New Scientist Magazine it’s losing the plot!

    • Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

      This post should have been in the nuclear war one, but we can add Scientific America to the list of Magazines that have totally lost the plot and are not talking Science anymore!

  9. Latitude says:

    this is just another article to sell mags to their audience….

    …after reading the comments, now I know why I stopped reading it

    Their audience is the lunatic fringe…………

  10. omnologos says:

    have you people considered ….if they implement any geoengineering, whenever a weather catastrophe happens we can rightfully sue the whole lot of them …

Leave a Reply